text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We establish a criterion for a set of eigenfunctions of the one-dimensional Schrödinger operator with distributional potentials and boundary conditions containing the eigenvalue parameter to be a Riesz basis for $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$.'
address: 'Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, 9 B. Vahabzadeh str., AZ1141, Baku, Azerbaijan.'
author:
- 'Namig J. Guliyev'
title: A Riesz basis criterion for Schrödinger operators with boundary conditions dependent on the eigenvalue parameter
---
Introduction and main result {#sec:introduction}
============================
In this paper we continue the study of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with distributional potentials and boundary conditions containing rational Herglotz–Nevanlinna functions of the eigenvalue parameter initiated in [@G19a]. These operators are generated by the differential equation $$\label{eq:SL}
- \left( y^{[1]} \right)'(x) - s(x) y^{[1]}(x) - s^2(x) y(x) = \lambda y(x)$$ and the boundary conditions $$\label{eq:boundary}
\frac{y^{[1]}(0)}{y(0)} = -f(\lambda), \qquad \frac{y^{[1]}(\pi)}{y(\pi)} = F(\lambda),$$ where $s \in \mathscr{L}_2(0, \pi)$ is real-valued, $y^{[1]}(x) := y'(x) - s(x) y(x)$ denotes the *quasi-derivative* of $y$ with respect to $s$, and $$\label{eq:f_F}
f(\lambda) = h_0 \lambda + h + \sum_{k=1}^d \frac{\delta_k}{h_k - \lambda}, \qquad F(\lambda) = H_0 \lambda + H + \sum_{k=1}^D \frac{\Delta_k}{H_k - \lambda}$$ are rational Herglotz–Nevanlinna functions, i.e., $h_0, H_0 \ge 0$, $h, H \in \mathbb{R}$, $\delta_k, \Delta_k > 0$, $h_1 < \ldots < h_d$, $H_1 < \ldots < H_D$. Our aim in this paper is to prove a criterion for (a subset of) the eigenfunctions of this boundary value problem to be a Riesz basis for $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$.
In [@G17], to each function $f$ of the form (\[eq:f\_F\]) we assigned its *index* (an integer) which, roughly speaking, counts the number of poles of this function. More precisely, each finite pole is counted twice and a pole at infinity (if any) once: $$\operatorname{ind}f := \begin{cases} 2 d + 1, & h_0 > 0, \\ 2 d, & h_0 = 0. \end{cases}$$ This notion allowed us in that paper (see also [@G18a] and [@G19a]) to formulate various direct and inverse spectral results for boundary value problems with boundary conditions of the form (\[eq:boundary\]), (\[eq:f\_F\]) in a unified manner, i.e. without considering separate cases as it is usually done in the literature. Define a nonnegative integer $N$ by $$N := \left\lceil \frac{\operatorname{ind}f}{2} \right\rceil + \left\lceil \frac{\operatorname{ind}F}{2} \right\rceil,$$ where the ceiling function $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ denotes the smallest integer not smaller than the argument. Let $\Theta := \{ n_1, \ldots, n_N \} \subset \mathbb{N} \cup \{ 0 \}$ be a set of $N$ distinct indices. Then from the asymptotics of the eigenvalues and the eigenfunctions one sees that the sequence $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ of appropriately normalized (see below) eigenfunctions asymptotically behaves as (and is, in fact, quadratically close to) the orthonormal basis $$\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \cos \left( \left( n + N - \frac{\operatorname{ind}f + \operatorname{ind}F}{2} \right) x + \frac{\operatorname{ind}f}{2} \pi \right)$$ (which coincides with one of $\{ \cos n x \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$, $\{ \cos (n + 1/2) x \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$, $\{ \sin (n + 1/2) x \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$, or $\{ \sin (n + 1) x \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ up to a constant factor). Hence it seems reasonable to hope that the sequence $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ will be a Riesz basis for $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$, i.e. the image of an orthonormal basis under a bounded invertible operator [@B51]. This is indeed the case when the boundary conditions do not contain the eigenvalue parameter at all or only one of them depends on the eigenvalue parameter, and can easily be established by using the transformation operators [@HM04 Theorem 6.2], [@G05 Corollary 5.1]. However, in the general case it is quite possible for $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ not to be a Riesz basis for $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$. It turns out that whether this sequence is a (Riesz) basis or not depends on the invertibility of a certain $N \times N$ matrix defined in terms of the spectral characteristics of the boundary value problem (\[eq:SL\])-(\[eq:boundary\]).
We need some additional definitions to state our result. Denote by $W$ the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $\delta_1^{-1}$, $\ldots$, $\delta_d^{-1}$, $h_0^{-1}$, $\Delta_1^{-1}$, $\ldots$, $\Delta_D^{-1}$, $H_0^{-1}$, where the $(d+1)$-th entry (respectively, the last entry) is omitted whenever $h_0 = 0$ (respectively, $H_0 = 0$), and consider the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} = \mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi) \oplus \mathbb{C}^N$ with inner product given by $$\left\langle \begin{pmatrix} y \\ \widehat{y} \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} z \\ \widehat{z} \end{pmatrix} \right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}} := \int_0^{\pi} y(x) \overline{z(x)} \,{\mathrm{d}}x + \widehat{z}^{\dagger} W \widehat{y},$$ where the superscript $^{\dagger}$ denotes the conjugate transpose. Most of our matrices will have real entries and for them the conjugate transpose coincides with the ordinary transpose. The boundary value problem (\[eq:SL\])-(\[eq:boundary\]) is equivalent to an eigenvalue problem for a self-adjoint operator in $\mathcal{H}$ with discrete spectrum (see [@G19a Section 2.3] for details), in the sense that they both have the same eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ and this operator has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of the form $$\label{eq:psi_vector}
\begin{pmatrix} \psi_n \\ \widehat{\psi}_n \end{pmatrix},$$ where $\psi_n$ are eigenfunctions of (\[eq:SL\])-(\[eq:boundary\]) and $$\widehat{\psi}_n := \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\delta_1 \psi_n(0)}{\lambda_n - h_1} & \dots & \frac{\delta_{d} \psi_n(0)}{\lambda_n - h_{d}} & -h_0 \psi_n(0) & \frac{\Delta_1 \psi_n(\pi)}{H_1 - \lambda_n} & \dots & \frac{\Delta_{D} \psi_n(\pi)}{H_{D} - \lambda_n} & H_0 \psi_n(\pi) \end{pmatrix}^{\dagger}$$ (with the obvious modifications when one or both of $h_0$ and $H_0$ equal zero). We can (and will) choose $\psi_n$ to be real-valued. This kind of linearization procedure goes back at least to a 1956 book by Friedman [@F56 pp. 205–207] and can even be generalized to arbitrary (not necessarily rational) Herglotz–Nevanlinna functions [@G19b]. We define $M_{\Theta}$ as the matrix whose rows consist of (the entries of) the vectors $\widehat{\psi}_{n_k}$: $$M_{\Theta} := \sum_{k=1}^N e_k \widehat{\psi}_{n_k}^{\dagger},$$ where $\{ e_k \}_{k=1}^N$ is the standard basis of $\mathbb{C}^N$. Our main result can now be stated as follows.
\[thm:identities\] The sequence $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ is a Riesz basis for $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$ if and only if the matrix $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible.
We will prove this theorem in the next section. As remarked by Gelfand [@G51], to prove that a sequence is a Riesz basis it suffices to construct a new inner product equivalent to the original one, with respect to which this sequence becomes an orthonormal basis [@Y01 Theorem 1.9]. The main idea of our proof is to demonstrate that this new inner product in $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$ can be constructed in terms of the inner product of the space $\mathcal{H}$ in a straightforward way.
Now that we have this general result, the following question naturally arises: for a given problem, roughly speaking, what part of $N$-tuples $\Theta$ satisfies the condition of the theorem? Since, intuitively speaking, a generic matrix is invertible, one might expect that the share of $N$-tuples with $\det M_{\Theta} = 0$ will be negligible in some sense. Indeed, as we have already pointed out, if only one of the boundary conditions depends on the eigenvalue parameter then each $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible. On the other hand, however, for symmetric boundary value problems with linear dependence on the eigenvalue parameter ($s(x) + s(\pi-x) = 0$, $f = F$, and $1 \le \operatorname{ind}f \le 2$), roughly speaking, only half of all $N$-tuples satisfies the condition of the theorem. We will discuss these issues in Section \[sec:cases\].
Proof {#sec:proof}
=====
We start with the “only if” part. If the matrix $M_{\Theta}$ is not invertible then the vectors $\widehat{\psi}_{n_k}$ are linearly dependent, i.e., $$\sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} = 0$$ for some $\alpha_k$, not all of them being zero. The function $$y(x) := \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \psi_{n_k}(x)$$ cannot be identically equal to zero, since otherwise the orthonormal system $$\begin{pmatrix} \psi_{n_k} \\ \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} \end{pmatrix}, \qquad k = 1, \ldots, N$$ would also be linearly dependent. Moreover, $$\int_0^{\pi} y(x) \psi_n(x) \,{\mathrm{d}}x = \left\langle \begin{pmatrix} y \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} \psi_n \\ \widehat{\psi}_n \end{pmatrix} \right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \left\langle \begin{pmatrix} \psi_{n_k} \\ \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} \psi_n \\ \widehat{\psi}_n \end{pmatrix} \right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = 0$$ for every $n \notin \Theta$. Hence $y \neq 0$ is orthogonal to all the functions of the sequence $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$, and thus this sequence cannot be complete in $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$.
We now turn to the “if” part. Our immediate aim is to define a new inner product equivalent to the usual one in $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$ and such that the sequence $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ is an orthonormal basis with respect to this new inner product. Since we already have the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and the orthonormal sequence (\[eq:psi\_vector\]) in this space, the most straightforward way to achieve this is to map $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$ into $\mathcal{H}$ in such a way that $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ are mapped to their corresponding vectors (\[eq:psi\_vector\]) and then “transfer” the inner product on $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$. With this goal in mind, we define the mapping $y \mapsto y_{\Theta}$, $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi) \to \mathbb{C}^N$ by the formula $$\label{eq:y_Theta}
y_{\Theta} := - W^{-1} M_{\Theta}^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^N e_k \int_0^{\pi} y(x) \psi_{n_k}(x) \,{\mathrm{d}}x.$$ One can easily verify that $\left( \psi_n \right)_{\Theta} = \widehat{\psi}_n$ for $n \notin \Theta$. Now we introduce a new inner product in $\mathscr{L}_2(0,\pi)$ by the obvious expression $$\langle y, z \rangle_{\Theta} := \left\langle \begin{pmatrix} y \\ y_{\Theta} \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} z \\ z_{\Theta} \end{pmatrix} \right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}.$$ It is trivial to check that this is indeed an inner product and $\{ \psi_n \}_{n \notin \Theta}$ are orthonormal with respect to it. That this inner product is equivalent to the original one follows from the inequalities $$\int_0^{\pi} |y(x)|^2 \,{\mathrm{d}}x \le \langle y, y \rangle_{\Theta} \le \left( 1 + \| W^{-1} \| \| M_{\Theta}^{-1} \|^2 \sum_{k=1}^N \int_0^{\pi} |\psi_{n_k}(x)|^2 \,{\mathrm{d}}x \right) \int_0^{\pi} |y(x)|^2 \,{\mathrm{d}}x,$$ where $\| \cdot \|$ denotes the operator norm. It remains to verify the completeness. To this end, suppose that $\langle y, \psi_n \rangle_{\Theta} = 0$ for all $n \notin \Theta$. Then $$\begin{pmatrix} y \\ y_{\Theta} \end{pmatrix} = \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \begin{pmatrix} \psi_{n_k} \\ \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} \end{pmatrix}$$ for some $\alpha_k$, this being a consequence of the orthogonality of the vector on the left-hand side to the vectors from (\[eq:psi\_vector\]) with $n \notin \Theta$. Therefore (\[eq:y\_Theta\]) yields $$\begin{split}
\sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} = y_{\Theta} = \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \left( \psi_{n_k} \right)_{\Theta} &= \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \left( \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} - W^{-1} M_{\Theta}^{-1} e_k \right) \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \widehat{\psi}_{n_k} - W^{-1} M_{\Theta}^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k e_k.
\end{split}$$ Since $M_{\Theta}^{-1}$ and $W^{-1}$ are both obviously invertible, we obtain $\alpha_k = 0$ for $k = 1$, $\ldots$, $N$, and hence $y = 0$.
Some special cases {#sec:cases}
==================
In general, it appears to be rather difficult to characterize the $N$-tuples $\Theta$ for which $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible in terms of $\Theta$ itself. Two particular cases when this is possible have already been studied (for continuously differentiable $s$) in the literature (see below for references). We now discuss these two cases.
Dependence on the eigenvalue parameter only in one boundary condition {#ss:one}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we assume that one of the boundary coefficients, say $F$, is constant. As we have noted in the introduction, in this case by using the transformation operators [@HM04], one can deduce that $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible for every $\Theta$. We now want to derive this result as a corollary of our theorem.
In our case, the matrix $M_{\Theta}$ (after obvious cancellations) has either the form $$\label{eq:matrices}
\begin{pmatrix}
p_1 \left( \lambda_{n_1} \right) & \dots & p_d \left( \lambda_{n_1} \right) & p \left( \lambda_{n_1} \right) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
p_1 \left( \lambda_{n_d} \right) & \dots & p_d \left( \lambda_{n_d} \right) & p \left( \lambda_{n_d} \right) \\
p_1 \left( \lambda_{n_{d+1}} \right) & \dots & p_d \left( \lambda_{n_{d+1}} \right) & p \left( \lambda_{n_{d+1}} \right)
\end{pmatrix} \qquad \text{or} \qquad \begin{pmatrix}
p_1 \left( \lambda_{n_1} \right) & \dots & p_d \left( \lambda_{n_1} \right) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
p_1 \left( \lambda_{n_d} \right) & \dots & p_d \left( \lambda_{n_d} \right)
\end{pmatrix},$$ depending on whether $h_0 > 0$ or $h_0 = 0$, where we denoted $$p(\lambda) := \prod_{k=1}^d (h_k - \lambda), \qquad p_m(\lambda) := \prod_{\substack{k = 1 \\ k \ne m}}^d (h_k - \lambda).$$ One possible way to prove the invertibility of these matrices, as was done in [@KA06], is to reduce this problem to the invertibility of a Cauchy matrix whose determinant has a closed-form expression (the Cauchy double alternant identity).
However, since we do not need the value of this determinant, but only need to verify the invertibility of the matrices in (\[eq:matrices\]), one can also proceed as follows. If $$\sum_{m=1}^d \alpha_m p_m \left( \lambda_{n_k} \right) + \alpha p \left( \lambda_{n_k} \right) = 0, \qquad k = 1, \ldots, d+1,$$ then the polynomial $\alpha_1 p_1 (\lambda) + \ldots + \alpha_d p_d (\lambda) + \alpha p (\lambda)$ of degree at most $d$ has $d+1$ roots and hence it must be identically zero. From the obvious identities $p_m(h_k) = 0$ for $m \neq k$ we obtain $\alpha_1 = \ldots = \alpha_d = \alpha = 0$ and thus the columns of the first matrix in (\[eq:matrices\]) are linearly independent. This proves the invertibility of this matrix. The case $h_0 = 0$ is similar.
Linear dependence on the eigenvalue parameter {#ss:linear}
---------------------------------------------
The case when one or both of the boundary conditions depend in a linear fashion on the eigenvalue parameter (i.e., $\max \{ \operatorname{ind}f, \operatorname{ind}F \} \le 2$ in our notation) is the most extensively studied case in the literature. We mention only the very recent paper [@K19] and refer the reader to the bibliography therein. Since we have already discussed the case when only one of the boundary conditions depends on the eigenvalue parameter, we now assume that both of them contain the eigenvalue parameter (i.e., $\min \{ \operatorname{ind}f, \operatorname{ind}F \} \ge 1$).
In order to completely characterize those pairs $\Theta = \{ n_1, n_2 \}$ for which $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible, we need some more definitions from [@G17], [@G19a]. We assign to each rational Herglotz–Nevanlinna function $f$ of the form (\[eq:f\_F\]) two polynomials $f_\uparrow$ and $f_\downarrow$ by writing this function as $$f(\lambda) = \frac{f_\uparrow(\lambda)}{f_\downarrow(\lambda)},$$ where $$f_\downarrow(\lambda) := h'_0 \prod_{k=1}^d (h_k - \lambda), \qquad h'_0 := \begin{cases} 1 / h_0, & h_0 > 0, \\ 1, & h_0 = 0. \end{cases}$$ For each $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ 0 \}$ we define $\beta_n \ne 0$ as the unique number for which $$\chi_n(x) = \beta_n \varphi_n(x),$$ where $\varphi_n$ and $\chi_n$ are the (necessarily linearly dependent) eigenfunctions of (\[eq:SL\])-(\[eq:boundary\]) satisfying the conditions $\varphi_n(0) = f_\downarrow(\lambda_n)$, $\varphi_n^{[1]}(0) = -f_\uparrow(\lambda_n)$, $\chi_n(\pi) = F_\downarrow(\lambda_n)$, and $\chi_n^{[1]}(\pi) = F_\uparrow(\lambda_n)$. Using the results of [@G18a] and [@G19a] one can deduce that these numbers have alternating signs and asymptotically behave as $$\label{eq:beta}
\beta_n = (-1)^n \left( n - \frac{\operatorname{ind}f + \operatorname{ind}F}{2} \right)^{\operatorname{ind}F - \operatorname{ind}f} \left( 1 + \xi_n \right), \qquad \xi_n \in \ell_2.$$
We now return to the main topic of this subsection. Under our assumptions, the matrix $M_{\Theta}$ (again after obvious cancellations) has the form $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \beta_{n_1}^{-1} \\
1 & \beta_{n_2}^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus the invertibility of $M_{\Theta}$ is equivalent to the condition $\beta_{n_1} \ne \beta_{n_2}$. On the basis of the discussion in the preceding paragraph, we immediately conclude that $M_{\Theta}$ is always invertible for indices $n_1$ and $n_2$ of different parity. For indices of same parity, both cases are possible. As one extreme example, we have $\beta_n = (-1)^n$ for all $n$ when the boundary value problem is symmetric (i.e., $s(x) + s(\pi-x) = 0$ and $f = F$) and hence $M_{\Theta}$ is never invertible for $n_1$ and $n_2$ of same parity. On the other hand, using the inverse spectral theory developed in [@G19a], one can produce a boundary value problem of the form (\[eq:SL\])-(\[eq:boundary\]) for arbitrary sequence of distinct numbers $\beta_n$, as long as they satisfy the requirements of the preceding paragraph. In the case of the latter boundary value problem, $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible for all pairs of indices $n_1$ and $n_2$.
As a final observation, we note that it is also possible to obtain some results of asymptotic character when $\operatorname{ind}F \ne \operatorname{ind}f$. For example, given $n_1$, $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible for all sufficiently large $n_2$. In the case of summable potentials (i.e., for absolutely continuous $s$), one can say even more: $M_{\Theta}$ is invertible for all sufficiently large $n_1$ and $n_2$. In other words, there can be only finitely many pairs $\Theta = \{ n_1, n_2 \}$ for which $M_{\Theta}$ is not invertible, since in this case $n \xi_n \to 0$ in (\[eq:beta\]).
[99]{}
N. K. Bari, *Biorthogonal systems and bases in Hilbert space* (Russian), Moskov. Gos. Univ. Učenye Zapiski Matematika **148(4)** (1951), 69–107.
B. Friedman, *Principles and techniques of applied mathematics*, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1956.
I. M. Gel’fand, *Remark on the work of N. K. Bari, “Biorthogonal systems and bases in Hilbert space.”* (Russian), Moskov. Gos. Univ. Učenye Zapiski Matematika **148(4)** (1951), 224–225.
N. J. Guliyev, *Inverse eigenvalue problems for Sturm–Liouville equations with spectral parameter linearly contained in one of the boundary conditions*, Inverse Problems **21** (2005), no. 4, 1315–1330. [arXiv:0803.0566](https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0566)
N. J. Guliyev, *Essentially isospectral transformations and their applications*, preprint. [arXiv:1708.07497](https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07497)
N. J. Guliyev, *On two-spectra inverse problems*, preprint. [arXiv:1803.02567](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02567)
N. J. Guliyev, *Schrödinger operators with distributional potentials and boundary conditions dependent on the eigenvalue parameter*, J. Math. Phys. **60** (2019), no. 6, to appear. [arXiv:1806.10459](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10459)
N. J. Guliyev, *On extensions of symmetric operators*, Oper. Matrices, to appear. [arXiv:1807.11865](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.11865)
R. O. Hryniv and Ya. V. Mykytyuk, *Transformation operators for Sturm–Liouville operators with singular potentials*, Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. **7** (2004), no. 2, 119–149.
N. B. Kerimov, *Basis properties in $L_p$ of a Sturm–Liouville operator with spectral parameter in the boundary conditions* (Russian), Differ. Uravn. **55** (2019), no. 2, 148–157; English transl. in Differ. Equ. **55** (2019), no. 2, 149–158.
N. B. Kerimov and Y. N. Aliyev, *The basis property in $L_p$ of the boundary value problem rationally dependent on the eigenparameter*, Studia Math. **174** (2006), no. 2, 201–212.
R. M. Young, *An introduction to nonharmonic Fourier series*, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 2001.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study plasmon$-$exciton interaction by using topological singularities to spatially confine, selectively deliver, cotrap and optically probe colloidal semiconductor and plasmonic nanoparticles. The interaction is monitored in a single quantum system in the bulk of a liquid crystal medium where nanoparticles are manipulated and nanoconfined far from dielectric interfaces using laser tweezers and topological configurations containing singularities. When quantum dot-in-a-rod particles
[2]{}
are spatially colocated with a plasmonic gold nanoburst particle in a topological singularity core, its fluorescence increases because blinking is significantly suppressed and the radiative decay rate increases by nearly an order of magnitude owing to the Purcell effect. We argue that the blinking suppression is the result of the radiative rate change that mitigates Auger recombination and quantum dot ionization, consequently reducing nonradiative recombination. Our work demonstrates that topological singularities are an effective platform for studying and controlling plasmon$-$exciton interactions.
{width="45.00000%"}
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b05715
---
[**Plasmon$-$Exciton Interactions Probed Using Spatial Coentrapment of Nanoparticles by Topological Singularities** ]{}
P. J. Ackerman^1,2^, Haridas Mundoor^1^, I. I. Smalyukh^1,2,3,4^ and Jao van de Lagemaat^1,4,5^\
*^1^Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA\
^2^Department of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA\
^3^ Liquid Crystal Materials Research Center and Materials Science and Engineering Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA\
^4^ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA\
^5^ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA\
(Dated: Nov 14, 2015)*
[2]{}
Introduction
============
The possibility of impacting the excited-state dynamics as well as the final fate of excitons by coupling excitons and surface plasmons, possibly leading to desirable outcomes such as increased singlet fission rates or multiple exciton generation, has been an active avenue of research [@Johnson2009]. Strong interactions causing Rabi splittings in the 100s of meV are possible between excitons in molecules or quantized nanosized semiconductors and surface plasmons [@Gomez2010APL; @Gomez2010Nano; @Cade2009; @Symonds2008]. These interactions can also be used in extremely sensitive single-molecule detection schemes [@Zhao2008]. The potential to influence excited-state energies and dynamics is of high interest to exert a measure of control in systems used in solar-to-electricity or solar-to-fuel photoconversion applications. Semiconductor quantum dots are often described as model systems for excitonic behavior. Because of the size quantization, one can shift energy levels in order to, for example, turn-on-and-off singlet fission from molecules that can transfer charges to these nanoparticles [@Thompson2014]. Surface plasmons can have strong interaction with excitons on nearby colloidal quantum dots, and this interaction is an interesting approach to manipulating excited state energies [@Gomez2010APL; @Pelton2015]. One consistent observation when looking at light emission from semiconductor quantum dots is that their fluorescence blinks [@Efros2008; @Galland2011]. This phenomenon is generally attributed to the dot becoming charged, which makes it dark owing to Auger recombination, and discharging, giving rise to intermittent fluorescence [@Efros2008]. A similar effect was observed in current flow through quantum dots trapped in the gap between tip and substrate in a tunneling microscope and can be explained by the same effect [@Maturova2013]. It has been shown that it is possible to suppress the fluorescence blinking in quantum dots by controlling the chemical environment [@Fomenko2008] and by growing thick, passivating shells around the core of the particles [@Wang2009; @Mahler2008] giving rise to extraordinarily stable quantum emitters.
In this work, we demonstrate coupling to a nearby plasmonic particle as another way to decrease intermittency which, by increasing the radiative decay rate through the Purcell effect, increases the likelihood of radiative recombination versus ionization of the exciton or Auger recombination and therefore keeps the fluorescent particle in its bright state more often and for longer periods of time. Similar experiments performed on single or assemblies of semiconducting nanocrystals with metal particle or metal surfaces show decrease in the fluorescence blinking [@Bharadwaj2011; @Fu2007; @Ji2015; @Karan2015; @Ratchford2011; @Shimizu2001; @Shimizu2002]; however most of the experiments were not performed on the same semiconducting particles throughout the experiments [@Fu2007; @Ji2015; @Karan2015; @Shimizu2001; @Shimizu2002]. We probe this effect in the bulk of a dielectric medium using a liquid crystal (LC) topological singularity, where we controllably bring a plasmonic particle in close proximity to a single semiconducting nanocrystal using a combination of noncontact optical manipulation and elastic forces, which uniquely allows us to exclude the effects of proximity to substrates on which the plasmon$-$exciton interactions are typically studied [@Ratchford2011]. This work also demonstrates that topological singularities
![Topological singularities as elastic traps for metal and semiconductor nanoparticles. (a) Schematic of a NB (left) and QR (right). The micrographs beneath the schematics show a dark-field microscopy image of a single NB based on the strong scattering from it and a fluorescence image of a single quantum rod; both particles are imaged on a glass substrate. (b) Polarizing optical microscopy texture of a toron; double-headed white arrows depict orientations of polarizers. (c) Computer simulated director structure in the cell midplane, intersecting the toron in its solitonic equatorial plane, as denoted in (e) using yellow lines. (d) Computer simulated director structure within an in-plane cross-section passing through a point singularity of a toron, as denoted in (e), overlaid on the plot of the total elastic free energy density shown using a corresponding color scheme provided in the right-side inset in (e). (e) Computer simulated director structure in the vertical X$-$Z cross-section passing through the toron’s central axis and its two hyperbolic point singularities, as denoted in (a) using blue lines. (f) Schematic representation of nanoinclusions interacting with the elastic potential (green curve) formed by a hyperbolic point singularity elastic trap, which is optically probed and observed through an objective lens.[]{data-label="peFigure1"}](peFigure1){width="90.00000%"}
[2]{}
can serve as an effective platform for studying plasmon$-$exciton interaction and that the fluorescence blinking of semiconducting nanocrystals can be effectively suppressed by using surface plasmons instead of surface passivation.
Results and Discussion
======================
Optical and Elastic Trapping of Nanoparticles
---------------------------------------------
We use gold Nanoburst [@Senyuk2012; @Mundoor2014; @Senyuk2013] (NB, obtained from Nanopartz Inc.) shaped as $\sim$500 nm discs with irregular sharp edges and dot-in-rod 5$\times$20 nm CdSe/CdS quantum rod (QR) semiconducting nanocrystals with emission peak at 570 nm [@Smith2011; @Talapin2003], which are shown schematically and in optical micrographs in Figure \[peFigure1\]a. Single NBs provide strong and localized field enhancement due to sharp features and are readily identified in dark-field microscopy as strong scattering yellow spots. The QRs that were used have good long-term stability in different chemical environments and can be uniquely identified and imaged based on fluorescence detected using a dichroic mirror and band-pass filter (see Supplementary material for details). These particles are dispersed in a chiral nematic LC host fluid at vanishingly low volume fractions (on the order of 1000 QRs and 10,000 NBs per 1 $\mu$L of the LC) and infiltrated into a LC cell. Spontaneous formation and laser generation of configurations known as torons [@Smalyukh2010] (Figure \[peFigure1\]b) are reliably achieved in regions of cholesteric pitch to cell thickness $p/d \sim 1$ in such cells.
Our optical trapping system can manipulate NBs [@Mundoor2014] and self-assembled toron structures with topological singularities [@Ackerman2015NatCom], but not the smaller QRs. This is consistent with the estimates of optical trapping forces as a function of particle dimensions, which show that optical gradient forces for such small QR nanoparticles are comparable in strength to Brownian motion [@Ashkin1986]. We therefore control QRs with topological elastic traps of LC singularities that are free of this deficiency and can effectively entrap nanoparticles [@Senyuk2012] and molecular self-assemblies [@Wang2015]. As illustrated in Figure \[peFigure1\], we exploit the hyperbolic point singularities in a frustrated confined chiral nematic LC that are stabilized against annihilation by a solitonic double-twist-torus of a toron shown in a polarizing optical micrograph in Figure \[peFigure1\]b. Numerical modeling of the director field of the toron structure (Figure \[peFigure1\]d$-$f) illustrates a large elastic energy density associated with the two twist-bound hyperbolic point singularities, each resulting in a viable elastic trap. Furthermore, these distortions of the director field decay slowly in all lateral directions, so that attractive elastic forces act on particles at distances $\sim$10 $\mu$m much larger than their size [@Senyuk2012] and much larger than the range of action of optical trapping forces [@Ashkin1986], thus mediating entrapment of the nanoinclusions that are originally found far from the trapping sites of the point singularities. In the cores of these energetically costly hyperbolic point singularities, the orientational ordering of the LC host is undefined within a volume of effective diameter 10$-$50 nm [@Senyuk2012], which is capable of entrapping even the particles that are too small to be trapped by laser tweezers [@Ashkin1986]. By exploiting these properties of hyperbolic point elastic traps, we first localize QRs in the singular cores through elasticity-mediated interactions of the nanoinclusions with the singularities and then observe their fluorescence. Following this, NBs are brought to the vicinity of these point singularities containing QRs using the optical trapping system and then released (Figure \[peFigure1\]f). Elastic attraction and eventual spatial confinement to the singularity core emerges from a combination of minimization of elastic free energy through sharing of director distortions and displacement of energetically costly LC with reduced orientational order [@Senyuk2012]. This results in nanoscale localization and coentrapment of QRs and NBs, allowing us to compare fluorescence of the same QRs when they are entrapped in the singularity alone with the fluorescence of the QRs in close proximity to plasmonic NBs during coentrapment at the latter stage of this experiment.
To characterize topological elastic trapping of nanoparticles, the NB-singularity interaction was probed with video microscopy (Figure \[peFigure2\]). Frames 1$-$3 of Figure \[peFigure2\]a show the NB manipulated by our optical trapping system. Frames 4$-$7 of Figure \[peFigure2\]a reveal the attractive NB-singularity elastic interaction after the NB is released near one of the point singularities of a toron. Using dark-field video microscopy, we optically track the NB far from singularities (free diffusion), as it is pulled into a topological elastic trap and also once it is trapped in a singularity. We derive the elastic interaction potential and elastic trap potential. The erratic 2D free diffusion trajectory (Figure \[peFigure2\]b) in a uniformly vertically aligned LC yields the viscous drag coefficient $c_d$. Since this system is in the regime of low Reynolds number (Re $\ll$ $10^{-7}$) [@Senyuk2012], inertia effects are negligible and the NB-singularity elastic attractive force $F_{el}$ is balanced by the viscous drag force, $F_d = c_dv(t)$, where $v(t) = dr_{cc}/dt$ and $r_{cc}$ is the NB-singularity time dependent center-to-center separation (Figure \[peFigure2\]b). The elastic interaction potential is then calculated by integrating $F_{el}$ obtained from this force balance (Figure \[peFigure2\]b). By tracking the NB trapped by the singularity (Figure \[peFigure2\]c), we construct a histogram of NB displacements, from which we derive the elastic trap potential by assuming a simple harmonic potential attraction model near the equilibrium location [@Ackerman2015NatCom]. This reveals that the center of the NB is confined within a volume of effective radius smaller than 100 nm.
Plasmon$-$Exciton Interactions
------------------------------
To probe the photo physics of QRs, torons containing only QRs in only one of their singularities are illuminated with a mercury lamp and the resulting fluorescence is monitored. Figure \[peFigure3\]a and \[peFigure3\]b show bright field micrographs of such a toron with a QR in the “ON” and “OFF” state, respectively. Then, to probe the effects of plasmon$-$exciton interaction on these QR properties, the NB is cotrapped by the point singularity according to the procedure described above. Computer simulations (Figure \[peFigure3\]c$-$e) reveal the electromagnetic field enhancement by the NB at wavelengths 570 nm, 950 and 473 nm, which are the emission and two excitation wavelengths used in the experiments discussed below. Consistently, the QR emission increases (Figure \[peFigure3\]f,g), as seen from comparing time-averaged frames of two torons with QR particles before and after coentrapping the NB in the point singularity (top right). To analyze the corresponding blinking characteristics of QRs, we record fluorescence trajectories using 473 nm diode laser illumination and Avalanche photo diode (APD) with a binning time of 10 ms. Figure \[peFigure4\]a,b show characteristic fluorescence trajectories of QRs before and after introducing a NB particle into the elastic trap. It is clear that QR particles stay predominantly in the “ON” state after cotrapping NBs in the LC singularity. It should be noted that the blinking trajectories are affected by the diffusion of the particles, resulting in slight intensity fluctuations due to displacement of the particles from the focal plane. The effects of introducing the NB are clearly visible from the histogram plotted in the right-side insets of Figure \[peFigure4\]a,b, showing a change in the blinking statistics. Further, we have performed detailed analysis of the blinking following the constant thresholding [@Shimizu2001; @Crouch2010; @Kuno2000]
![Release from optical traps, elastic interaction, and entrapment of nanoparticles in a topological point singularity. (a) Optical and elastic trapping of a NB (small bright spot) nearby a toron (visible as large bright ring of enhanced light scattering). Frames 1$-$3 show optical manipulation of the NB to a desired initial location near the toron and close to one of the substrates substrate. Frames 4$-$7 show the NB elastically pulled toward the toron center after its release from the laser trap. (b) Elastic interaction potential versus the center-to-center separation ($r_{cc}$) between the NB and toron singularity (blue curve), derived from the bottom-right inset plots of $r_{cc}$ versus time and using the NB diffusion constant obtained from probing free diffusion (top-left inset). (c) Trapping potential and stiffness characterized via tracking the singularity-entrapped NB. The trapping potential is derived from the $r_{cc}$ histogram shown in the top-left inset. The bottom-right inset image shows the NB particle entrapped by a toron singularity as observed in dark-field mode (the inset edge length is $\approx$5 $\mu$m). The characteristic stiffness of a toron singularity elastic trap is $\sim$4$\times10^{-3}$ pN/nm.[]{data-label="peFigure2"}](peFigure2){width="80.00000%"}
[2]{}
and change point analysis methods reported recently [@Schmidt2014], where we have calculated the probability density for the “ON” and “OFF” times (Figure \[peFigure4\]c$-$f). The results of our analysis using the former method are consistent with the earlier reports [@Shimizu2001; @Crouch2010; @Kuno2000] showing typical power-law behavior of such data (Figure \[peFigure4\]c,e) and that the particle is far more often in the “ON” state in the presence of plasmonic enhancement than without it. The same is concluded from the change-point analysis (Figure \[peFigure4\]d,f). The probability density of “ON” states of QRs in the presence of a NB increases, indicating decreased blinking and increased prevalence of the “ON” state.
To gain additional insights to the nature of plasmon$-$exciton interactions, we have performed fluorescence lifetime measurements of QRs located inside a point singularity, before and after introducing the NBs. For this, the excitation of the system was realized through a two photon absorption process using 950 nm light from a pulsed Ti:sapphire laser. Although the accuracy of lifetime measurements is somewhat limited by the repetition rate of our laser (80 MHz), the comparison of the decay curves unambiguously shows that the photoluminescence from the QR decays much faster in the presence of NBs than when QR are entrapped alone or on a dielectric substrate (Figure \[peFigure5\]). The excited-state lifetime for the QR isolated through trapping within the topological singularity in the bulk of the dielectric LC medium is $\approx$10.16 ns. Introduction of a NB into the trap for different experiments with different nanoparticles repeatedly results in a dramatic change of this lifetime by a factor ranging from 0.12 to 0.16, yielding lifetimes within 1.2$-$1.6 ns. The somewhat broad range of lifetime values observed for different QR-NB combinations is likely due to the irregular shapes of the NBs and different specific locations/orientations of the QRs relative to the NBs, as well as variations in the illumination light’s propagation direction relative to the QR-NB system. The blinking experiments were consistently performed on one and the same QR
![Fluorescence enhancement and blinking of QRs without and with NB coentrapment. (a,b) Bright field micrographs depicting the fluorescence signal of a QR elastically trapped in a toron point singularity while in the “ON” (a) and “OFF” (b) states. (c$-$e) Computer-simulated electromagnetic field enhancement around NBs calculated at 570, 950 and 473 nm excitation wavelengths of the incident light with linear polarization (vibration direction of the light’s electric field E) by a NB in the LC medium. (f,g) Time averaged image of QRs elastically trapped in torons before (f) and after (g) introducing a NB into the toron on the right.[]{data-label="peFigure3"}](peFigure3.png){width="65.00000%"}
[2]{}
![Characterization of fluorescence intermittency of QRs before and after introducing plasmonic NBs. (a,b) Fluorescence time traces of QRs elastically trapped in a toron point singularity without (a) and with (b) the NB particle in the elastic trap. The “ON” and “OFF” times of the QRs is represented by the corresponding histograms in the right-side insets. Analysis of fluorescence time trace with constant thresholding (c,d) and using the change point analysis method (e,f) for the curves displayed in (a) and (b) and corresponding to (c,e) the QRs alone and (d,f) in the close neighborhood of NBs. Here $\rho(\tau)$ is probability density defined as in reference [@Kuno2000] and plotted as $\rho(\tau$ON) and $\rho(\tau$OFF) for on and off times (red squares and blue circles, respectively). $\tau$ON and $\tau$OFF are time periods of sustained fluorescence emission and darkness, respectively.[]{data-label="peFigure4"}](peFigure4){width="65.00000%"}
[2]{}
![Characterization of fluorescence lifetime of QRs. Photoluminescence decay for QRs entrapped in a toron’s point singularity (black curve) and when placed on a glass substrate (red curve) are compared to four sets of characteristic decay curves for QRs in topological point singularities coentrapped with the NB (blue, cyan, magenta and green curves). The fluorescence lifetime for QRs measured in the topological elastic trap is $\tau_0 \approx 10.16$ ns.[]{data-label="peFigure5"}](peFigure5){width="49.00000%"}
before and after introducing a NB, the fluorescence lifetimes were measured for a series of QR-NB assemblies produced in the toron’s point defects in each case comparing the same QR before and after addition of a NB particle. Importantly, the observed dramatic effect of plasmon$-$excition interaction on the fluorescence lifetime is separated from the effect of surface proximity to a dielectric substrate such as glass. Interaction with the glass substrate results in a much smaller decrease of the fluorescence lifetime, $\approx25\%$ (Figure \[peFigure5\]).
Our experimental finding of nearly an order of magnitude increase in the fluorescence rate of QRs upon adding the plasmonic NB to an elastic trap is consistent with the Purcell effect, owing to the increased density of final states for photon emission in the presence of the NB [@Song2005; @Anger2006; @Govorov2006; @Kuhn2006]. Such an effect also explains the decrease in blinking. The intensity of the emission for the “ON” state is not strongly affected and since the QR particle is 10$-$20 nm from the NB surface, where nonradiative rates are only marginally affected [@Anger2006], one does not expect to observe any significant quenching of the fluorescence. Second, the field enhancement produced by a NB at the excitation wavelength used for blinking experiments (Figure \[peFigure3\]e) is small and has minimal effect on the excitation rate of QRs. The coupling of the QR emission to the plasmon modes of the NBs influences the fluorescence blinking by reducing the probability of the dark exciton generation and by driving the branching of the excited states of the QR to light emission instead of charge carrier trapping. This keeps the QRs predominantly in the “ON” state instead of the ionized “OFF” state. Similar but usually smaller enhancements of the fluorescence decay and suppression of blinking have been observed before in chemically pre-engineered nanoparticles with plasmonic resonator shells around the quantum dot [@Ji2015; @Karan2015], quantum dots immobilized on plasmonic substrates [@Fu2007; @Wu2010] and in engineered quantum dot/plasmonic particle dimers [@Cohen-Hoshen2012]. In these experiments, however, the effect of the plasmonic field cannot be probed using the same quantum dots at different experimental stages, making it difficult to unequivocally prove that the effect is due to the plasmonic particle’s presence. In contrast, in a similar experiment to ours [@Ratchford2011], a plasmonic particle was brought closer to a colloidal core/shell quantum dot on a glass substrate using an AFM tip and a reversible suppression of blinking and a decrease of the fluorescence lifetime comparable to that described here was observed, albeit the surface proximity could have additionally influenced this behavior and in a different study [@Bharadwaj2011], a strong modification of nonradiative rates leading to quenching of the photoluminescence and consequent suppression of blinking was observed when a gold particle suspended on a tip was brought into closer proximity than used in this work to a quantum dot. In that case the suppression of blinking was due to an increase in nonradiative rates which also would lead to a decrease in ionization events. In the current work, we show that this effect can be seen even for the same plasmonic-quantum nanoparticle system suspended in its entirety in a fluid medium bulk, where the plasmonic field was specifically brought to the quantum nanoparticle by “soft” self-assembly methods instead of external forces. While the sharp edges of the NB help to localize the electromagnetic field very strongly and help make the NB easy to move using laser tweezers, the randomness of the shape of the NB limits our knowledge of the QR position and orientation relative to NB enhancement field, resulting in variations in the plasmon$-$exciton interaction for each individual NB-QR combination and somewhat limiting the possibility of further quantifying the effect, which will be the goal of our future studies.
Interestingly, with the exception of rare cases, coentrapment of QRs and NBs in the topological point singularities is such that the fluorescence of QRs is enhanced, the lifetime decreases, and the “ON” states are more prevalent. This may imply that the QRs are entrapped in the region of elastic distortions around the somewhat bigger NB rather than physically touching it, in which case one would expect quenching of fluorescence. Although chemical methods allow for producing nanostructures with well-defined distance between plasmonic metal and semiconductor components pre-engineered to provide enhancement [@Liu2006; @Khanal2012], it is interesting that the NB-QR nanostructures achieve this through elasticity-mediated self-assembly driven by the LC topological singularity. This, along with the recent progress in generating stable arrays of topological singularities [@Evans2013; @Ackerman2012], opens opportunities of mass-producing LC-based nanostructured materials with arrays of singularities and self-assembled metal$-$semiconductor nanostructures with pre-engineered plasmon$-$exciton interactions and the ensuing new physical properties. We also note that the conditions for plasmon$-$exciton interactions studied here have not been optimized for particular outcomes of potential interest, such as maximization of fluorescence “ON” time or shortening of photoluminescence lifetime. However, the comparison of computer-simulated plasmonic field enhancement at different wavelengths (Figure \[peFigure3\]), combined with preselected spectral characteristics of quantum rods or dots, shows ample possibilities for engineering the physical behavior of such nanostructured self-assembled systems, which we will pursue in future studies.
Conclusions
===========
We have demonstrated that topological singularities can be used to coentrap quantum nano-rods and plasmonic nanoparticles within a highly localized volume of a dielectric LC medium, overcoming limitations of laser manipulation techniques that lack the ability to trap quantum dots. This allows us to study plasmon$-$exciton interactions within the bulk of the LC fluid, unaffected by the interaction with substrates. Moreover, trapping of the nanoparticles in LC topological singularities allows us to probe effects of plasmon$-$exciton interactions through characterizing fluorescence of the same semiconducting particle before and after introducing the plasmonic particle. Characterization of emission properties of studied quantum rods before and after coentrapment with plasmonic nanoparticles indicates an order of magnitude decrease in the fluorescence lifetime, consistent with the Purcell effect, enhanced brightness and an increased persistence of the “ON” state. Our findings not only enhance the current understanding of plasmon$-$exciton interactions but also point to the possibility for exploiting such interactions in designed self-assembled mesostructured composite materials with pre-engineered physical behavior. Furthermore, considering the facile response of liquid crystals to external fields and light [@Liu2014], such interactions and the ensuing composites can be dynamic and reconfigurable.
Materials and Methods
=====================
Chiral Nematic LC Preparation
-----------------------------
We mix 4-cyano-4’-pentylbiphenyl (5CB) nematic host (Chengzhi Younghua Display Material Co., Ltd.) with a chiral agent, either CB15 (EM Industries) or cholesteryl pelargonate (Sigma-Aldrich). The desired cholesteric pitch p, the distance over which the LC ground state director twists by 2$\pi$, is defined by controlling the composition of the LC mixture according to the relation $p = 1/(|H_{HTP}|\cdot C_{agent})$, where $H_{HTP}$ is the helical twisting power in 5CB (7.3 $\mu m^{-1}$ for right-handed CB15 and $-$6.25 $\mu m^{-1}$ for left-handed cholesteryl pelargonate where the $\pm$ sign denotes the corresponding right/left handedness) and $C_{agent}$ is the concentration of the chiral additive in the nematic host. All experiments are performed using LCs with $p \approx 8$ $\mu$m and the handedness was found to play no role in the following experiments. By mixing the LC with either NBs dispersed in ethanol or QRs in toluene and then slowly evaporating the solvent at 65 $^\circ$C, we prepare two separate NB-LC and QR-LC colloidal nanoparticle dispersions, as needed for the experiments described above.
LC Cell Fabrication
-------------------
LC cells were assembled using glass plates treated with Dimethyloctadecyl\[3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl\] ammonium chloride (Sigma-Aldrich) to obtain strong perpendicular surface boundary conditions for the LC director describing the local average orientation of rod-like molecules. Wedge cells with thickness $d$ = 7$-$10 $\mu$m were produced by spacing two substrates with glass fiber segments of diameter 7 and 10 $\mu$m in UV-curable glue at the opposite ends of the cell. The dihedral angle between the substrates was kept below 3 degrees such that the local thickness variation can be neglected. The LC mixtures were coinfused into the cell by capillary forces at 75 $^\circ$C, rapidly cooled to room temperature and sealed with fast-setting epoxy.
Experimental Setup and Procedures
---------------------------------
The experimental setup was built around an inverted microscope IX81 (Olympus). The optical trapping system, used for noncontact optical manipulation of NBs and torons, is based on a diode laser (1,064 nm, from LaserGlow) [@Senyuk2012; @Mundoor2014]. Excitation of QRs is done using a mercury lamp, a 473 nm diode laser (from LaserGlow) or pulsed excitation from a tunable Ti:sapphire oscillator (Chameleon Ultra II, Coherent, 140 fs, 80 MHz, used at 950 nm) and the fluorescence signal is detected using an Avalanche photo diode (APD, Picoquant). Fluorescence is detected through a confocal pinhole and filtered by a band-pass filter (centered at 610 nm, 75 nm bandwidth, from Chroma Technology Corp.). Light is focused by an aspheric lens to the active area of the APD connected to a data acquisition board (NIDAQ-6363, National Instruments) and photon counting hardware (SPC-130, Becker $\&$ Hickl GmbH). We use a 100$\times$ oil immersion objective with adjustable numerical aperture (NA) of 0.6$-$1.3, an electron multiplying charge coupled device (EMCCD, iXon3 888, Andor Technology) and a CCD camera (Flea, PointGrey) for imaging. Dark-field imaging is achieved by adjusting the NA of the 100$\times$ objective to be smaller than the NA of a dark-field condenser, allowing us to visualize strong scattering of individual NBs, which we use for tracking of these nanoparticles. The fluorescence blinking of QRs is analyzed based on the thresholding method and also using a change-point algorithm [@Watkins2005], as discussed in more detail in Supplementary material.
Numerical Modeling
------------------
Equilibrium LC director configurations are modeled through minimization of elastic free energy [@Ackerman2015NatCom] (Figure \[peFigure1\]c$-$e) assuming strong perpendicular surface boundary conditions (see Supplementary material for details). Elastic constants of 5CB and experimental geometric parameters such as $d/p = 0.9$ are used in this modeling. The electromagnetic field enhancement of NBs in LCs is simulated using commercially available software (COMSOL Multiphysics), which is based on the finite element method, with a detailed description of the simulation approach provided in Reference [@Mundoor2014]. Briefly, the incident electromagnetic wave passes through the computational volume from above (Z direction) along the orientation of the LC director. The simulation is done over a cylindrical volume with the lateral diameter of 1.5 $\mu$m and height of 1 $\mu$m, with the NB located at the center, enclosed between perfectly matched layers in the radial directions and optical “ports” in the vertical direction of the cylindrical volume. The simulations were performed at the two excitation wavelengths as well as the emission wavelength of the QRs.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank C. Schoen and Nanopartz Inc. for providing NBs as well as J. M. Luther for providing QRs used in studies presented in this work. We acknowledge technical assistance of T. Lee and B. Senyuk. I.I.S. is grateful for the hospitality of NREL during his sabbatical stay. We acknowledge support of the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the US Depart- ment of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (P.J.A., J.v.d.L and I.I.S. during his sabbatical leave) and also partial support of the NSF grant DMR-1410735 (H.M. and I.I.S.). Supporting
[00]{}
Johnson, J. C.; Reilly, T. H.; Kanarr, A. C.; van de Lagemaat, J. The Ultrafast Photophysics of Pentacene Coupled to Surface Plasmon Active Nanohole Films. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 6871$-$6877.
Gómez, D. E.;Vernon, K.C.;Mulvaney, P.;Davis, T. J.Coherent Superposition of Exciton States in Quantum Dots Induced by Surface Plasmons. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 96, 73108.
Gómez, D. E.; Vernon, K. C.; Mulvaney, P.; Davis, T. J. Surface Plasmon Mediated Strong Exciton-Photon Coupling in Semiconductor Nanocrystals. Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 274$-$278.
Cade,N. I.; Ritman-Meer, T.; Richards, D. Strong Coupling of Localized Plasmons and Molecular Excitons in Nanostructured Silver Films. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2009, 79, 241404.
Symonds, C.; Bonnand, C.; Plenet, J. C.; Bréhier, A.; Parashkov, R.; Lauret, J. S.; Deleporte, E.; Bellessa, J. Particularities of Surface Plasmon$-$Exciton Strong Coupling with Large Rabi Splitting. New J. Phys. 2008, 10, 065017.
Zhao, J.; Sherry, L. J.; Schatz, G. C.; Van Duyne, R. P. Molecular Plasmonics: Chromophore-Plasmon Coupling and Single-Particle Nanosensors. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2008, 14, 1418$-$1429.
Thompson, N. J.; Wilson, M. W. B.; Congreve, D. N.; Brown, P. R.; Scherer, J. M.; Bischof, T. S.; Wu, M.; Geva, N.; Welborn, M.; Voorhis, T. V.; et al. Energy Harvesting of Non-Emissive Triplet Excitons in Tetracene by Emissive PbS Nanocrystals. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 1039$-$1043.
Pelton, M. Modified Spontaneous Emission in Nano-photonic Structures. Nat. Photonics 2015, 9, 427$-$435.
Efros, A. L. Nanocrystals: Almost Always Bright. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 612$-$613.
Galland, C.; Ghosh, Y.; Steinbr[ü]{}ck, A.; Sykora, M.; Hollingsworth, J. A.; Klimov, V. I.; Htoon, H. Two Types of Luminescence Blinking Revealed by Spectroelectrochemistry of Single Quantum Dots. Nature 2011, 479, 203$-$207.
Maturova, K.;Nanayakkara, S.; Luther, J.M.; vandeLagemaat, J. FastCurrent Blinking in IndividualPbS and CdSeQuantum Dots. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 2338$-$2345.
Fomento, V.; Nesbitt, D. J. Solution Control of Radiative and Nonradiative Lifetimes: A Novel Contribution to Quantum Dot Blinking Suppression. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 287$-$293.
Wang, X.; Ren, X.; Kahen, K.; Hahn, M. A.; Rajeswaran, M.; Maccagnano-Zacher, S.; Silcox, J.; Cragg, G. E.; Efros, A. L.; Krauss, T. D. Non-Blinking Semiconductor Nanocrystals. Nature 2009, 459, 686$-$689.
Mahler, B.; Spinicelli, P.; Buil, S.; Quelin, X.; Hermier, J.-P.; Dubertret, B. Towards Non-Blinking Colloidal Quantum Dots. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 659$-$664.
Bharadwaj, P.; Novotny, L. Robustness of Quantum Dot Power-Law Blinking. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 2137$-$2141.
Fu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Lakowicz, J. R. Suppressed Blinking in Single Quantum Dots (QDs) Immobilized near Silver Island Films (SIFs). Chem. Phys. Lett. 2007, 447,96$-$100.
Ji, B.; Giovanelli, E.; Habert, B.; Spinicelli, P.; Nasilowski, M.; Xu, X.; Lequeux, N.; Hugonin, J.; Marquier, F.; Greffet, J.; et al. Non-Blinking Quantum Dot with a Plasmonic Nanoshell Resonator. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2015, 10, 170$-$175.
Karan, N.; Keller, A.; Sampat, S.; Roslyak, O.; Arefin, A.; Hanson, C.; Casson, J.; Desireddy, A.; Ghosh, Y.; Piryatinski, A.; et al. Plasmonic Giant Quantum Dots: Hybrid Nanostructures for Truly Simultaneous Optical Imaging, Photothermal Effect and Thermometry. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6, 2224$-$2236.
Ratchford, D.; Shafiei, F.; Kim, S.; Gray, S. K.; Li, X. Manipulating Coupling between a Single Semiconductor Quantum Dot and Single Gold Nanoparticle. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 1049$-$1054.
Shimizu, K.; Neuhauser, R.; Leatherdale, C.; Empedocles, S.; Woo, W.; Bawendi, M. Blinking Statistics in Single Semiconductor Nanocrystal Quantum Dots. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2001, 63, 205316.
Shimizu, K. T.; Woo, W. K.; Fisher, B. R.; Eisler, H. J.; Bawendi, M. G. Surface-Enhanced Emission from Single Semicon- ductor Nanocrystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 117401.
Senyuk, B.; Evans, J. S.; Ackerman, P. J.; Lee, T.; Manna, P.; Vigderman, L.; Zubarev, E. R.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Smalyukh, I. I. Shape-Dependent Oriented Trapping and Scaffolding of Plasmonic Nanoparticles by Topological Defects for Self-Assembly of Colloidal Dimers in Liquid Crystals. Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 955$-$963.
Mundoor, H.; Lee, T.; Gann, D. G.; Ackerman, P. J.; Senyuk, B.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Smalyukh, I. I. Optically and Elastically Assembled Plasmonic Nanoantennae for Spatially Resolved Characterization of Chemical Composition in Soft Matter Systems Using Surface Enhanced Spontaneous and Stimulated Raman Scattering. J. Appl. Phys. 2014, 116, 063511.
Senyuk, B.; Glugla, D.; Smalyukh, I. I. Rotational and Trans- lational Diffusion of Anisotropic Gold Nanoparticles in Liquid Crystals Controlled by Varying Surface Anchoring. Phys. Rev. E 2013, 88, 062507.
Smith, E. R.; Luther, J. M.; Johnson, J. C. Ultrafast Electronic Delocalization in CdSe/CdS Quantum Rod Heterostruc- tures. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 4923$-$4931.
Talapin, D. V.; Koeppe, R.; Götzinger, S.; Kornowski, A.; Lupton, J.M.; Rogach, A. L.; Benson, O.; Feldmann, J.;Weller, H. Highly Emissive Colloidal CdSe/CdS Heterostructures of Mixed Dimensionality. Nano Lett. 2003, 3,1677$-$1681.
Smalyukh, I. I.; Lansac, Y.; Clark, N. A.; Trivedi, R. P. Three-Dimensional Structure and Multistable Optical Switching of Triple-Twisted Particle-like Excitations in Anisotropic Fluids. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 139$-$145.
Ackerman, P. J.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Smalyukh, I. I. Self-Assembly and Electrostriction of Arrays and Chains of Hopfion Particles in Chiral Liquid Crystals. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6012.
Ashkin, A.; Dziedzic, J. M.; Bjorkholm, J. E.; Chu, S. Observa- tion of a Single-Beam Gradient Force Optical Trap for Dielectric Particles. Opt. Lett. 1986, 11, 288$-$290.
Wang, X.; Miller, D. S.; Bukusoglu, E.; de Pablo, J. J.; Abbott, N. L. Topological Defects in Liquid Crystals as Templates for Molecular Self-Assembly. Nat. Mater. 2015, DOI: 10.1038/nmat4421.
Crouch, C. H.; Sauter, O.; Wu, X.; Purcell, R.; Querner, C.; Drndic, M.; Pelton, M. Facts and Artifacts in the Blinking Statistics of Semiconductor Nanocrystals. Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 1692$-$1698.
Kuno, M.; Fromm, D. P.; Hamann, H. F.; Gallagher, A.; Nesbitt, D. J. Nonexponential “blinking" Kinetics of Single CdSe Quantum Dots: A Universal Power Law Behavior. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 3117, 3117$-$3120.
Schmidt, R.; Krasselt, C.; Göhler, C.; Von Borczyskowski, C. The Fluorescence Intermittency for Quantum Dots Is Not Power-Law Distributed: A Luminescence Intensity Resolved Approach. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 3506$-$3521.
Song, J.; Atay, T.; Shi, S.; Urabe, H.; Nurmikko, A. V. Large Enhancement of Fluorescence Efficiency from CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dots Induced by Resonant Coupling to Spatially Controlled Surface Plasmons. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1557$-$1561.
Anger, P.; Bharadwaj, P.; Novotny, L. Enhancement and Quenching of Single-Molecule Fluorescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 113002.
Govorov, A. O.; Bryant, G. W.; Zhang, W.; Skeini, T.; Lee, J.; Kotov, N. A.; Slocik, J. M.; Naik, R. R. Exciton-Plasmon Interaction and Hybrid Excitons in Semiconductor-Metal Nanoparticle Assemblies. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 984$-$994.
K[ü]{}hn, S.; Håkanson, U.; Rogobete, L.; Sandoghdar, V. Enhancement of Single-Molecule Fluorescence Using a Gold Nanoparticle as an Optical Nanoantenna. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 017402.
Wu, X.-W.; Gong, M.; Dong, C.-H.; Cui, J.-M.; Yang, Y.; Sun, F.-W.; Guo, G.-C.; Han, Z.-F. Anti-Bunching and Luminescence Blinking Suppression from Plasmon-Interacted Single CdSe/ZnS QuantumDot. Opt. Express 2010, 18, 6340$-$6346.
Cohen-Hoshen, E.; Bryant, G. W.; Pinkas, I.; Sperling, J.; Bar-joseph, I. Exciton$-$Plasmon Interactions in Quantum Dot$-$Gold Nanoparticle Structures. Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 4260$-$4264.
Liu, N.; Prall, B. S.; Klimov, V. I. Hybrid Gold/Silica/ Nanocrystal-Quantum-Dot Superstructures: Synthesis and Analysis of Semiconductor-Metal Interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 15362$-$15363.
Khanal, B. P.; Pandey, A.; Li, L.; Lin, Q.; Bae, W. K.; Luo, H.; Klimov, V. I.; Pietryga, J. M. Generalized Synthesis of Hybrid Metal-Semiconductor Nanostructures Tunable from the Visible to the Infrared. ACS Nano 2012, 6, 3832$-$3840.
Evans, J. S.; Ackerman, P. J.; Broer, D. J.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Smalyukh, I. I. Optical Generation, Templating, and Polymerization of Three-Dimensional Arrays of Liquid-Crystal Defects Decorated by Plasmonic Nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. E 2013, 87, 032503.
Ackerman, P. J.; Qi, Z.; Smalyukh, I. I. Optical Generation of Crystalline, Quasicrystalline, and Arbitrary Arrays of Torons in Confined Cholesteric Liquid Crystals for Patterning of Optical Vortices in Laser Beams. Phys. Rev. E 2012, 86, 021703.
Liu, Q.; Yuan, Y.; Smalyukh, I. I. Electrically and Optically Tunable Plasmonic Guest-Host Liquid Crystals with Long-Range Ordered Nanoparticles. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 4071$-$4077.
Watkins, L. P.; Yang, H. Detection of Intensity Change Points in Time-Resolved Single-Molecule Measurements. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 617$-$628.
Plasmon$-$Exciton Interactions Probed Using Spatial Coentrapment of Nanoparticles by Topological Singularities: Supplementary material {#plasmonexitonSI}
======================================================================================================================================
1. Change point analysis.
We use a change point detection algorithm to locate potential fluorescence intensity change points in the fluorescence trajectories obtained for the blinking QRs [@Schmidt2014]. This is a rigorous and quantitative method based on a standardized weighted generalized likelihood ratio test for detection of discrete intensity jumps, known as change points, and binary recursion to locate all potential change points [@Watkins2005]. The realization of this method was implemented using home-made Matlab-based software. Detected photons will be Poisson distributed and the probability that there is a change point in the data can be compared to the probability there is not a change point. A confidence level and region for all of the possible change points can be assigned. Once change points for a given confidence level are located, intensity values are assigned to regions of the trajectory without intensity changes. Data collected from NIDAQ hardware at a sample rate of 2M samples per second were recorded. The raw (un-binned) data were either integrated over time to generate bin values for the threshold method or used in raw form for statistical change point detection analysis. The main benefit of the change point detection is to remove any artifacts of time resolution artificially imposed by binning the raw data.
2. Details of experimental setup and procedures.
Optical manipulation and video microscopy of nanoparticles and torons and the experimental studies of photoluminescence were performed with setups built around inverted microscope IX81 (Olympus). An optical trapping system based on a diode laser source operating at a wavelength of 1064 nm (from LaserGlow) and integrated with laser illumination (diode laser source operating at a wavelength of 473 nm from LaserGlow). Fluorescence signal was detected with an Avalanche photo diode (APD, Picoquant). A fluorescence cube was used with a band-pass “clean up” filter (notch center/width 480/20 nm) for laser input, a dichroic mirror (long pass 495) for separating the illumination from fluorescence signal and further filtered by a band-pass filter (notch center/width 610/75 nm) along the detection path. A large (100 $\mu$m) confocal pinhole and aspheric lens were used to select and focus fluorescence signal to the active area of the APD. Detected photons were counted using a data acquisition board (NIDAQ-6363, National Instruments) and homemade Matlab software. A pulsed excitation source from a Ti:Sapphire oscillator (Chameleon Ultra II, Coherent, 140 fs, 80 MHz tuned to 950 nm) and detection of fluorescence through a side imaging port was limited by a confocal pinhole, filtered by a band-pass filter (notch center/width 610/75) and focused by an aspheric lens to the active area of an APD connected to photon counting hardware (SPC-130, Becker $\&$ Hickl GmbH) for lifetime measurements. We utilized a 100x oil immersion objective with adjustable numerical aperture (NA) of 0.6$-$1.3 with an electron multiplying charge coupled device (EMCCD, iXon3 888, Andor Technology) or a CCD camera (Flea, PointGrey) at a rate of 60 fps for imaging.
3. Details of numerical modeling of equilibrium director structures.
We use numerical minimization of free energy to obtain the equilibrium configurations of the director field $\bf{N}(\bf{r})$ in confined chiral nematic LCs. The 3D toron structures are modeled based on the minimization of bulk Frank-Oseen elastic free energy $F$ assuming infinitely strong vertical surface boundary conditions and initial conditions of a loop of double twist.
$$\begin{gathered}
F_{elastic} = \frac{K_{11}}{2}(\nabla \cdot \mathbf n)^2+\frac{K_{22}}{2}(\mathbf n \cdot \nabla \times \mathbf n \pm \frac{2\pi}{p})^2+\frac{K_{33}}{2}(\mathbf n \times \nabla \times \mathbf n)^2-K_{24}\nabla \cdot (\mathbf n (\nabla \cdot \mathbf n) + \mathbf n \times \nabla \times \mathbf n)
\label{eq:fePESI}\end{gathered}$$
Where $K_{11}$, $K_{22}$, $K_{33}$, and $K_{24}$ are elastic constants describing splay, twist, bend and saddle splay deformations, respectively. The saddle-splay constant $K_{24}$ is difficult to measure experimentally [@Polak1994; @Anderson1999]. We assume $K_{22}=K_{24}$, in agreement with previous studies [@Polak1994; @Anderson1999; @Smalyukh2010]. Through numerical modeling, we find that torons in cells with thickness $d$ in micrometer range are ground-state structures for $d/p \approx 1$ even when this term is not taken into account (at $K_{24}=0$), although taking $K_{22}=K_{24}$ further assists to stabilize these skyrmionic field configurations with point defects. We therefore set $K_{22}=K_{24}$ while using all other experimentally measured constants of the used liquid crystal (Table 1). To find the equilibrium director field, minimization of the free energy is computed with a relaxation method [@Anderson1999]. The equilibrium state of $\bf{N}(\bf{r})$ have functional derivatives of the free energy $\delta F/\delta n_i$, where $n_i$ is the projection of the director $\bf{N}(\bf{r})$ onto the $i$-axis ($i$= 1(x), 2(y), 3(z)). From a numerical point of view, the spatial derivatives of $\bf{N}(\bf{r})$ are computed using the $2^{nd}$ order finite difference scheme in a volume broken up into a rectangular computational grid. Periodic boundary conditions are applied along the $\hat x$- and $\hat y$-directions while fixed vertical boundary condition are used along the $\hat z$-direction. At each time step $\delta t$, $\delta F/\delta n_i$ and the resulting elementary displacement $\delta n_i$ defined as $\delta n_i=-\Delta t\frac{\delta F}{\delta n_i}$ are computed. The maximum stable time step used in the relaxation routine is determined as $\Delta t=\frac{min(h_i)}{2max(K)}$, where $min(h_i)$ is the smallest computational grid spacing and $max(K)$ is the largest elastic constant. Steady state is determined through monitoring the change with respect to time of the spatially averaged functional derivative. When this value asymptotically approaches zero, the system is assumed to be in equilibrium. The discretization is done on a large grid $(103 \times 103 \times 52)$, which is important to assure that the minimum-energy $\bf{N}(\bf{r})$ is indeed a structure localized in space in equilibrium with the surrounding untwisted LC and that the periodic boundary conditions do not introduce artifacts affecting stability. Using grid spacing of $h_x = h_y = h_z = 0.15$ $\mu$m and 52 grid points across the cell gives sample thickness $d = 7.80$ $\mu$m, comparable to that used in experiments. All presented simulations have been computed for $d/p = 0.9$. The free energy value was calculated using eq. \[eq:fePESI\] and the second order centered finite difference scheme for each point within the volume slice. Plotting the free energy density of slices of 3D simulation data was achieved using Matlab’s built in contour function, obtaining the elastic free energy landscapes such as the one shown in Fig. \[peFigure1\]e for the vertical cross-section and in the supporting figure \[peFigure1SI\] for the lateral cross-section containing the hyperbolic point defect.
Table 1: Material parameters of the nematic 5CB host used in computer simulations.\
LC$\backslash$Properties $K_{11},pN$ $K_{22},pN$ $K_{33},pN$ $K_{24},pN$
-------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
5CB 6.4 3.0 10.0 3.0
![Computer simulated director structure within an in-plane cross-section zoomed into and passing through a point singularity of a toron, overlaid on the plot of the total elastic free energy density shown using a corresponding color scheme provided in the right-side inset.[]{data-label="peFigure1SI"}](peFigure1SI.png){width="30.00000%"}
[00]{}
Polak, R. D.; Crawford, G. P.; Kostival, B. C.; Doane, J. W.; Umer, S. Optical Determination of the Saddle-Splay Elastic Constant K24 in Nematic Liquid Crystals. Phys. Rev. E 1994, 49.
Anderson, J.; Watson, P. E.; Bos, P. J. LC3D: Liquid Crystal Display 3-D Director Simulation Software and Technology Guide; Artech House: Boston, Mass., 2001.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Massive multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO) enables significant gains in spectral efficiency and link reliability compared to conventional small-scale MIMO technology. Furthermore, linear precoders, e.g., using zero forcing or Wiener filter (WF) precoding, are sufficient to achieve excellent error-rate performance in the massive MU-MIMO downlink. However, these methods necessitate centralized processing at the base-station (BS), which causes (i) excessively high interconnect and chip input/output data rates, and (ii) high implementation complexity. We propose two feedforward architectures and corresponding decentralized WF precoders that parallelize precoding across multiple computing fabrics, effectively mitigating the issues of centralized approaches. To demonstrate the efficacy of our decentralized precoders, we provide implementation results on a multi-GPU system, which show that our solutions achieve throughputs in the Gbit/s regime while achieving (near-)optimal error-rate performance in the massive MU-MIMO downlink.'
author:
- |
\
[^1]
bibliography:
- 'MIMO.bib'
title: 'Feedforward Architectures for Decentralized Precoding in Massive MU-MIMO Systems'
---
Introduction
============
Massive multi-user (MU) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) will be among the core technologies of fifth-generation (5G) cellular wireless systems [@5gbe]. The key idea of this technology is to equip the infrastructure base-stations (BSs) with hundreds to thousands of antenna elements while serving tens of user equipments (UEs) at the same time and in the same frequency band. The fine-grained nature of beamforming enabled by massive MU-MIMO antenna arrays and coherent transmission yields significantly improved spectral efficiency, coverage, and range compared to that of traditional, small-scale multi-antenna wireless systems [@JH_13; @mimo_overview]. Unfortunately, the advantages of massive MU-MIMO come at the cost of significant practical implementation challenges, which must be solved to realize the gains of this technology in practice.
Interconnect Bandwidth and Complexity Bottlenecks
-------------------------------------------------
As discussed in [@puglielli2015scalable; @Li_JETCAS17; @quantizeMM; @erikdbp], the excessively high amount of data that must be transferred between the baseband processing unit and the antenna array is among the most critical challenges. For example, the raw baseband data rates, from and to the radio-frequency (RF) chains, of a $128$ antenna massive MU-MIMO system with $10$bit digital-to-analog converters (DACs) for a bandwidth of $40$MHz exceed $200$Gbit/s, which not only poses significant challenges for existing interconnect technology, such as the Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) [@cpri], but also for the input/output (I/O) interfaces of existing computing fabrics, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field-programable gate arrays (FPGAs), or graphics processing units (GPUs). While maximum ratio transmission (MRT) enables fully distributed channel estimation (CHEST) and beamforming in the downlink (BS transmits to the UEs), which alleviates the bandwidth and I/O bottlenecks, MRT is unable to fully exploit the spectral-efficiency advantages of massive MU-MIMO [@JH_13]. More sophisticated precoding strategies, such as zero-forcing (ZF) or Wiener filter (WF) precoding [@wfprecoding], enable near-optimal spectral efficiency. However, such precoding methods require centralized baseband processing which results in high interconnect bandwidth, I/O data rates, and complexity [@JH_13].
Decentralized Baseband Processing
---------------------------------
To mitigate the bandwidth and complexity bottlenecks of centralized baseband processing algorithms, a variety of solutions have been proposed recently. For example, existing massive MU-MIMO testbeds parallelize the computations across orthogonal subcarriers [@bigstation; @lund]. Parallelization across subcarriers, however, exhibits dependence between the subcarriers and all antenna elements, which prevents its straightforward use for arrays with thousands of antennas. More recently, the papers [@Li_Asilomar_16; @Li_GlobalSIP_16] proposed *decentralized baseband processing* (DBP), an approach that decentralizes the key computations required for baseband processing in massive MU-MIMO systems in order to alleviate the bandwidth and complexity bottlenecks. The idea of DBP is to partition the antenna array into clusters, each associated with separate RF circuitry and processing fabrics. Each cluster then only communicates with the associated processing fabrics that carry out (de-)modulation, channel estimation, data detection, and precoding, while only exchanging a small amount of consensus information among the clusters. However, as it has been demonstrated with real-world implementations on GPU clusters in [@Li_JETCAS17], the exchange of consensus information among the clusters negatively affects the processing latency and throughput. As an effective remedy, reference [@isit17] proposed the use of *feedforward architectures* for equalization the uplink (UEs transmit to BS). Such architectures have, up to this point, not been studied for the downlink.
Contributions
-------------
We propose two new feedforward architectures and corresponding algorithms for decentralized precoding in the massive MU-MIMO downlink. Both architectures are compatible with the ones proposed for the uplink in [@isit17] and prevent the repeated exchange of consensus information to effectively reduce latency and throughput. For both architectures, we propose linear precoding algorithms that build upon the WF precoder, which minimizes the mean-square error (MSE) at the UE side. We show that the WF precoder for the *partially decentralized* (PD) architecture achieves the same performance as the centralized WF precoder; the WF precoder for the *fully decentralized* (FD) architecture further reduces the interconnect bandwidth at a small error-rate performance loss. We demonstrate the efficacy of our feedforward architectures and precoding algorithms using real-world implementations on a multi graphics processing unit (GPU) system. Our implementation results reveal that decentralized precoding with feedforward architectures reaches throughputs in the Gb/s regime on a multi-GPU system while achieving (near-)optimal error-rate performance.
Notation
--------
Lowercase and uppercase boldface letters denote column vectors and matrices, respectively. The transpose and Hermitian transpose of the matrix $\bA$ are dentoed by $\bA^T$ and $\bA^H$, respectively. The $M\times M$ identity matrix is denoted by $\bI_M$. We use $\tr(\bA)$ to denote the trace of the matrix $\bA$ and $\Ex{\bma}{\cdot}$ to denote expectation with respect to the random vector $\bma$.
System Model and Centralized Precoding
======================================
We now introduce the system model and discuss the basics of centralized precoding for massive MU-MIMO systems.
Downlink System Model
---------------------
We focus on the massive MU-MIMO downlink. The system consists of a base-station (BS) with $B$ antennas serving $U$ single-antenna user-equipments (UEs) in the same time-frequency resource. We consider a block-fading and narrowband[^2] scenario modeled as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:downlinkmodel}
\bmy[k] = \bH \bmx[k] + \bmn[k], \quad k=1,\ldots,K.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the $U$-dimensional vector $\bmy[k]=\big[\, y_1[k],\ldots,y_U[k]\big]^T$ contains the signals received at all $U$ UEs with $y_u[k]\in\complexset$ corresponding to the signal received at UE $u$ in time slot $k$. The matrix $\bH\in\complexset^{U\times B}$ represents the downlink MIMO channel and is assumed to remain constant for $K$ time slots. The vector $\bmn[k]\in\complexset^U$ models additive noise and is assumed to be i.i.d. circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian with variance $\No$ per complex entry. We assume the channel matrix $\bH$ and noise variance $\No$ to be known perfectly at the BS. The precoded vector $\bmx[k]\in\complexset^B$ at time slot $k$ is given by the function $$\begin{aligned}
\bmx[k]=\setP(\bms[k],\bH,\No,\rho^2),\end{aligned}$$ which depends on transmit signal vector $\bms[k]\in\setO^U$, where $\setO$ is the constellation set (e.g., 64-QAM), the channel matrix $\bH$, the noise variance $\No$, and the power constraint $\rho^2$. The precoded vector is assumed to satisfy the average power constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:powerconstraint}
\Ex{\bms}{\|\bmx[k]\|^2}\leq \rho^2, \quad k=1,\ldots,K,\end{aligned}$$ and the vector $\bms[k]=\big[s_1[k],\ldots,s_U[k]\big]^T$ contains the information symbols $s_u[k]\in\setO$ to be transmitted to UE $u$ in time slot $k$. In what follows, we omit the time-slot index $k$.
Linear Wiener Filter Precoding {#sec:centralizedprecoding}
------------------------------
Since the UEs are unable to perform joint signal processing, the BS has to precode the information symbols with the goal of mitigating multi-user interference (MUI). The literature describes numerous optimization criteria for precoding, such as sum-rate throughput or error probability [@precodingsurvey]. In what follows, we focus on linear precoders of the form $\bmx=\bP\bms$ that minimize the mean-square error (MSE) between the estimated symbol vector $\hat\bms$ and the transmit signal vector $\bms$. Since coherent transmission with a multi-antenna BS leads to an array gain, we assume that the UEs are able to scales the received signals $y_u$, $u=1,\ldots,U$, by a precoding factor $\beta_u\in\complexset$, i.e., the UEs compute symbol estimates as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat s_u = \beta_u y_u.\end{aligned}$$ While each UE $u$ would able to estimate their own precoding factor $\beta_u$, we design precoders that minimize the MSE for a joint[^3] precoding factor $\beta\in\complexset$ defined as [@wfprecoding] $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{MSE} & = \Ex{\bms,\bmn}{\|\bms-\hat\bms\|^2} = \Ex{\bms,\bmn}{\|\bms-\beta\bmy\|^2} \\
& = \Ex{\bms}{\|\bms-\beta\bH\bmx\|^2} + |\beta|^2 U \No.\end{aligned}$$ The resulting MSE-optimal linear precoding matrix $\bP\in\complexset^{B\times U}$ can be designed by solving the following optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\{\bP^\text{WD},\beta^\text{WF}\} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{\bP,\beta}{\text{minimize}} & \Ex{\bms}{\|\bms-\beta\bH\bP\bms\|^2} + \beta^2 U \No \\
\text{subject to} & \Ex{\bms}{\|\bmx\|^2} \leq \rho^2.
\end{array}\right. \notag \\[-0.55cm]
\label{sec:WFproblem}\end{aligned}$$ The solution to this optimization problem is known as the Wiener filter (WF) precoder [@wfprecoding] and is summarized by the following result; a short proof is given in .
\[thm:WFprecoder\] The Wiener filter (WF) precoding matrix $\bP^\text{WF}$ is given by $\bP^\text{WF} = \frac{1}{\beta^\text{WF}}\bQ^\text{WF}$, where we define the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:originalQmatrix}
\bQ^\text{WF} = \left(\bH^H\bH + \kappa^\text{WF} \bI_B \right)^{-1}\bH^H.\end{aligned}$$ The associated regularization parameter $\kappa^\text{WF}$ and precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:precodingfactor}
\kappa^\text{WF} = \frac{U\No}{\rho^2} \quad \text{and} \quad \beta^\text{WF} = \sqrt{\frac{\tr(\bQ^H\bQ) \Es}{\rho^2}}.\end{aligned}$$
A straightforward computation of the precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$ in involves the inversion of a $B\times B$ matrix followed by a number of matrix-matrix multiplications. We propose a computationally-efficient alternative that can be implemented efficiently given the $U\times U$ *whitening matrix* $\bA^{-1}$ has been precomputed; a proof is given in .
\[lem:precodingfactor\] The precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$ of the WF precoder in can be computed efficiently as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beta}
\beta^\text{WF} = \sqrt{\frac{\Es}{\rho^2}\! \left(\tr\left( \bA^{-1} \right) - \kappa^\text{WF} \|\bA^{-1}\|_F^2 \right)}. \end{aligned}$$
Decentralized Precoding
========================
We next propose two decentralized precoding schemes that rely on feedforward architectures and linear WF precoding.
System Model for Decentralized Precoding
----------------------------------------
We now extend the feedforward architecture put forward in [@isit17] for the uplink by the capability to perform downlink precoding. To this end, we partition the BS antenna array into $C\geq1$ clusters, each associated with $B_c=w_cB\in\mathbb{N}^+$ BS antennas so that $w_c\in (0,1]$ and $\sum_{c=1}^C w_c = 1$. Each cluster contains local RF circuitry and requires access to only local channel state information (CSI) acquired in the uplink via reciprocity. By omitting the time-slot index $k$, we can rewrite the downlink system model in as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:decentralizeddownlinkmodel}
\bmy = \sum_{c=1}^C \bH_c \bmx_c + \bmn, \end{aligned}$$ where $\bH=\big[\bH_1,\ldots,\bH_C\big]$ with $\bH_c=\complexset^{U\times B_c}$ and $\bmx^T=\big[\bmx_1^T,\ldots,\bmx_C^T\big]$ with $\bmx_c\in\complexset^{B_c}$, we see that each cluster $c=1,\ldots,C$ has to generate a precoding vector $\bmx_c$ with information of the per-cluster channel matrix $\bH_c$, the noise variance $\No$, the power constraint $\rho^2$, and the transmit symbol vector $\bms$, i.e., the precoding functions are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:precodingfunctiondecentralized}
\bmx_c=\setP_c(\bms,\bH_c,\No,\rho^2), \quad c=1,\ldots,C.\end{aligned}$$ Since each of these functions only depends on local CSI contained in $\bH_c$, the exchange of CSI is reduced significantly—the vector $\bms$ is the only signal that must be broadcast to all clusters. We now present two distinct feedforward architectures that perform decentralized precoding, differing in the amount of CSI that must be exchanged during the training phase.
Partially-Decentralized WF Precoding
------------------------------------
The first feedforward architecture is illustrated in and called *partially decentralized WF (PD-WF) architecture*. The operating principle can be derived directly from , which results in the precoding rule $$\begin{aligned}
\bmx = \frac{1}{\beta^\text{WF}}\bH^H \bA^{-1}\bms.\end{aligned}$$ The idea of PD-WF precoding is to first whiten the transmit vector $\bms$ at a centralized *whitening node* as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\bmz = \frac{1}{\beta^\text{WF}}\bA^{-1}\bms.\end{aligned}$$ The whitened transmit vector $\bmz$ is then transmitted to each cluster, which independently compute $\bmx_c=\bH^H_c\bmz$. Clearly, this PD-WF architecture requires the whitening matrix $\bA^{-1}$ as well as the precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$ to be calculated at the centralized whitening node—both of these quantities require the computation of the Gram matrix $\bG$. To compute this matrix in an decentralized architecture, we follow the approach for PD equalization put forward in [@wfprecoding], where each cluster $c=1,\ldots,C$, first computes the local Gram matrix $\bG_c=\bH_c\bH_c^H$ after estimating the channel in the uplink phase, followed by computing the (centralized) Gram matrix $\bG=\sum_{c=1}^C\bG_c$ in a feedforward adder tree; see the blue feedback path in . The centralized whitening node then computes the whitening matrix $\bA^{-1}$ and the precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$ as detailed in . Since we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{c=1}^C \bH_c \bmx_c = \sum_{c=1}^C \bH_c \bH^H_c \bA^{-1}\bms = \bG \bA^{-1}\bms = \bH\bP^\text{WF} \bms,\end{aligned}$$ the PD-WF architecture implements exactly the centralized WF precoder from but in a decentralized fashion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a) $B=256$, $B_c=128$, $C=2$ \(b) $B=256$, $B_c=64$, $C=4$ \(c) $B=256$, $B_c=32$, $C=8$
{width="\spacers\columnwidth"} {width="\spacers\columnwidth"} {width="\spacers\columnwidth"}
PD-WF: 0.879ms, 0.979Gb/s PD-WF: 0.678ms / 1.270Gb/s PD-WF: 0.607ms / 1.418Gb/s
FD-WF: 0.789ms, 1.091Gb/s FD-WF: 0.571ms / 1.507Gb/s FD-WF: 0.472ms / 1.824Gb/s
\[0.4cm\] (d) $B=64$, $B_c=32$, $C=2$ \(e) $B=128$, $B_c=32$, $C=4$ \(f) $B=256$, $B_c=32$, $C=8$
{width="\spacers\columnwidth"} {width="\spacers\columnwidth"} {width="\spacers\columnwidth"}
PD-WF: 0.532ms / 1.618Gbps PD-WF: 0.559ms / 1.540Gbps PD-WF: 0.607ms / 1.418Gbps
FD-WF: 0.441ms / 1.952Gbps FD-WF: 0.451ms / 1.909Gbps FD-WF: 0.472ms / 1.824Gbps
\[0.15cm\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully-Decentralized WF Precoding
--------------------------------
The second feedforward architecture, called *fully decentralized WF (FD-WF) architecture*, is illustrated in and avoids transmitting partial Gram matrices to the centralized whitening node. The key idea of this architecture is to first broadcast the transmit vector $\bms$ to each cluster, and then compute the local precoding vector as follows $\bmx_c=\bP_c\bms$. In order to adhere to the (total) power constraint in , we have to define a per-cluster power constraint $\Ex{}{\|\bmx_c\|^2} \leq
\rho_c^2$ for which $\sum_{c=1}^C \rho^2_c = \rho^2$. In what follows, we allocate the same amount of power[^4] to each cluster, i.e., $\rho_c^2=\rho^2/C$, which results in the following precoder carried out at each cluster $$\begin{aligned}
\bmx_c = \sqrt{\frac{\rho_c^2}{\tr(\bQ_c^H\bQ_c)\Es}} \bQ_c \bms.\end{aligned}$$ The remaining piece is to identify a suitable choice of the regularization parameters $\kappa_c$ that are used to calculate the matrices $\bQ_c$. A straightforward way would be to assume that each cluster operates independently and to set the regularization parameter to $U\No/\rho^2_c$. In practice, however, it turns out that this choice of the regularization parameter is overly pessimistic. Since computing an optimal set of regularization parameters is difficult in the decentralized scenario, we simply set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:regularization}
\kappa_c = \tau_c \frac{U\No}{\rho^2_c}, \quad c=1,\ldots,C,\end{aligned}$$ and tune the parameters $\tau_c\in[0,\infty)$ for best error-rate performance via numerical simulations. Specifically, we use $$\begin{aligned}
\bQ_c = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\bH^H_c\bH_c + \kappa_c \bI_{B_c} \right)^{-1}\bH^H_c & \text{if }B_c<U\\
\bH^H_c\left(\bH_c\bH^H_c + \kappa_c\bI_U \right)^{-1} & \text{if } B_c\geq U,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ which further reduces the computational complexity depending on the number of antennas per cluster.
Simulation Results {#sec:ber}
------------------
We now show uncoded bit error-rate (BER) simulation results for a Rayleigh fading massive MU-MIMO system with 64-QAM. Figs. \[fig:berandtp\] (a), (b), (c) show the BER for $B=256$ BS antennas, with varying cluster sizes $B_c=128,64,32$, and number of clusters $C=2,4,8$. Figs. \[fig:berandtp\] (d), (e), (f) show the BER for a fixed cluster size $B_c=32$, with a varying number of BS antennas $B=64,128,256$, and number of clusters $C=2,4,8$. For each antenna configuration, we compare the performance of the proposed decentralized solutions PD-WF and FD-WF, as well as existing methods including centralized WF precoding, fully-distributed MRT, and the fully-decentralized ADMM-based WF precoder from [@Li_JETCAS17].
Evidently, PD-WF achieves the same BER as the centralized WF precoder for all antenna configurations. In contrast, FD-WF suffers a moderate BER loss if $B_c$ is small. To minimize the performance loss of FD-WF precoding, we have tuned the parameter $\tau_c$ in . Concretely, we found that $\tau_c=0.125$ performs well for a broad range of antenna and cluster configurations; a corresponding theoretical analysis is left for future work. In addition, we see that the fully decentralized ADMM-based WF precoder proposed in [@Li_JETCAS17] is able to outperform FD-WF precoding but requires multiple iterations of consensus exchange (we use two ADMM iterations) that dramatically reduces the throughput due to the typically high interconnect latency between antenna clusters; see [@Li_JETCAS17] for the details.
Multi-GPU Implementation {#sec:multigpu}
========================
As a proof-of-concept, we now present a multi-GPU implementation of PD-WF and FD-WF precoding, and show corresponding throughput and latency results.
System Architecture
-------------------
We implemented PD-WF and FD-WF precoding on an Nvidia DGX-1 multi-GPU system [@dgx], as illustrated in . The architecture consists of two $2$-core Intel Xeon E5-2698 v4 CPUs and eight Tesla V100 Volta GPUs with $300$GB/s bi-directional NvLink GPU-to-GPU communication links. Each Tesla V100 GPU contains $5120$ CUDA cores with 16GB high bandwidth memory (HBM). For PD-WF and FD-WF precoding, we use the message passing interface (MPI) library OpenMPI to generate a total of $C$ processes in the multi-GPU system, where each process controls a GPU for accelerating the decentralized local workload using CUDA [@cuda] with CUDA v9.1. While FD-WF only requires broadcasting of transmit signals $\mathbf{s}[k]$ across GPUs prior to the precoding computations, PD-WF necessitates gathering of the local Gram matrices from all GPUs via sum reduction at the centralized whitening unit (in the master GPU as shown in ), and broadcasting of the whitened vectors $\mathbf{z}[k]$. These message passing operations are implemented using the NVIDIA Collective Communications Library (NCCL)[@nccl] v2.1 that builds on MPI for high efficiency over NvLink.
Implementation Details
----------------------
To increase the throughput on the multi-GPU system, we need to feed the GPU a sufficient amount of workloads to fully exploit the available resources. In what follows, we assume the downlink transmission with orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) with $N_\text{sc}$ subcarriers. Each OFDM subcarrier corresponds to an independent narrowband block-fading downlink system as in , where we assume that the channel remains constant across $K$ OFDM symbols. The vector $\mathbf{s}^w[k]$ indicates the transmit vector $\mathbf{s}[k]$ on subcarrier $w$ in time slot $k$. In our implementations, we aggregate the precoding workloads for $K$ OFDM symbols, each including $N_\text{sc}$ subcarriers, and process them together in parallel to improve the GPU occupancy and throughput. In what follows, we omit the superscript $^w$ as well as the OFDM symbol index $k$.
![Overview of the experimental platform with up to eight Tesla Volta GPUs and high speed NvLink GPU-to-GPU interconnect [@dgx]. The upper-left GPU is the master GPU that collects results from other GPUs, performs centralized computations for PD-WF, and broadcasts the transmit vectors $\mathbf{s}[k]$ for FD-WF or the whitened vectors $\mathbf{z}[k]$ for PD-WF to other GPUs.[]{data-label="fig:sys_arch"}](./figs/sys_arch.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
### PD-WF Implementation
For PD-WF, we invoke $C$ MPI processes that control $C$ GPUs, and each process initializes computation of the local Gram matrix $\mathbf{G}_c$ using the local channel $\mathbf{H}_c$ on a certain GPU. Within each GPU, we calculate $N_\text{sc}$ such $\mathbf{G}_c$ matrices to achieve high throughput. These matrix multiplications can be efficiently implemented using the *cuBLAS* [@cublas] library; specifically, we use the `cublasCgemmBatched` function for complex-valued floating-point arithmetic. Once all local $\mathbf{G}_c$ matrices have been computed, we gather $\mathbf{G}_c$ from all $C$ GPUs to a reduced sum (resulting in the global Gram matrix $\mathbf{G}$) at the master GPU using the NCCL `ncclReduce` function. The NCCL library leverages *CUDA-aware MPI* [@cudaaware] for direct GPU-to-GPU memory copy over high-speed NvLink interconnect.
We compute $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{G}+\kappa^{\text{WF}}\mathbf{I}_U$ for $N_\text{sc}$ subcarriers (corresponding to a given OFDM symbol $k$) at the master GPU in parallel. We then invert this matrix using the *cuBLAS* `cublasCgetrfBatched` Cholesky decomposition, followed by `cublasCgetriBatched` that implements forward and backward substitution operations to obtain $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$. Since the local channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_c$ is assumed to remain constant for $K$ OFDM symbols, we store $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ for a given OFDM symbol $k$, and reuse this matrix for all $K$ OFDM symbols. To compute the whitened vector $\mathbf{z}=\frac{1}{\beta^{\text{WF}}}\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{s}$, we first multiply the transmit vector $\mathbf{s}$ with the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ using the `cublasCgemmBatched` function for a total of $N_\text{sc}\times K$ subcarriers. We then calculate the precoding factor $\beta^{\text{WF}}$. As shown in , $\beta^{\text{WF}}$ depends on $\tr(\mathbf{A}^{-1})$ and $\|\bA^{-1}\|_F^2$, which involve sum reduction operations across the diagonal entries or all entries of matrix $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$. To resolve such data dependencies efficiently, we design a customized kernel function to calculate $\beta^{\text{WF}}$, where we take advantage of fast local registers and shared memories for inter-thread communications. Specifically, we invoke this kernel with $N_\text{sc}$ thread-blocks to calculate $N_\text{sc}$ different $\beta^{\text{WF}}$ values in parallel. In each thread-block, we generate $U\times U$ threads to access each entry of the $U\times U$ matrix $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$, and perform inter-thread shuffle of local register values within a *warp* using *warp shuffle* [@warpshuffle], and inter-thread communication across different *warps* within this thread-block using shared memory, to realize the sum reductions required to compute $\tr(\mathbf{A}^{-1})$ and $\|\bA^{-1}\|_F^2$. Analogously to the computations for $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$, we can reuse the parameter $\beta^{\text{WF}}$ across $K$ OFDM symbols, and compute the whitened vector $\mathbf{z}$. For PD-WF, whitening happens at the master GPU in a centralized manner, and therefore we need to broadcast the whitened vector $\mathbf{z}$ to all GPUs using NCCL `ncclBcast`. We finally compute the local precoding vector $\mathbf{x}_c=\mathbf{H}^H_c\mathbf{z}$ by `cublasCgemmBatched` function for all $N_\text{sc}\times K$ subcarriers at each GPU in a decentralized fashion.
### FD-WF Implementation
For FD-WF, we use *cuBLAS* and customized kernels as for PD-WF in order to implement the local WF precoder corresponding to $\mathbf{B}_c$ BS antennas with the power constraint $\rho_c^2=\frac{\rho^2}{C}$. To invoke the FD-WF precoder, we broadcast the transmit vectors $\mathbf{s}$ to the $C$ MPI processes, each running a local WF precoder on a separate GPU to compute the local precoding vectors $\mathbf{x}_c$ in parallel.
Implementation Results
----------------------
shows the latency and throughput results of PD-WF and FD-WF measured on the multi-GPU system for various BS antenna configurations and $U=16$ UEs. For all configurations, we set $N_\text{sc}=1200$, $K=7$ corresponding to a slot-frame of 20 MHz LTE signal with OFDM and 64-QAM transmission.
In the top row of , we fix the number of BS antennas to $B=256$, and increase the number of clusters $C=2, 4, 8$ (and, hence, the number of used GPUs) while decreasing the cluster size $B_c=128, 64, 32$. By decreasing $B_c$, the throughput of PD-WF and FD-WF precoding increases as less local workload is processed in parallel. FD-WF achieves higher data rate than PD-WF, since FD-WF only requires to broadcast the transmit vector $\mathbf{s}$ which scales with $N_\text{sc}\times K \times U$, while PD-WF requires a higher amount of message passing, which includes (i) gathering of local Gram matrices $\mathbf{G}_c$ (scaling with $N_\text{sc}\times U\times U$) and (ii) broadcasting of whitened vector $\mathbf{z}$ (scaling with $N_\text{sc}\times K \times U$).
In the bottom row of , we fix the number of antennas per cluster to $B_c=32$, and increase $B=64, 128, 256$ by scaling the number of clusters $C=2, 4, 8$. We observe that the throughput only degrades slightly with increasing $B$ and $C$ for both PD-WF and FD-WF, indicating that the message-passing latency remains nearly constant; this is a result of the direct GPU-to-GPU gathering/broadcasting communications realized by NCCL. This observation also implies that we can increase the number of BS antennas with only a small loss in throughput using the proposed decentralized feedforward architecture. For all configurations show in , our designs achieve throughputs in the Gb/s regime with latencies below $1$ms. We also see that FD-WF outperforms PD-WF in terms of throughput due to the reduced amount of message passing, while PD-WF achieves superior error-rate performance.
Conclusions
===========
We have proposed two novel feedforward architectures and corresponding decentralized precoding algorithms based on the linear Wiener filter (WF) precoder. We have demonstrated that the partially-decentralized (PD) WF precoder achieves the error-rate performance of the centralized WF precoder, while significantly reducing the interconnect and chip input/output bandwidths. To further reduce the interconnect bandwidth, we have proposed a fully-decentralized (FD) WF precoder that incurs only a small error-rate performance loss compared to the PD-WF precoder. To showcase the efficiency and scalability of PD-WF and FD-WF to large antenna arrays, we have presented implementations on a multi-GPU system. Our results demonstrate that throughputs in the Gb/s regime at latencies below $1$ms are achievable. These results indicate that the proposed decentralized precoding are a solution to combat the interconnect and complexity bottlenecks while being able to fully exploit the spectral efficiency and link reliability advantages provided by massive MU-MIMO systems.
There are many avenues for future work. A theoretical analysis of the optimal regularization parameter $\tau_c$ for FD-WF precoding in is an open research question. Combining decentralized feedforward precoding with data detection as in [@isit17] may further reduce the processing latency and increase the throughput as a large number of quantities can be re-used between the uplink and downlink. The development and analysis of feedforward architectures for cell-free massive MU-MIMO as put forward in [@ngo2017cell] is part of ongoing work.
Proof of {#app:WFprecoderproof}
=========
The precoder resulting from is known as the Wiener filter (WF) precoder [@wfprecoding] and can be derived as follows. Let us first form the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\setL(\bP,\beta,\lambda) =\, & \Ex{\bms}{\|\bms-\beta\bH\bP\bms\|^2} + \beta^2 U \No \\
& + \lambda(\Ex{\bms}{\|\bmx\|^2} - \rho^2).\end{aligned}$$ We can now formulate the optimality conditions for $\bP$ and $\beta$ by using the Wirtinger derivative as follows. For the precoding matrix $\bP$, we have the following optimality condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta}{\delta \bP^H} \setL(\bP,\beta,\lambda) = \bZero \implies
\beta^2 \bH^H \bH \bP + \lambda\bP = \beta \bH^H. \label{eq:optcondP}\end{aligned}$$ For the precoding factor $\beta$, we compute $\frac{\delta}{\delta \beta^* } \setL(\setP,\beta,\lambda) = 0$ and obtain the following optimality condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \tr(\bP^H\bH^H\bH\bP) +\beta \frac{U \No}{\Es} & = \tr(\bH^H\bP^H). \label{eq:optcondbeta}\end{aligned}$$ From the power constraint, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Ex{\bms}{\|\bmx\|^2} = \rho^2 & \implies
\tr(\bP^H\bP) = \frac{\rho^2}{\Es}. \label{eq:optcondpower}\end{aligned}$$ To derive the optimal value for the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$, we apply the following steps the optimality condition in : $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^2 \bH^H \bH \bP + \lambda\bP & = \beta \bH^H \notag \\
\beta^2 \bH^H \bH \bP\bP^H + \lambda\bP\bP^H & = \beta \bH^H\bP^H \notag \\
\beta^2 \tr(\bH^H \bH \bP\bP^H) + \lambda\tr(\bP\bP^H) & = \beta \tr(\bH^H\bP^H) \notag \\
\beta^2 \tr(\bP^H\bH^H \bH \bP) + \lambda \frac{\rho^2}{\Es} & = \beta \tr(\bH^H\bP^H), \label{eq:optcondtrick}\end{aligned}$$ where the last step results from . We now multiply both sides of the optimality condition in with $\beta$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \tr(\bP^H\bH^H\bH\bP)\Es +\beta U \No & = \tr(\bH^H\bP^H)\Es \notag \\
\beta^2 \tr(\bP^H\bH^H\bH\bP) +\beta^2 \frac{U \No}{\Es} & = \beta \tr(\bH^H\bP^H). \label{eq:papapap1} \end{aligned}$$ Subtracting from yields the Lagrange multiplier $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \frac{U\No}{\rho^2}. \label{eq:lagrange}\end{aligned}$$ From and , it follows that the WF precoding matrix is given by $\bP^\text{WF} = \frac{1}{\beta^\text{WF}}\bQ$ with the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\bQ = \left(\bH^H\bH + \frac{U\No}{\rho^2}\bI \right)^{-1}\bH^H.\end{aligned}$$ The remaining piece is to identify the WF precoding factor $\beta^\text{WF}$. To this end, we plug $\bP^\text{WF}$ into , which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\beta^2} \tr(\bQ^H\bQ) = \frac{\rho^2}{\Es} \implies
\frac{1}{\beta^\text{WF}} = \frac{\rho}{\sqrt{\tr(\bQ^H\bQ) \Es}}.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of {#app:precodingfactor}
=========
To reduce the computational complexity of computing $\beta^\text{WF}$ in , we first use the matrix inversion lemma [@woodbury] to arrive at an equivalent expression of given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bQ^\text{WF} = \bH^H \left(\bH\bH^H + \kappa^\text{WF}\bI_U \right)^{\!-1},\end{aligned}$$ which requires the inversion of an $U\times U$ matrix. By precomputing the $U\times U$ Gram matrix $\bG=\bH\bH^H$ and inverting the regularized Gram matrix defined as $\bA = \bG + \kappa^\text{WF} \bI_U$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:WFprecoderinvertedcompact}
\bQ^\text{WF} = \bH^H \bA^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and consequently, $\tr(\bQ^H\bQ) = \tr\left( \bA^{-1} \bG \bA^{-1} \right)$. A direct evaluation of this expression still requires two matrix-matrix multiplications of dimension $U\times U$. We can further reduce complexity by noting that the following equivalence holds $$\begin{aligned}
\tr\left( \bA^{-1} \bG \bA^{-1} \right) = \tr\left( \bA^{-1} \right) - \kappa^\text{WF} \|\bA^{-1}\|_F^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we used a Searle-type identity [@PP2012] and a matrix version of partial fraction expansion to finally obtain .
[^1]: This work was supported in part by Xilinx, Inc., the US NSF under grants CNS-1265332, ECCS-1232274, ECCS-1408370, CNS-1717218, ECCS-1408006, CCF-1535897, CCF-1652065, CNS-1717559, and with hardware and software support from the Texas Advanced Computing Center and the Nvidia Technology Center (the PSG Cluster) with DGX-1 multi-GPU systems.
[^2]: An extension to wideband systems that use orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is straightforward and considered in .
[^3]: Designing precoders for the case of having individual precoding factors $\beta_u$, $u=1,\ldots,U$, is challenging and left for future work.
[^4]: We investigated a number of strategies that allocate different power levels to each cluster. Such methods did not provide significant performance advantages in massive MU-MIMO, but may, for example, be critical for cell-free massive MU-MIMO systems in which the clusters are spread over a large area [@ngo2017cell].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
When a superconductor is placed in a magnetic field equal to its critical field $H_c$, the normal and superconducting phases can coexist in a state of equilibrium with the two phases separated by normal-superconducting (NS) interfaces. The dynamics of such interfaces is important for various nonequilibrium phenomena. For instance, if the applied magnetic field is quenched below $H_c$, these interfaces move through the sample, expelling the magnetic flux so as to establish the Meissner phase . Just as superconductivity can be destroyed by applying a magnetic field exceeding $H_c$, it can also be destroyed by applying a current exceeding the critical depairing current $J_c$. Thus by analogy with the magnetic field case, one might expect a special value of the applied current $J^*<J_c$ at which the superconducting and normal phases coexist, separated by a stationary NS interface [@likharev74]. In contrast to the magnetic field induced NS interfaces, these current-induced NS interfaces are intrinsically nonequilibrium entities, and their structure depends upon the [*dynamics*]{} of the order parameter and magnetic field. The evolution and dynamics of these nonequilibrium interfaces is the subject of this paper.
The current-induced NS interfaces arise in several contexts. First, they are known to be important in understanding the dynamics of the “resistive state” in superconducting wires and films (for a review see [@ivlev84]), and in determining the global stability of the normal and superconducting phases in the presence of a current [@kramer77]. Second, Aranson [*et al.*]{} [@aranson96] have recently studied the nucleation of the normal phase in thin type-II superconducting strips in the presence of both a magnetic field and a transport current. They found that a sufficient current produced large normal droplets containing multiple flux quanta. Without a current one finds stationary, singly quantized vortices, with a larger amount of NS interface per flux quantum than a multiply quantized droplet. They conclude that the current produces an effective surface tension for the NS interface which is positive, stabilizing the interface and producing larger droplets with smaller surface area. Motivated in part by its role in this phenomenon we wanted to re-examine the nonequilibrium stabilizing effects of current.
Even when the superconducting phase is ostensibly the equilibrium phase, a current makes the normal phase metastable, i.e., linearly stable to infinitesimal superconducting perturbations. A localized superconducting perturbation of finite amplitude, on the other hand, has one of two fates: (1) its amplitude may ultimately shrink to zero restoring the normal phase (undercritical) or (2) it may grow eventually establishing the superconducting state (overcritical). Separating these two possibilities are the [*critical nuclei*]{} or [*threshold perturbations*]{}, for present purposes stationary solutions of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equations localized around the normal state. As one raises the current, the amplitude of the threshold solution grows, implying that the normal phase becomes increasingly stable.
At very low currents, the widths of the critical nuclei shrink as the current is increased, but eventually this trend is reversed and the width grows as the current is increased further. In fact, as the current approaches a particular value, $J^*$ (the “stall current"[@aranson96]), the width diverges resulting in two well-separated, stationary NS interfaces. The interface solutions have been studied numerically by Likharev [@likharev74], who found that the interfaces were stationary at $J^* \approx 0.335$ for $u=5.79$, where $u$ characterizes the material and is $5.79$ for nonmagnetic impurities[@schmid66]. They were also studied by Kramer and Baratoff [@kramer77], who found $J^* \approx 0.291$ for $u=12$ (corresponding to paramagnetic impurities[@gorkov68]). However, we know of no systematic study of the dependence of $J^*$ upon $u$. In this work we remedy this situation by using a combination of numerical methods and analysis including matched asymptotic expansions [@mae]. We show that $J^* \sim u^{-1/4}$ for large $u$ in contrast to a previous conjecture [@likharev74], and we find how $J^*$ approaches $J_c$ in the small-$u$ limit.
At currents other than $J^*$, the interfaces move with a constant velocity with the superconducting phase invading the normal phase for $J<J^*$ and vice versa for $J^*<J<J_c$. At currents close to $J^*$, the interface velocity is proportional to $(J-J^*)$. Likharev [@likharev74] defined the constant of proportionality, $\eta=(dc/dJ)^{-1}|_{J=J^*}$, where $c$ is the interface speed; he found $\eta \approx 0.7$ for $u=5.79$. In the extreme limits, $J \rightarrow 0$ and $J \rightarrow J_c$ Likharev predicted that the speed $c$ diverges. We find $c$ to be bounded in both cases and provide an analytic expression for it as $J \rightarrow 0$.
The results of this work are summarized in Table \[table1\]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. After briefly reviewing the TDGL equations and the approximations used in this work (section \[TDGLsection\]), we study the critical nuclei focusing on their size and shape in the limit $J \rightarrow
0$ (section \[nuclei\]). We then move on to consider the stationary interface solutions; in particular we map out the dependence of the stall current $J^*$ on $u$ and supplement the numerical work with analysis of the $u \rightarrow \infty$ and $u \rightarrow 0$ limits (section \[stationary\]). Next, we examine moving interfaces first in the linear response regime and then in the limits $J \rightarrow 0$ and $J \rightarrow
J_c$ (section \[moving\]). The appendix contains a calculation of the amplitudes of the critical nuclei in the $J \rightarrow 0$ limit.
----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
I. Critical nucleus
Small-$J$ width $W \sim (uJ)^{-1/2}$ Sec. \[nuc-smallj\]
Small-$J$ amplitude $\psi_0 \sim {\rm exp}\{-A/uJ \}$ Sec. \[nuc-smallj\]
II\. Stall current $J^*$
Large-$u$ $J^* = 0.584491 ~u^{-1/4}$ Sec. \[stat-largeu\]
Small-$u$ $J^* = J_c Sec. \[stat-smallu\]
{\textstyle (1-u/8)^{1/2}\over \textstyle (1-u/24)^{3/2}}$
III\. Kinetic coeff. $\eta$
Large-$u$ $\eta = 0.797 ~u^{3/4}$ Sec. \[moving\]
Small-$u$ $\eta \sim u^{3/2}$ Sec. \[moving\]
IV\. Interface speed
$J \rightarrow 0$ $c \rightarrow 2/u$ Sec. \[moving\]
$J \rightarrow J_c$ $c \sim u^{1/2}$ $(u \rightarrow 0)$ Sec. \[moving\]
$c \sim u^{-0.85}$ $(u \rightarrow \infty)$ Sec. \[moving\]
----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
: Summary of the primary results.[]{data-label="table1"}
The TDGL equations {#TDGLsection}
==================
The starting point for our study is the set of TDGL equations for the order parameter $\psi$, the scalar potential $\Phi$, and the vector potential ${\bf A}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar \gamma \left( \partial_t
+ {i e^* \Phi \over \hbar} \right) \psi &=&
\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\left({\bbox \nabla} -\frac{ie^* {\bf A}}{\hbar c}
\right)^2\psi \nonumber \\
&&+ |a|\psi -b |\psi|^2 \psi,
\label{TDGL1}\end{aligned}$$ $${\bbox \nabla}\times {\bbox \nabla} \times {\bf A} =
\frac{4\pi}{c}( {\bf J}_n + {\bf J}_s),
\label{TDGL2}$$ where the normal current ${\bf J}_n$ and the supercurrent ${\bf J}_s$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{TDGL3}
&&{\bf J}_n = \sigma^{(n)}\left( - \partial_t {\bf A}/c
- {\bbox \nabla} \Phi\right), \\
\label{TDGL4}
&&{\bf J}_s = {\hbar e^* \over 2 m i} \left( \psi^* {\bbox \nabla}
\psi - \psi {\bbox \nabla} \psi^* \right)
-\frac{e^{*2}}{mc}|\psi|^2 {\bf A}, \end{aligned}$$
and where $\gamma$ (which is assumed to be real) is a dimensionless quantity characterizing the relaxation time of the order parameter, $\sigma^{(n)}$ is the normal conductivity, and $a = a_0 (1- T/T_{c0})$. From these parameters we can form two important length scales, the coherence length $\xi = \hbar/(2 m |a|)^{1/2}$ and the penetration depth $\lambda = [mbc^2/4\pi (e^*)^2 |a|]^{1/2}$.
These equations assume relaxational dynamics for the order parameter as well as a two-fluid description for the current. With somewhat restrictive assumptions, they can be derived from the microscopic BCS theory [@schmid66; @gorkov68]. Further simplification is possible in the limit of a thin, narrow film, that is, when the thickness is less than the coherence length, $d<\xi$, and the width is less than the effective penetration depth [@pearl], $w\ll \lambda^2/d$. In this case the current carried by the film or wire is small, and we needn’t worry about the fields it produces. Therefore, Eq. (\[TDGL2\]) may be dropped, and we need only specify the total current ${\bf J}={\bf J}_n + {\bf J}_s$ (subject to ${\bbox \nabla}\cdot{\bf J}=0$), along with the order-parameter dynamics, Eq. (\[TDGL1\]). This approximation is commonly used for superconducting wires [@ivlev84] and can be justified mathematically for superconducting films [@chapman97]. In addition, we will be considering processes in the absence of an applied magnetic field, so that we may set ${\bf A}={\bf 0}$. With these simplifications, we can now rewrite the equations in terms of dimensionless (primed) quantities, $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi = \sqrt{{|a| \over b}} \psi^{\prime},
\ \ \ \ \ \ &\Phi = {\hbar e^* |a| \over m b \sigma^{(n)}}
\mu^{\prime},
\nonumber \\
&x = \xi x^{\prime},
\ \ \ \ \ \ &t = { m b \sigma^{(n)} \over e^{*2} |a|}
t^{\prime}, \nonumber \\
&J = \sqrt{{2 \over m}} {e^* |a|^{3/2} \over b }
J^{\prime}, \ \ \ \ & \end{aligned}$$ which leads to
\[scaled\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TDGL-scaled}
&& u(\partial_{t^{\prime}} + i\mu^{\prime})\psi^{\prime}
= (\nabla^{\prime 2} +1-|\psi^{\prime}|^2)\psi^{\prime},
\\
\label{current-scaled}
&& {\bf J^{\prime}} = {\rm Im} (\psi^{\prime *}
{\bbox \nabla}^{\prime} {\psi^{\prime}}) -
{\bbox \nabla}^{\prime} {\mu}^{\prime},
\quad {\bbox \nabla}^{\prime}\cdot {\bf J^{\prime}}=0 . \end{aligned}$$
Note that length is measured in units of coherence length [@length]. We will drop the primes hereafter. The only parameters remaining in the problem are the scaled current $J$ and a dimensionless material parameter $u=\tau_{\psi}/\tau_J$, where $\tau_{\psi}= \hbar \gamma/|a|$ is the order-parameter relaxation time and $\tau_J=\sigma^{(n)} m b / e^{*2} |a|$ is the current relaxation time. We will treat $u$ as a phenomenological parameter and study the nucleation and growth process as a function of $u$. The microscopic derivations of the TDGL equations predict that $u=5.79$ (nonmagnetic impurities) [@schmid66], and $u=12$ (paramagnetic impurities) [@gorkov68], but small $u$ is also useful for modeling gapped superconductors [@ivlev80b].
Nucleation of the superconducting phase from the normal phase {#nuclei}
=============================================================
In the presence of an applied current the normal phase in a wire is linearly stable with respect to superconducting perturbations for [*any*]{} value of the current [@gorkov70; @kulik70]. The reason for this stability is that any quiescent superconducting fluctuation will be accelerated by the electric field, its velocity eventually exceeding the critical depairing velocity, resulting in the decay of the fluctuation. The growth of the superconducting phase therefore requires a nucleus of sufficient size that will locally screen the electric field and allow the superconducting phase to continue growing; smaller nuclei will simply decay back to the normal phase. The amplitude of the “critical” nucleus should decrease as the current approaches zero, reaching zero only at $J=0$. We expect the [*critical*]{} nuclei to be unstable, stationary (but nonequilibrium) solutions of the TDGL equations, which asymptotically approach the normal solution as $x \rightarrow
\pm \infty$. These “bump” solutions of the TDGL equations are the subject of this section. We include here an extensive numerical study of the amplitudes and widths of the critical nuclei, as well as some analytical estimates for these quantities.
Numerical results {#nuclei-num}
-----------------
Let us start by discussing the numerical work on the critical nuclei. For the analytic work, we often find it convenient to use the amplitude and phase variables, i.e. $\psi=f {\rm e}^{i \theta}$; but they are ill-suited for the numerical work, since the calculation of the phase becomes difficult when the amplitude is small. Following Likharev [@likharev74] we use instead $\psi=R+iI$, with $R$ and $I$ real, and in one dimension Eqs. (\[scaled\]) become
\[numerics\] $$\begin{aligned}
u R_t &=& R_{xx} + u\mu I + R - (R^2 + I^2)R, \\
u I_t &=& I_{xx} - u\mu R + I - (R^2 + I^2)I, \\
J &=& R I_x - I R_x - \mu_x.\end{aligned}$$
Since the nuclei are unstable stationary states, they are investigated only by time-independent means. Such solutions require a particular gauge choice—in this case $\mu(x)=0$ where $\psi(x)$ has its maximum amplitude; they are then sought using a relaxation algorithm [@num-rec]. Figure \[nuc-1\] shows a typical bump’s amplitude, $f=
\sqrt{R^2+I^2}$, the associated superfluid velocity $q=
(RI_x-IR_x)/f^2$ and the electric field $E(x)=-\mu_x(x)$. The figure shows only half of the solution; $f(x)$, $q(x)$ and $E(x)$ are even about $x=0$. In Fig. \[nuc-2\] we plot the bump’s maximum amplitude, $\psi_0$, as a function of $J$; it grows as the current rises, indicating the increasing stability of the normal phase. In the data presented by Watts-Tobin [*et al.*]{}[@watts-tobin81] $\psi_0$ appears to vary linearly with $J$ for small $J$. However, in our numerical calculations at very small currents the dependence deviates from linearity (see the inset of Fig. \[nuc-2\]), and $\psi_0$ drops rapidly to zero as $J\rightarrow 0$, consistent with the exponential behavior suggested in Refs. [@ivlev84; @ivlev80]. More precisely our small-$J$ data ($0.008\leq J\leq 0.015$) at $u=5.79$ is fit by $$\label{expon-depend}
\psi_0(J) = B \exp ( - A/uJ),$$ with $A=0.042$ and $B=0.19$. A somewhat similar dependence (with $A=2/3$) was suggested by Ivlev [*et al.*]{} [@ivlev84; @ivlev80]; they were considering a distinct quantity but one also related to critical fluctuations about the normal phase (see the Appendix for more details).
=8.5cm
=8.5cm
The width of the bump diverges in the small-$J$ limit like $(uJ)^{-1/2}$, as can be seen from the analysis below. So as $J$ is increased from zero, the width initially shrinks, but eventually the width begins to grow again, diverging as the current approaches the stall current $J^*$. In this limit the bump transforms into two well separated interfaces (see Fig. \[nuc-3\]).
=8.5cm
Analysis in the $J\rightarrow 0$ limit {#nuc-smallj}
--------------------------------------
The equations for nuclei centered at the origin are
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lump-eq}
&& \psi_{xx} -iu \mu \psi +\psi -|\psi|^2\psi =0, \\
&& \mu = -Jx + \int_0^x {\rm Im} \left(\psi^* \psi_{x'} \right)
dx' , \end{aligned}$$
where we have dropped the term $\psi_t$ and selected the gauge $\mu(0)=0$. We saw in Fig. \[nuc-2\] that $\psi_0$ becomes very tiny in the small-$J$ limit, thus the nonlinear terms can be neglected, leading to $$\psi_{xx} + iuJx\psi + \psi = 0,
\label{1}$$ a complex version of the Airy equation. Applying the WKB method results in the approximate solution $$\begin{aligned}
\psi \sim &&[1+(uJx)^2]^{-1/8} \nonumber \\
\times &&\exp\left\{ \frac{2}{ 3\,uJ} \left[
\left[1 + (uJx)^2 \right]^{3/4} \cos \frac{3\alpha}{2} -
1 \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
\times &&\exp \left\{i\left[ \frac{2}{3\, uJ}
\left[1 + (uJx)^2\right]^{3/4}\sin \frac{3\alpha}{2}
-\frac{\alpha}{4}\right] \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = \tan^{-1}(uJx)$. The numerical data agrees quite well with this predicted shape in the small-$J$ limit. For small $x$ the expression can be approximated by $$\psi\sim \exp \left[i(1-uJ/4)x - uJx^2/4 \right].
\label{4}$$ We see here that the width of the bump varies like $(uJ)^{-1/2}$ in this limit and that the superfluid velocity $q \approx (1-uJ/4)$. For large $x$, on the other hand, where $\alpha \approx \pi/2$, the expression becomes $$\label{airy}
\psi\sim (uJx)^{-1/4} \exp \left[ -
{\sqrt{2uJ}\over 3} |x|^{3/2}(1-i)\right],
\label{5}$$ as one expects for the Airy function. Note that deep in the tail of the solution, we see a different length scale $\lambda_{Airy} \sim (uJ)^{-1/3}$ arising.
Since the above analysis is of a linear equation, it can not determine the amplitude of the nucleus; for this purpose the nonlinearities must be considered. In the appendix we outline an [*ad hoc*]{} calculation of the small-$J$ limit of the bump amplitude. We take a $\psi$ of an unknown amplitude but of a fixed shape inspired by the above analysis and assume that it is a stationary solution of the full TDGL. We then determine its amplitude self-consistently. The resulting amplitude is $$\label{self}
|\psi| \approx
\left(\frac{2J}{\pi u}\right)^{1/4}
\left(\frac{9}{8} - \frac{1}{u} \right)^{-1/2}
\exp \left(- \frac{16}{81~uJ} \right).$$ The factor $A=16/81$ is within a few percent of that extracted from the numerical data.
Stationary Interfaces {#stationary}
=====================
As the current is raised, the width of the critical nucleus grows and ultimately diverges as the stall current is reached, resulting in well separated, stationary interfaces. These interface solutions will be the subject of the rest of this work.
Numerical methods and results {#stat-num}
-----------------------------
Let us first discuss the numerical work on the interface solutions. For given values of $u$ and $J$ we evolved the TDGL equations from an initial guess which is purely superconducting on the left, $\psi(x)=
f_{\infty}~{\rm e}^{iq_{\infty}x}$ and $\mu_x(x)=0$, and purely normal on the right, $\psi(x)=0$ and $\mu_x(x)=-J$. The values $f_{\infty}$ and $q_{\infty}$ are related to the applied current through
\[boundary-relations\] $$\begin{aligned}
J &=& f_{\infty}^2 \sqrt{1-f_{\infty}^2}, \\
q_{\infty} &=& \sqrt{1-f_{\infty}^2}. \end{aligned}$$
Stability requires taking the larger positive root of the former equation [@langer67] which places the following bounds on $J$, $f_{\infty}$ and $q_{\infty}$:
\[bounds\] $$\begin{aligned}
&&0 \leq J \leq J_c = \sqrt{4/27} \approx 0.3849,
\label{j-bound} \\
&&1 \geq f_{\infty} \geq \sqrt{2/3} \approx 0.8165,
\label{f-bound} \\
&&0 \leq q_{\infty} \leq \sqrt{1/3} \approx 0.5774.
\label{q-bound}\end{aligned}$$
We employed several schemes to integrate the equations in time including both explicit (Euler) and implicit (Crank-Nicholson) [@num-rec].
Initially the front moves and changes shape but eventually it reaches a steady state in which the interface moves at a constant velocity without further deformation. By the time-dependent means we found locally stable, constant-velocity solutions for currents less than $J_c$. To examine these solutions more accurately, we adopted a time-independent method. First, we transformed coordinates to a moving frame, $x^{\prime}=
x-ct$; next, we chose $\mu=cq_{\infty}$ as $x\rightarrow -\infty$ which allows for a truly time-independent solution (i.e. one with both amplitude and phase time-independent). Then we searched for stationary solutions using a relaxation algorithm [@num-rec] where ($u,J$) are input parameters and $c$ is treated as an eigenvalue. This approach requires an additional boundary condition to fix translational invariance; we elected to fix $\mu$ on the rightmost site. To find the stall currents $J^*$ we can set $c=0$ and take $J$ or $u$ as the eigenvalue.
Figures \[fig1\] and \[fig2\] show the order-parameter amplitude $f$ and the electric-field distribution $E=-\mu_x$ of the stalled interface determined for $u=500$ and $u=1.04$ respectively. Note that while $f$ is very flat in the superconducting region, the real and imaginary parts, $R$ and $I$, oscillate with a wavelength $2 \pi /q_{\infty}$. Because of this additional length scale inherent in $R$ and $I$, there is little to be gained from varying the mesh size. In fact, this length scale is compressed as we move to the right, and we are only saved from the difficulties of handling rapidly oscillating functions by the fact that the amplitudes decay so quickly.
=8.5cm
=8.5cm
In the large-$u$ case (see Fig. \[fig1\]), $E(x)$ remains flat throughout most of the space; it changes abruptly from one constant to another only after $f(x)$ has become small. The variations of $f(x)$ are more gradual; however, the greatest changes in $f_x$ occur in that same small area. This region of rapid change is known as a [*boundary layer*]{}; it marks where the current suddenly changes from superconducting to normal, i.e., the position of the NS interface. As $u$ increases, the longer length scale over which $f$ varies on the superconducting side remains essentially fixed, while the boundary-layer thickness shrinks to zero. In the opposite limit, the small-$u$ case (see Fig. \[fig2\]), $f(x)$ and $E(x)$ appear to vary together even in the superconducting region; moreover, the length scale over which they vary grows as $u$ is decreased. We will postpone providing more of the numerical results on the interfaces until some of the analytic arguments are available for comparison.
Asymptotic analysis of the interface solutions: preliminaries {#stat-prelim}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Before addressing the large-$u$ and small-$u$ limits separately, let us put the TDGL equations into a form convenient for analysis and derive expressions for the length scales deep in the superconducting and normal regions. The disparity of these length scales in the large-$u$ limit will motivate the boundary-layer analysis in that regime; while an inequality they satisfy will lead to the conclusion that $J^* \rightarrow J_c$ in the small-$u$ limit.
We make the substitution $\psi = f e^{i\theta}$, which yields
\[analytic\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& uf_t = f_{xx} - f (\theta_x)^2 +f - f^3 ,
\label{analytic-1} \\
&&u(\theta_t+\mu )f= 2f_x\theta_x + f \theta_{xx},
\label{analytic-2} \\
&& J = f^2 \theta_x - \mu_x.
\label{analtyic-3}\end{aligned}$$
Next we restrict our attention to stationary solutions. Note that only spatial derivatives of $\theta$ appear now, allowing us to work with the superfluid velocity $q=\theta_x$ instead of $\theta$. The equations become
\[fandq\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& f_{xx} - q^2 f +f - f^3=0 ,
\label{fandq-1} \\
&& u \mu f= 2f_x q + f q_{x},
\label{fandq-2} \\
&& J^* = f^2 q - \mu_x,
\label{fandq-3}\end{aligned}$$
where $J^*$ replaces $J$ as these equations apply to the stall situation. Next multiply Eq. (\[fandq-2\]) by $f$ and note that the right hand side is now $(f^2q)_x$ which we can express in terms of $\mu$ by differentiating Eq. (\[fandq-3\]); these steps lead to $$\mu_{xx}=u f^2 \mu .
\label{fandmu}$$
Now let us assume the following asymptotic forms as $x\rightarrow -\infty$:
\[series\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{series-f}
\lim_{x \to -\infty} f(x) &=& f_{\infty} -
f_1 ~{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{f}} + \ldots , \\
\label{series-q}
\lim_{x \to -\infty} q(x) &=& q_{\infty} +
q_1 ~{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{q}} + \ldots , \\
\label{series-mu}
\lim_{x \to -\infty} \mu(x) &=& \mu_{\infty} -
\mu_1 ~{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{\mu}} + \ldots. \end{aligned}$$
Substituting these expressions into Eqs. (\[fandq-1\]), (\[fandq-3\]) and (\[fandmu\]) and recalling the boundary conditions yields
\[approach\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{approach-1}
&&\left(2f_{\infty}^2-\lambda_f^{-2} \right)
f_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_f} -2 f_{\infty} q_{\infty}q_1
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q} =0,
\\
\label{approach-2}
&&-2f_{\infty} q_{\infty} f_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_f}+
f_{\infty}^2q_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q} +
\lambda_{\mu}^{-1} \mu_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{\mu}}=0, \\
\label{approach-3}
&&\lambda_{\mu}^{-2} - u f_{\infty}^2=0.\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[approach-3\]) provides an expression for $\lambda_{\mu}$, the electric-field screening length. Since $f_{\infty}$ is always of $O(1)$, we see that $\lambda_{\mu}$ shrinks as $u \rightarrow \infty$ and diverges as $u \rightarrow 0$, which is consistent with the behavior seen in Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\].
More than one decay length appears in Eqs. (\[approach-1\]) and (\[approach-2\]). If they are not equal, the term with the shorter length is exponentially small compared to the other(s) and will not contribute to the $x \rightarrow -\infty$ limit. Since none of the terms in Eq. (\[approach-2\]) can equal zero individually, we conclude that the longer two of $\lambda_f$, $\lambda_q$ and $\lambda_{\mu}$ must be equal. Next, because the term multiplying ${\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q}$ in Eq. (\[approach-1\]) cannot equal zero on its own, we determine that $\lambda_q \leq \lambda_f$, making $\lambda_f$ one of the longer lengths. Finally, if we assume that $\lambda_f=\lambda_{\mu} > \lambda_q$ we find that $\lambda_f=2^{-1/2}f_{\infty}^{-1}$ and $\lambda_{\mu}=
u^{-1/2}f_{\infty}^{-1}$ and reach a contradiction (except at $u=2$). Thus provided the original assumption of an exponential approach is valid, we conclude that $$\label{inequality}
\lambda_f=\lambda_q \geq \lambda_{\mu}.$$ This equality of $\lambda_f$ and $\lambda_q$ is reasonable given that both $f$ and $q$ are related to the complex order parameter $\psi$. Also, having $\lambda_f > \lambda_{\mu}$ is consistent with the large-$u$ data seen in Fig. \[fig1\]. If $\lambda_{\mu} \ne \lambda_f$ then $$\label{LA-length}
\lambda_f^{-2} = 6 f_{\infty}^2 -4 = \lambda_{LA}^{-2}.$$ We identify this length scale as $\lambda_{LA}$ since it coincides with that occurring in the solution of Eqs. (\[fandq\]) without any electric field ($\mu(x)=0$), $$\label{langer}
f^2(x)= f_{\infty}^2 - (3f_{\infty}^2 -2)
~{\rm sech}^2 \left( \sqrt{\frac{3f_{\infty}^2-2}{2}}
x \right) ,$$ which was found by Langer and Ambegaokar [@langer67] in their study of phase slippage. The asymptotic form of Eq. (\[langer\]) looks like Eq. (\[series-f\]) with $\lambda_f$ given by Eq. (\[LA-length\]). As a matter of fact because $\lambda_f \gg \lambda_{\mu}$ in the large-$u$ limit, the profile of $f(x)$ is only imperceptibly different from the Langer-Ambegaokar (LA) solution in the superconducting region and deviates from it only in the boundary layer, as is shown in Fig. \[fig1\].
Recall that $\lambda_{\mu}$ diverges as $u \rightarrow 0$; the inequality $\lambda_f \geq \lambda_{\mu}$ implies that $\lambda_f$ must diverge as fast or faster in this limit. This scenario is consistent with the small-$u$ data shown in Fig. \[fig2\] in which $f(x)$ and $E(x)$ vary on long length scales. Eq. (\[LA-length\]) suggests that a diverging $\lambda_f$ implies that $f_{\infty} \rightarrow \sqrt{2/3}$ and in turn that $J \rightarrow J_c$ as $u \rightarrow 0$, which is also consistent with what is found numerically.
In the other asymptotic limit, deep in the normal regime, $\psi$ is very small and hence the nonlinear terms in Eqs. (\[scaled\]) can be dropped as was done for the bumps in the small-$J$ limit. The result is a complex Airy equation, the asymptotic analysis of which was supplied in Eq. (\[airy\]), where we saw the length scale $\lambda_{Airy} \sim (u J^*)^{-1/3}$. Somewhat like $\lambda_{\mu}$, $\lambda_{Airy}$ shrinks as $u \rightarrow \infty$ and expands as $u \rightarrow 0$ but with different powers of $u$. The presence of the disparate length scales, $\lambda_f$, $\lambda_{\mu}$ and $\lambda_{Airy}$, in the large-$u$ limit motivates the use of the boundary-layer analysis that comes next. We will see that $\lambda_{Airy}$ scales in the same way as the boundary-layer thickness.
Asymptotic behavior of the stall current as $u\rightarrow\infty$ {#stat-largeu}
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have already seen in Fig. \[fig1\] that the large-$u$ profile can be divided into two regions—one slowly varying, one rapidly varying, also known as the [*outer*]{} and [*inner*]{} regions, respectively. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the ratio of the length scales characterizing these regions decreases as $u \rightarrow
\infty$. These features make the problem ideally suited for boundary-layer analysis, in which one identifies the terms that dominate the differential equation in each region, analyzes the reduced equations consisting of dominant terms and then matches the behavior in some intermediate region.
We start by eliminating the superfluid velocity $q$ from Eqs. (\[fandq\]), resulting in
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{feqn-1}
&& f_{xx} - (J^* + \mu_x)^2 f^{-3} +f - f^3 = 0, \\
\label{mueqn-1}
&& \mu_{xx} - u f^2\mu = 0. \end{aligned}$$
Let us consider first the slowly varying, superconducting region. We saw in the preliminary analysis that for large $u$, $\mu(x)$ is exponentially small, so we drop it. Next, let us assume that $J^*$ is small and drop it; we can verify in the end that this is self-consistent. The reduced equation is $$\label{outer}
f_{xx}+f-f^3\approx 0,$$ with solution $f(x)=-{\rm tanh}(x/\sqrt{2})$.
Moving in from the left toward the interface (into the boundary-layer region), $f$ becomes small, and the second term in Eq. (\[feqn-1\]) which was subdominant becomes dominant. In this inner region $f$ is small but rapidly varying, thus the dominant terms are $$\label{reduced-f}
f_{xx} \approx \frac{(J^*+\mu_x)^2}{f^3},$$ along with Eq. (\[mueqn-1\]). Having identified the dominant terms, now we must make certain they balance. We assume that in the boundary layer, all the quantities scale as powers of $u$: $$f \sim u^{-\alpha}, \quad \mu \sim u^{-\beta}, \quad
J^* \sim u^{-\gamma}, \quad x \sim u^{-\delta}.$$ Balancing terms in Eq. (\[reduced-f\]), we find $2\alpha = \gamma + \delta$, while balancing terms in Eq. (\[mueqn-1\]) yields $2(\alpha + \delta) = 1$. Next, we need to ensure that the solutions in the boundary layer match onto the solutions in the superconducting and normal regions. By expanding the superconducting solution near the interface, we see that $f(x)\sim - x/\sqrt{2}$ as the boundary layer is approached; matching to the boundary layer requires $f_x\sim 1$, so that $\alpha = \gamma$. In the normal region, $\mu \approx - J^* x$, so that matching to the boundary layer requires $\mu_x \sim J^*$, and $\beta = \gamma +
\delta$. Solving this set of equations, we conclude that $\alpha=\gamma=
\delta=1/4$ and $\beta=1/2$, i.e., the stall current $J^* \sim
u^{-1/4}$ for large $u$. Note that $J^* \rightarrow 0$ as $u \rightarrow \infty$, so that we were justified in dropping $J^{*2}/f^3$ from Eq. (\[outer\]). Substituting $J^* \sim u^{-1/4}$ into $\lambda_{Airy}$ gives $\lambda_{Airy} \sim u^{-1/4}$, indicating that it may be identified as the boundary-layer thickness.
In order to determine the coefficient of the $u^{-1/4}$ in the stall current we need to solve the boundary layer problem. Let us rescale in the way suggested above: $$\begin{aligned}
&&f = u^{-1/4}F,\quad \mu = u^{-1/2} M(X), \nonumber \\
&&J = u^{-1/4} \tilde J, \quad x=u^{-1/4} X.
\label{inner1}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these rescaled variables into Eqs. (\[feqn-1\]) and (\[mueqn-1\]), and then expanding $F$, $M$ and $\tilde J$ in powers of $u^{-1/2}$, we obtain at the lowest order
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{inner2}
&&F_{0,XX} - \frac{({\tilde J}_0 + M_{0,X})^2}{ F_0^3} =0, \\
\label{inner3}
&&M_{0,XX} - F_0^2 M_0 = 0, \end{aligned}$$
with the boundary conditions (from the outer regions) $$\begin{aligned}
F_{0,X}(-\infty) & = -1/\sqrt{2},
\qquad M_0(-\infty) & = 0, \\
F_0(+\infty) & = 0,
\qquad M_{0,X}(+\infty) & = -{\tilde J}_0.
\label{inner_boundary}\end{aligned}$$ (As before we need an extra boundary condition to fix the translational invariance.) For an arbitrary ${\tilde J}_0$ the solutions of Eqs. (\[inner2\]) and (\[inner3\]) cannot satisfy the boundary conditions; ${\tilde J}_0$ must be tuned to a particular value before all of the boundary conditions are satisfied, leading to a [*nonlinear eigenvalue problem*]{} for ${\tilde J}_0$. We have solved this eigenvalue problem numerically and find that ${\tilde J}_0= 0.584491$. Therefore, to leading order we have for the stall current $$J^* \approx 0.584491\, u^{-1/4}.
\label{asympt}$$ This prediction agrees well with the numerical results and disagrees with Likharev’s conjecture of a $u^{-1/3}$ dependence [@likharev74], as can be seen in Fig. \[drew3\] and in Table \[table2\]. It is in principle possible to carry out this procedure to successively higher orders, but the equations become cumbersome. Instead we have simply opted to fit our numerical data to a form inspired by the asymptotic analysis, $$\begin{aligned}
J^* &=& 0.584491\, u^{-1/4} - 0.117461\, u^{-3/4}
- 0.12498\, u^{-5/4} \nonumber \\
&&+ 0.163043\, u^{-7/4}
+O\left(u^{-9/4}\right). \end{aligned}$$
=8.5cm
------- -------- ----------------- ---------- -----------------
$u $ $J^*$ $ J^* u^{1/4} $ $ \eta $ $\eta u^{-3/4}$
1 0.3838 0.3838 0.01871 0.01871
5 0.3407 0.5094 0.6400 0.1914
10 0.3013 0.5359 1.573 0.2797
50 0.2127 0.5655 8.258 0.4315
100 0.1807 0.5715 15.59 0.4931
500 0.1224 0.5788 62.51 0.5875
1000 0.1033 0.5807 111.3 0.6259
5000 0.0693 0.5828 407.9 0.6847
10000 0.0583 0.5833 708.4 0.7084
50000 0.0391 0.5840 2487 0.7440
------- -------- ----------------- ---------- -----------------
: Representative numerical results for the stall current $J^*$ and kinetic coefficient $\eta$.[]{data-label="table2"}
Asymptotic behavior of the stall current as $u\rightarrow 0$ {#stat-smallu}
------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us examine the opposite limit of $u \rightarrow 0$. In this case the electric-field screening length becomes long, and Ivlev [*et al.*]{} [@ivlev80b] have proposed that this makes the small-$u$ limit useful for modeling gapped superconductors. As already suggested the inequality of length scales, $\lambda_f
\geq \lambda_{\mu}$ implies that $J^* \rightarrow J_c$. We will begin our small-$u$ analysis by putting this result on firmer ground and extracting as a byproduct the $u \rightarrow
0$ limit of the interface profile.
[*The rescaled equations.*]{} Recall that deep in the superconducting region $\lambda_{\mu} \sim
u^{-1/2}$. This observation suggests that we rescale distance: $x = u^{-1/2}\hat x$; furthermore, to ensure that the normal current ($-\mu_x$) scales in the same way as the total current we rescale $\mu = u^{-1/2}\hat \mu$ as well. These rescalings yield
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{outer1}
&& u \hat f_{\hat x \hat x} - {\hat q}^2 \hat f +
\hat f -{\hat f}^3 = 0, \\
\label{outer2}
&& \hat \mu \hat f = 2 \hat q {\hat f}_{\hat x} +
\hat f {\hat q}_{\hat x}, \\
\label{outer3}
&& J^* = {\hat f}^2 \hat q - {\hat \mu}_{\hat x}, \end{aligned}$$
placing the small parameter $u$ in front of ${\hat f}_{\hat x
\hat x}$. If we expand these functions as series in powers of $u$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{expand1}
\hat f &=& {\hat f}_0 + u{\hat f}_1 + \ldots, \\
\label{expand2}
\hat q &=& {\hat q}_0 + u {\hat q}_1 + \ldots, \\
\label{expand3}
\hat \mu &=& {\hat \mu}_0 + u{\hat \mu}_1 + \ldots, \\
\label{expand4}
J^* &=& J_0^* + uJ_1^* + \ldots, \end{aligned}$$
then we find at the lowest order
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{order11}
&&-{\hat q}_0^2 {\hat f}_0 + {\hat f}_0 - {\hat f}_0^3 = 0, \\
\label{order12}
&&{\hat \mu}_0 {\hat f}_0 = 2 {\hat q}_0 {\hat f}_{0,x} +
{\hat f}_0 {\hat q}_{0,x}, \\
\label{order13}
&&J_0^* = {\hat f}_0^2 {\hat q}_0 - {\hat \mu}_{0,\hat x}. \end{aligned}$$
The solution of Eq. (\[order11\]) is either ${\hat f}_0 = 0$ (the normal phase) or ${\hat f}_0 = (1-{\hat q}_0^2)^{1/2}$ (the superconducting phase). Let us focus on the superconducting solutions. By eliminating ${\hat q}_0$, we obtain the first order equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{order14}
{\hat f}_{0,\hat x} &=& \frac{{\hat f}_0 \sqrt{1-{\hat f}_0^2}
~{\hat \mu}_0}{2-3 {\hat f}_0^2}, \\
\label{order15}
{\hat \mu}_{0,\hat x} &=& {\hat f}_0^2 \sqrt{ 1 - {\hat f}_0^2} -
J_0^*. \end{aligned}$$
Because ${\hat f}_0$ ranges from $f_{\infty}$ to $0$ and $f_{\infty}
\geq \sqrt{2/3}$, we know that ${\hat f}_0$ either starts at or passes through $\sqrt{2/3}$. (Strictly speaking we should be writing here $f_{\infty,0}$, the lowest order term in the expansion of $f_{\infty}$.) Thus, the effect of the pole in Eq. (\[order14\]) must be considered. If it is not canceled by a zero in ${\hat \mu}_0$, ${\hat f}_{0,\hat x}$ diverges at ${\hat f}_0=\sqrt{2/3}$.
We can obtain an expression for ${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0)$ by dividing Eq. (\[order15\]) by Eq. (\[order14\]), which leads to $${\hat \mu}_0\, d{\hat \mu}_0 = \frac{\left[{\hat f}_0^2
\sqrt{1-{\hat f}_0^2 } - J^*_0\right]\left(2-3{\hat f}_0^2\right)}
{ {\hat f}_0 \sqrt{1-{\hat f}_0^2}}
d{\hat f}_0.
\label{combine}$$ Integrating both sides and recalling the boundary condition $\mu_{\infty}=0$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\hat \mu}_0^2}{2} &=&
{\hat f}_0^2-\frac{3}{4}\,{\hat f}_0^4- f_{\infty}^2+
\frac{3}{4}\,f_{\infty}^4
\nonumber \\
&&+2\,J^*_0 \ln \left[ \frac {1+\sqrt {1-{\hat f}_0^2}}{{\hat f}_0}
\right]-3\,J^*_0\sqrt {1-{\hat f}_0^2}
\nonumber \\
&&-2\,J^*_0\ln \left[
\frac {1+\sqrt {1-f_{\infty}^2}}{ f_{\infty}}\right]
+3\,J^*_0\sqrt {1-f_{\infty}^2},
\label{mess}\end{aligned}$$ where $J^*_0 = f_\infty^2 \sqrt{1-f_\infty^2}$. To keep ${\hat f}_{0,x}$ from diverging, we insist that ${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0=\sqrt{2/3})=0$ which can be shown from Eq. (\[mess\]) to imply $f_{\infty}=\sqrt{2/3}$, i.e.the small-$u$ limit of the stall current is the critical depairing current. Note that the pole in Eq. (\[order14\]) and the compensating zero in ${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0)$ occur at the boundary ($x \rightarrow -\infty$).
We can rearrange Eq. (\[order14\]) as follows $$\label{profile-inverse}
\int_{{\hat f}_0(0)}^{{\hat f}_0(\hat x)} \frac{(2-3f^2)~df}
{f \sqrt{1-f^2} ~{\hat \mu}_0(f)}= {\hat x}.$$ Then we can substitute in Eq. (\[mess\]) for ${\hat \mu}_0(f)$, numerically integrate the resulting expression and finally invert it in order to calculate ${\hat f}_0(\hat x)$, the $u \rightarrow 0$ profile. Figure \[fig2\] includes a comparison of ${\hat f}_0(\hat x)$ and the profile of a small-$u$ numerical solution.
To find the asymptotic behavior of ${\hat f}_0$ and ${\hat \mu}_0$ in the superconducting region, Taylor expand ${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0)$ around $f_{\infty}$ $${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0) = -3 \sqrt{2} \left({\hat f}_0 -\sqrt{2/3}
\right)^2 +\ldots.$$ Notice that ${\hat \mu}_0({\hat f}_0)$ is a second order zero, so that ${\hat f}_{0, \hat x}=0$, as it should at the boundary. As a consequence, the integral supplying the inverse profile, Eq. (\[profile-inverse\]), has a pole; integrating the expression in its neighborhood yields $\sqrt{6} \ln (\sqrt{2/3}-
{\hat f}_0)$, leading to $$\label{sol1}
{\hat f}_0(\hat x)\sim \sqrt{2/3} - A_0~{\rm exp}
\left( \hat x/\sqrt{6} \right),$$ where $A_0$ is an integration constant undetermined because of the translational invariance. Note ${\hat f}_0(\hat x)$ has the form assumed in the preliminary analysis with $\lambda_{f,0}=\sqrt{u/6}$. Putting this result into Eq. (\[order14\]) leads to $$\label{sol2}
{\hat \mu}_0(\hat x)\sim - 3\sqrt{2} A_0^2~{\rm exp}
\left( 2 \hat x/ \sqrt{6}\right),$$ where $\lambda_{\mu,0}=u^{1/2} f_{\infty}$ in agreement with the expression found previously.
Let us examine Eqs. (\[order14\]) and (\[order15\]), which are strictly speaking superconducting solutions, in the normal (small-${\hat f}_0$) limit. Eq. (\[order15\]) leads to ${\hat \mu}_0(\hat x)\approx -J_c \hat x$, and inserting this into Eq. (\[order14\]) reveals that ${\hat f}_0
\rightarrow 0$ in the following way $$\label{sol3}
{\hat f}_0(\hat x)\sim {\rm exp} \left( - J_c {\hat x}^2/4 \right).$$ This same dependence was seen earlier in the analysis of the bump shapes in the small-$J$ limit, Eq. (\[4\]).
What is surprising here is that what are ostensibly the “outer” equations for the superconducting region also satisfy the boundary conditions in the normal region and interpolate in between. This is consistent with the numerical observation that there does not seem to be a boundary layer at small $u$, that the $u f_{xx}$ term is apparently [*not*]{} a singular perturbation. With this in mind, we pursue the perturbative expansion to higher orders.
[*The $O(u)$ equations.*]{} The eigenvalue $J^*_0$ was determined by examining the behavior deep in the superconducting region and did not require imposing the boundary conditions on the normal side. Furthermore, the spatial dependence of the solution in this region is of the form assumed in Eqs. (\[series\]). We exploit these features to obtain higher order terms. The $O(u)$ equations are
\[order-u\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\hat f}_{0, \hat x \hat x} - 2 {\hat q}_0 {\hat f}_0
{\hat q}_1 - {\hat q}_0^2 {\hat f_1} - 3 {\hat f}_0^2 {\hat f}_1 = 0,
\\
&& {\hat \mu}_0 {\hat f}_1 + {\hat f}_0 {\hat \mu}_1 =
2 {\hat q}_0 {\hat f}_{1, \hat x} + 2 {\hat f}_{0, \hat x}
{\hat q}_1 + {\hat f}_0 {\hat q}_{1, \hat x} + {\hat q}_{0, \hat x}
{\hat f}_1 \\
&& J^*_1 = 2 {\hat f}_0 {\hat q}_0 {\hat f}_1 + {\hat f}_0^2
{\hat q}_1 - {\hat \mu}_{1, \hat x}. \end{aligned}$$
The asymptotic form of ${\hat f}_0(x)$ is $${\hat f}_0(x) = {\hat f}_0^{(0)}+{\hat f}_0^{(1)}~{\rm e}^{x/\sqrt{6}}
+ {\hat f}_0^{(2)}~{\rm e}^{2x/\sqrt{6}} + \ldots$$ and similarly for ${\hat q}_0(x)$ and ${\hat \mu}_0(x)$. Eqs. (\[order-u\]) can be satisfied if the asymptotic form of ${\hat f}_1(x)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat f}_1(x) = {\hat f}_1^{(0)}+&&\left({\hat f}_1^{(1)}+
{\hat g}_1^{(1)} \hat x \right)~{\rm e}^{x/\sqrt{6}} \nonumber \\
&&+ \left({\hat f}_1^{(2)}+{\hat g}_1^{(2)} \hat x \right)
~{\rm e}^{2x/\sqrt{6}} + \ldots, \end{aligned}$$ and similarly for ${\hat q}_1(x)$ and ${\hat \mu}_1(x)$. At $O(u^2)$, ${\hat f}_2(x)$ would have second-order polynomials multiplying the exponentials, and so on. Substituting these expressions into the differential equations allows us to determine the unknown constants (except for those associated with the translational invariance). For $f_{\infty}$ it yields the series $$f_{\infty}= \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} + \frac{u}{24 \sqrt{6}} +
+ \frac{u^2}{768 \sqrt{6}} + \ldots,$$ which corresponds to $$J^*=\frac{2}{3 \sqrt{3}} -\frac{u^2}{ 576 \sqrt{3}}
-\frac{u^3}{5184 \sqrt{3}} + \ldots.
\label{small_u_series}$$ Note that the first correction to the $u \rightarrow 0$ limit of $J^*$ is of $O(u^2)$, since the lowest term $J_c$ is at the maximum of $J^*(f_{\infty})=f_{\infty}^2
\sqrt{1-f_{\infty}^2}$.
The series found through the asymptotic perturbative expansion above can be obtained by another method. Looking back at Eqs. (\[sol1\]) and (\[sol2\]), we note that the ratio of decay lengths $\lambda_f/\lambda_{\mu}=2$. If we insert the expressions we have for these length scales, Eqs. (\[approach-3\]) and (\[LA-length\]), we find as $u \rightarrow 0$ $$\frac{ \lambda_{f}}{\lambda_{\mu}}=
\left[ \frac{uf_{\infty}^2}{6f_{\infty}^2-4}\right]^{1/2}=2.$$ Solving for $f_{\infty}$, and then calculating $J^*$, we find $$J^*= J_c (1-u/8)^{1/2} (1-u/24)^{-3/2},
\label{small_u_stall}$$ with $J_c= \sqrt{4/27}$, which when expanded for small-$u$ agrees with the series (\[small\_u\_series\]) found above. We plot the small-$u$ numerical data and this expression together in Fig. \[small-u-fig\]. The fit is surprisingly good at small $u$, suggesting to us that the corrections to Eq. (\[small\_u\_stall\]) are exponentially small as $u\rightarrow 0$.
=8.5cm
Moving Interfaces {#moving}
=================
At currents other than $J^*$, the NS interfaces move with a constant velocity. For such solutions the operator $\partial_t$ can be replaced by $-c\partial_x$, so that Eqs. (\[analytic\]) become
\[speed\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& -cuf_x = f_{xx} - f q^2 +f - f^3 ,
\label{speed-1} \\
&&u(-cq+\mu )f= 2f_x q + f q_x,
\label{speed-2} \\
&& J = f^2 q - \mu_x.
\label{speed-3}\end{aligned}$$
While the boundary conditions on $f$ and $q$ remain the same, that on the scalar potential becomes $\mu_{\infty}=cq_{\infty}$. Actually, it is more convenient to use instead $\tilde \mu =
\mu -c q$, which is the gauge-invariant potential in the constant-velocity case.
The superconducting phase invades the normal phase if $J < J^*$ and vice versa if $J > J^*$. For currents near $J^*$, the interface speed is proportional to $(J-J^*)$. In this linear response regime, one can define a kinetic coefficient (which Likharev [@likharev74] refers to as a “viscosity") $$\eta = \left( {dc \over dJ } \right)^{-1}_{J=J^*}.$$ Figure \[fig5\] shows the numerically determined kinetic coefficient as a function of $u$. For large-$u$, we find $\eta \sim u^{3/4}$ for which we provide an argument below.
=8.5cm
Farther from the stall current, the velocities deviate from this linear behavior, as seen in Fig. \[fig6\]. The greatest departure occurs in the limits $J \rightarrow 0$ and $ J \rightarrow J_c$. In fact, Likharev [@likharev74] conjectured that the interface speed diverges in both of these limits; we find that it is bounded.
=8.5cm
[*The $J \rightarrow 0$ limit*]{}. The moving interface equations, Eqs. (\[speed\]), simplify in the $J \rightarrow 0$ limit, since that limit implies that both $q \rightarrow 0$ and $\mu \rightarrow 0$, leaving only $$f_{xx} + uc f_x +f -f^3 = 0.
\label{fisher-kpp}$$ If we replace $uc$ in the above equation by a speed $v$, then we have the steady-state version of Fisher’s equation [@fisher-kpp], which is known to have propagating front solutions with $v=2$ [@aronson78]. In our case this implies that as $J \rightarrow 0$, $c=2/u$, which is in good agreement with the numerical data shown in Fig. \[fig6\].
We can combine the above result with an earlier one to suggest that $\eta\sim u^{3/4}$ as $u \rightarrow \infty$. In the large-$u$ limit, we have information on the following two points: (1) the stalled interface ($J=J^*\sim u^{-1/4},c=0$); and (2) the interface in the absence of current ($J=0,c=2/u$). In going from (1) to (2), the changes in current and velocity are $\Delta J \sim u^{-1/4}$ and $\Delta c \sim u^{-1}$. As $u \rightarrow \infty$, both of these changes are small so that $\eta$ might be approximated by $$\eta \approx {\Delta J \over \Delta c } \sim u^{3/4},$$ yielding the behavior seen in the numerical data (see Fig. \[fig5\] and Table \[table2\]).
[*The $J \rightarrow J_c$ limit.*]{} The numerical work indicates that the velocity is finite as $J \rightarrow J_c$; the limiting velocity is shown in Fig. \[fig7\] as a function $u$. We can find an analytic bound on this velocity as follows. First, take Eqs. (\[speed\]), use the gauge-invariant potential $\tilde \mu$, and find the constant-velocity analog of Eq. (\[fandmu\]). Then substitute the asymptotic forms, Eqs. (\[series\]), into the resulting equations, leading to
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(cu\lambda_f^{-1} + \lambda_f^{-2}-2f_{\infty}^2 \right)
f_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_f} = 2 f_{\infty}q_{\infty}q_1
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q}, \\
&&\left( uf_{\infty}^2 -\lambda_{\mu}^{-2}\right)\tilde \mu_1
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{\mu}} = c q_1 \lambda_q^{-2}
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q}, \\
&& 2f_{\infty}q_{\infty}f_1 {\rm e}^{x/\lambda_f} +
\left( f_{\infty}^2 -c \lambda_q^{-1}\right)q_1
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_q} \nonumber \\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \qquad
- \tilde \mu_1 \lambda_{\mu}^{-1}
{\rm e}^{x/\lambda_{\mu}}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Arguments similar to those following Eqs. (\[approach\]) lead one to the conclusion that in this case $\lambda_f=\lambda_q=\lambda_{\mu}$. The above equations can then be shown to yield the following relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c-bound}
&&u^2 c^2 +\left(2u\lambda^{-1}
-2uf_{\infty}^2\lambda -u^2 f_{\infty}^2 \lambda \right)c
\nonumber \\
&&+\left[2 \left(uf_{\infty}^2 \lambda^2-1 \right)
\left(3 f_{\infty}^2-2 \right) -
uf_{\infty}^2 +\lambda^{-2}\right]=0, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $q_{\infty}^2=1-f_{\infty}^2$. We find the bound by: (1) solving Eq. (\[c-bound\]) for $c$; (2) substituting in $f_{\infty}=\sqrt{2/3}$ (which corresponds to $J=J_c$); and (3) extremizing that result with respect to the decay length $\lambda$. The small-$u$ limit of the resulting bound is $-\sqrt{2u}/9$, and the large-$u$ limit is $-1/2\sqrt{3}$. The square-root dependence of the velocity in the small-$u$ limit agrees with the data. Now we can consider going from the stall current $(J^*,c=0)$ to the critical depairing current $(J_c,c\sim u^{1/2})$ which results in changes $\Delta J \sim u^2$ and $\Delta c \sim u^{1/2}$, suggesting that the small-$u$ kinetic coefficient $\eta \sim u^{3/2}$, which is in rough agreement with the numerical data. We have also observed that as a function of $J$ the speed appears to approach its bound via a square root dependence $$c(J)= A + B (J_c-J)^{1/2}$$ for all $u$.
=8.5cm
Summary and Remarks {#conclusions}
===================
In this paper we have studied in detail the nucleation and growth of the superconducting phase in the presence of a current. The finite amplitude critical nuclei grow as the current is increased, with the amplitude eventually saturating as the stall current $J^*$ is approached, leading to the formation of interfaces separating the normal and superconducting phases. The stall current can be calculated in the limit of large $u$ using matched asymptotic expansions, demonstrating once again the utility of this technique for problems in inhomogeneous superconductivity. We have also derived an analytic expression for the stall current for small $u$, which we believe to be correct up to exponentially small corrections. Deviations from the stall current cause the interfaces to move, and we have calculated the mobility of these moving interfaces for a wide range of $u$. Finally we have shown that the interface velocity $c= 2/u$ as $J\rightarrow 0$ and that $c$ is bounded as $J\rightarrow J_c$, in contrast to some conjectures in the literature.
As in the magnetic-field analogy, the issue of stability and dynamics of the current-induced NS interfaces will be more complicated and interesting in the two-dimensional case. Some preliminary work in this direction has been reported by Aranson [*et al.*]{}[@aranson96], who find that the current has a stabilizing effect on the NS interface. This can be interpreted as a positive surface tension for the interface, due entirely to [*nonequilibrium*]{} effects. They provide a heuristic derivation of an interesting free-boundary problem for the interfacial dynamics (a variant of the Laplacian growth problem); however, this free-boundary problem is sufficiently complicated that they were unable to solve it to compare with their numerical results. Clearly, further work in this direction would be helpful in understanding the nucleation and growth of the superconducting phase in two-dimensional superconducting films.
This work was supported by NSF Grants DMR 96-28926 and DMR 93-12476.
Amplitude of the critical nuclei in the $J \rightarrow 0$ limit {#appendix}
===============================================================
In this appendix we provide a self-consistent calculation of the amplitude of the critical nuclei in the $J \rightarrow 0$ limit. Choosing the gauge appropriate for bumps centered at $x=0$ and combining Eqs. (\[scaled\]) into one equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{start}
&&\left[-u \partial_t +iuJx + \partial_x^2 +1 \right] \psi(x,t)
= |\psi(x,t)|^2~ \psi(x,t)
\nonumber \\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \
+iu \left[\int_0^{x} dy ~{\rm Im} \left(\psi^*(y,t)
\partial_y \psi (y,t) \right) \right] \psi(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ The propagator for the linear operator appearing on the left hand side of Eq. (\[start\]) satisfies the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\left[-u \partial_t +iuJx + \partial_x^2 +1
\right]&& G(x,x';t-t') \Theta(t-t')
\nonumber \\
= &&-u~ \delta(x-x') \delta(t-t') \end{aligned}$$ and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,x';\tau) = &&\left( \frac{u}{4 \pi \tau} \right)^{1/2}
\exp \left[ \frac{\tau}{u} - \frac{J^2 \tau^3}{12u} \right]
\nonumber \\
&& \times \exp \left[ \frac{iJ \tau(x+x')}{2} -
\frac{u(x-x')^2}{4 \tau} \right] . \end{aligned}$$ Ivlev [*et al.*]{} [@ivlev80; @ivlev84] used this linear propagator to evolve perturbations having widths of $O(1)$ and carrying no current. Without the nonlinear terms such perturbations initially grow but ultimately reach a maximum size and then decay away. Ivlev [*et al.*]{} suggested that the amplitudes of the critical nuclei are exponentially small in the $J \rightarrow 0$ limit by asking what sized initial perturbations are of $O(1)$ at their maxima. Their arguments motivated us to use the propagator in a more careful estimate of the amplitude that includes the nonlinear terms as an essential ingredient.
We can convert Eq. (\[start\]) into an integral equation by multiplying both sides of Eq. (\[start\]) (with $x \rightarrow
x'$ and $t \rightarrow t'$) by $ G(x,x';t-t')$ and integrating over all $x'$ and integrating $t'$ from $0$ to $t$. After some manipulation these steps lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{final}
\psi(x,t) && =
\int_0^t dt' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx' ~G(x,x',t-t')
\nonumber \\
\times&&\left\{
\psi(x',t')\delta(t-t') -\frac{1}{u}
|\psi(x',t')|^2~ \psi(x',t') \right. \nonumber \\
-i && \left. \left[\int_0^{x'} dy ~{\rm Im} \left(
\psi^*(y,t') \partial_y \psi(y,t')
\right) \right] \psi(x',t') \right\} , \end{aligned}$$ where $t>0$.
In order to estimate the amplitude of the threshold solutions, we will substitute into Eq. (\[final\]) the following form $$\label{form}
\psi(x,t) = \psi_0 \exp \left\{ -\frac{uJx^2}{4} + ix
\right\}.$$ Note that this form is stationary and has a fixed Gaussian shape (which is inspired by our WKB approximation, see Eq. (\[4\])) but it has an arbitrary amplitude which we will determine self-consistently.
Let us take the $t \rightarrow \infty$ limit and focus on $x=0$ since our interest is in the amplitude. After substituting Eq. (\[form\]) into Eq. (\[final\]), we can do both integrals for the first term on the right hand side exactly, and it can be seen to decay to zero in the $t \rightarrow
\infty$ limit. Next, we perform the $x'$ integration of the second term on the right hand side ($II$), which yields $$II=-\frac{\psi_0^3}{uJ} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1+3\tau}}
\exp \left\{ \frac{24\tau^2-4\tau^3-3\tau^4}{12uJ(1+3\tau)} \right\},$$ where $\tau=Jt$. We now apply the method of steepest descent to obtain $$II \approx -\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\psi_0^3}{\sqrt{2uJ}} \exp \left\{
\frac{32}{81~uJ} \right\} .$$
In the third term on the right hand side ($III$) of Eq. (\[final\]), we make the substitution $y=vx'$ and then perform the $x'$ integration giving $$\begin{aligned}
III & = & \frac{\psi_0^3}{uJ^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\tau \int_0^1 dv
\frac{(2\tau+\tau^2)}{\sqrt{[1+\tau(1+2v^2)]^3}} \nonumber \\
&& \times \exp
\left\{ \frac{24v^2\tau^2-4\tau^3-(1+2v^2)\tau^4}
{12uJ[1+(1+2v^2)\tau]}\right\}. \end{aligned}$$ The maximum of the term in the exponential of $III$ occurs at $v=1$ (which is an endpoint). Linearizing about that maximum provides $$\begin{aligned}
III & \approx & \frac{\psi_0^3}{uJ^2} \int_0^{\infty}
\frac{ d \tau \tau(2+\tau)}
{\sqrt{(1+3 \tau)^3}} \exp
\left\{ \frac{24\tau^2-4\tau^3-3\tau^4}{12uJ(1+3\tau)}
\right\}
\nonumber \\
&& \times \int_0^1 dw \exp \left\{ -\frac{\tau^2(2+\tau)^2w}
{uJ(1+3\tau)^2}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $w=1-v$. After the $w$ integration, we apply the method of steepest descent to the $\tau$ integration to obtain $$III \approx \frac{\sqrt{\pi u}\psi_0^3}{\sqrt{2J}}
\frac{9}{8} \exp
\left\{ \frac{32}{81~uJ} \right\}.$$ Putting all of these results back into Eq. (\[final\]) gives $$\psi_0 \approx
\frac{\sqrt{\pi u}\psi_0^3}{\sqrt{2J}}
\exp \left\{ \frac{32}{81~uJ} \right\}
\left[\frac{9}{8} - \frac{1}{u} \right],$$ which provides the expression given in the text, Eq. (\[self\]). This calculation clearly runs into trouble when $u<8/9$; however, the numerical coefficients in front of these integrals are sub-leading terms, and they can be varied by adding sub-leading terms to the initial Gaussian guess.
Electronic address: [email protected]
Electronic address: [email protected]
Electronic address: [email protected]
Electronic address: [email protected]
H. Frahm, S. Ullah, and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 3067 (1991).
F. Liu, M. Mondello, and N. D. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 3071 (1991).
S. J. Di Bartolo and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4442 (1996).
A. T. Dorsey, Ann. Phys. [**233**]{}, 248 (1994).
J. C. Osborn and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 15 961 (1994). See also C. J. Boulter and J. O. Indekeu, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 12 407 (1996).
S. J. Chapman, Quart. J. Appl. Math., 601 (1995).
A. B. Pippard, Phil. Mag. [**41**]{}, 243 (1950).
S. J. Chapman, IMA J. Appl. Math. [**54**]{}, 159 (1995).
R. E. Goldstein, D. P. Jackson, and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3818 (1996); A. T. Dorsey and R. E. Goldstein, preprint (cond-mat/9704161).
K. K. Likharev, JETP Lett. [**20**]{}, 338 (1974).
B. I. Ivlev and N. B. Kopnin, Sov. Phys. Usp. [**27**]{}, 206 (1984).
L. Kramer and A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett., 518 (1977).
I. Aranson, B. Ya. Shapiro, and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 142 (1996).
A. Schmid, Phys. Kondens. Mater. [**5**]{}, 302 (1966).
L. P. Gor’kov and G. M. Eliashberg, Sov. Phys. JETP [**27**]{}, 328 (1968).
For a general introduction to the method of matched asymptotic expansions, see C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, [*Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York 1978); M. van Dyke, [*Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics*]{} (The Parabolic Press, Stanford 1975). For some recent applications to problems in superconductivity, see Refs. [@dorsey94] and [@chapman95a], and A. J. Dolgert, S. J. Di Bartolo, and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 5650 (1996).
J. Pearl, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**5**]{}, 65 (1964).
S. J. Chapman, Q. Du, and M. Gunzburger, Z. angew. Math. Phys. [**47**]{}, 410 (1997).
We warn the reader that this choice is different than in many applications of the TDGL equations, where the penetration depth is chosen as the length scale. In the thin film limit the penetration depth drops out of the calculation, leaving $\xi$ as the length scale.
B. I. Ivlev, N. B. Kopnin and L. A. Maslova, Sov. Phys. Solid State [**22**]{}, 149 (1980).
L. P. Gor’kov, JETP Lett. [**11**]{}, 32 (1972).
I. O. Kulik, Sov. Phys. JETP [**32**]{}, 318 (1970).
W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky and W. T. Vetterling, [*Numerical Recipes*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York 1986).
R. J. Watts-Tobin, Y. Krähenbühl and L. Kramer, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**42**]{} 459 (1981).
B. I. Ivlev, N. B. Kopnin and L. A. Maslova, Sov. Phys. JETP [**51**]{}, 986 (1980).
J. S. Langer and V. Ambegaokar, Phys. Rev., 498 (1967).
R. A. Fisher, Ann. Eugen. [**7**]{}, 355 (1937); A. N. Kolmogorov, I. G. Petrovskii and N. S. Pishunov, Bull. Univ. Moscow, Ser. Int. A [**1**]{}, 1 (1937).
D. G. Aronson and H. F. Weinberger, Adv. Math., 33 (1978).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Peierls–Nabarro (PN) model for dislocations is a hybrid model that incorporates the atomistic information of the dislocation core structure into the continuum theory. In this paper, we study the convergence from a full atomistic model to the PN model with $\gamma$-surface for the dislocation in a bilayer system (e.g. bilayer graphene). We prove that the displacement field of and the total energy of the dislocation solution of the PN model are asymptotically close to those of the full atomistic model. Our work can be considered as a generalization of the analysis of the convergence from atomistic model to Cauchy–Born rule for crystals without defects in the literature.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong'
- 'LSEC, Institute of Computational Mathematics and Scientific/Engineering Computing, AMSS, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 55, East Road Zhong-Guan-Cun, Beijing, 100190, China'
author:
- Tao Luo
- Pingbing Ming
- Yang Xiang
title: 'From atomistic model to the Peierls–Nabarro model with $\gamma$-surface for dislocations'
---
dislocation, Peierls–Nabarro model, $\gamma$-surface, atomistic-to-continuum
Introduction
============
Dislocations are line defects and the primary carriers of plastic deformation in crystals. They are essential in the understanding of mechanical and plastic properties of crystalline materials [@Hirth1982-p-]. Models at different length and time scales have been developed to characterize the behaviors of dislocations and properties of the materials. Atomistic models and first principles calculations are able to capture detailed information of dislocations; however, they are computationally time-consuming and are limited to domains of small size over short time scales. On the other hand, continuum theory of dislocations based on linear elasticity theory applies to much larger domains; although this theory is accurate outside the dislocation core region (of a few lattice constants size), it breaks down inside the dislocation core where the atomic structure is heavily distorted. The Peierls–Nabarro (PN) model [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272] is a hybrid model that incorporates in the continuum model the dislocation core structure informed by atomistic or first principles calculations. Ever since its development, this model and its generalizations have been widely employed in the investigation of dislocation-core related properties [@Eshelby1949-p903-912; @Vitek1968-p773-786; @Vitek1971-p493-508; @Kaxiras1993-p3752-3755; @Schoeck1994-p1085-1095; @Bulatov1997-p4221-4223; @Movchan1998-p373-396; @Miller1998-p1845-1867; @Hartford1998-p2487-2496; @Schoeck1999-p2310-2313; @Schoeck1999-p2629-2636; @Lu2000-p3099-3108; @Xu2000-p605-611; @Koslowski2002-p2597-2635; @Movchan2003-p569-587; @Lu2003-p3539-3548; @Shen2004-p683-691; @Xiang2006-p383-424; @Xiang2008-p1447-1460; @Wei2008-p275-293; @Wei2009-p2333-2354; @Dai2011-p438-441; @Dai2013-p1327-1337; @Dai2014-p162-174; @Shen2014-p125-131; @Zhou2015-p155438-155438; @Mianroodi2015-p109-122; @Wang2015-p3768-3784; @Wu2016-p11137-11142; @Wang2015-p7853-7853; @Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Dai2016-p5923-5927].
In the classical PN model [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272], the slip plane of a straight edge or screw dislocation divides the crystal into two half-space elastic continua reconnected by a nonlinear potential force incorporating the atomistic effect. The nonlinear potential force is described based on the relative displacement (disregistry) across the slip plane, in the direction of Burgers vector of the dislocation. The total energy consists of two half-space elastic energies and a misfit energy that leads to the nonlinear potential force across the slip plane. The misfit energy in the classical PN model is approximated by a sinusoidal function of the disregistry. The dislocation configuration is regarded as the minimizer of the total energy subject to the constraint of the Burgers vector of the dislocation. Such a hybrid model is able to give fairly good results of the dislocation core structure, the non-singular stress field and the total energy, as well as the Peierls stress and the Peierls energy for the motion of the dislocation.
Vitek [@Vitek1968-p773-786] introduced the concept of the generalized stacking fault energy (or the $\gamma$-surface), which is expressed in terms of the disregistry vector (relative displacement vector) across the slip plane. For a given disregistry vector, the value of the $\gamma$-surface is defined as the energy increment per unit area (after relaxation) when the two half-spaces of the crystal have a uniform relative shift across the slip plane by this disregistry vector, which can be calculated by atomistic models. The $\gamma$-surface does not only provide a more realistic nonlinear potential than the sinusoidal form used in the original works of Peierls and Nabarro [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272], but also enables vector-valued disregistry function across the slip plane than the scalar disregistry function in the original PN model. Thus it is able to describe the partial dissociation of perfect dislocations [@Vitek1968-p773-786; @Vitek1971-p493-508]. The $\gamma$-surfaces can be calculated using the empirical potentials as in the original work of Vitek [@Vitek1968-p773-786]. Recently, the $\gamma$-surfaces are also obtained more accurately by using the first principles calculations (e.g. [@Kaxiras1993-p3752-3755; @Bulatov1997-p4221-4223; @Hartford1998-p2487-2496; @Lu2000-p3099-3108; @Zhou2015-p155438-155438]). The method of $\gamma$-surface has become an important tool for the study of dislocations and plastic properties in crystals.
Besides the incorporation of $\gamma$-surfaces, a considerable amount of generalizations of the classical PN model in other aspects have also been developed in the past seventy years. These generalizations further considered elastic anisotropy [@Eshelby1949-p903-912; @Schoeck1994-p1085-1095; @Xiang2008-p1447-1460], the lattice discreteness and Peierls stress [@Bulatov1997-p4221-4223; @Movchan1998-p373-396; @Schoeck1999-p2629-2636; @Lu2000-p3099-3108; @Wei2008-p275-293; @Wei2009-p2333-2354; @Shen2014-p125-131], nonlocal misfit energy [@Miller1998-p1845-1867; @Schoeck1999-p2310-2313] and gradient energy [@Wang2015-p3768-3784; @Mianroodi2015-p109-122], and dislocation cross-slip [@Lu2003-p3539-3548; @Wu2016-p11137-11142]. Generalized PN models have also been developed for curved dislocations [@Xu2000-p605-611; @Koslowski2002-p2597-2635; @Movchan2003-p569-587; @Xiang2008-p1447-1460] and within the phase field framework for curved dislocations [@Shen2004-p683-691]. Models within the PN framework have also been proposed for grain boundaries [@Dai2013-p1327-1337; @Dai2014-p162-174; @Shen2014-p125-131; @Wang2015-p7853-7853], twin boundary junctions [@Dai2011-p438-441], and bilayer graphene and other bilayer materials [@Zhou2015-p155438-155438; @Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Dai2016-p5923-5927]. The PN models also provide a basis for asymptotic analysis [@Xiang2009-p728-743] and rigorous analysis [@Garroni2005-p1943-1964; @Conti2011-p779-819; @Conti2016-p240-251] for obtaining models of dislocation distributions at larger length scales.
Despite the wide range of generalizations and applications of the PN models, there is not much mathematical understanding and rigorous analysis of these models. Especially, there is no rigorous analysis available in the literature for the fundamental question of convergence from atomistic model to the PN model, to the best of our knowledge. An attempt was made by Fino et al. [@Fino2012-p258-293] to prove the convergence from the nearest neightbor Frenkel–Kontorova model [@Frenkel1938-p1340-1348] to the PN model using viscosity solutions. Although discrete lattice-site interactions in the upper and lower half-spaces were included in the nearest Frenkel–Kontorova model adopted in [@Fino2012-p258-293], they directly used a continuum $\gamma$-surface in their Frenkel–Kontorova model without convergence proof from atomistic model. Rigorous convergence analysis from fully atomistic model to the PN model with justification of the $\gamma$-surface is still lacking.
In this paper, we perform a rigorous analysis for the convergence from atomistic model to the PN model with $\gamma$-surface, in the regime where the lattice constant (or equivalently, the length of the Burgers vector of the dislocation) is much smaller than the length scale of the PN model. As a result, the decomposition of the total energy into the elastic energy and misfit energy (expressed in terms of the $\gamma$-surface) in the framework of the PN models is rigorously justified based on the atomistic model, which has never been done in the literature. In our proof, we focus on the one-dimensional form of the generalized PN model recently developed for the inter-layer dislocations in bilayer graphene [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Dai2016-p5923-5927]. Note that in the generalized PN model in Refs. [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Dai2016-p5923-5927], dislocations are lines lying between the two graphene layers, which are different from the dislocations as point defects in a monolayer graphene studied by Ariza et al. [@Ariza2010-p710-734; @Ariza2012-p2004-2021] using a discrete dislocation dynamics model.
Our work can also be considered as an extension of the analysis of the convergence issue of Cauchy–Born rule [@Born1954-p-; @Blanc2002-p341-381] for elastic media without dislocations and other defects, see, e.g. [@Braides1999-p23-58; @Blanc2002-p341-381; @Friesecke2002-p445-478; @Conti2005-p515-530; @W.2007-p241-297; @W.2010-p1432-1468; @Lu2013-p83-108; @Ortner2013-p1025-1073; @Makridakis2013-p813-843] for the recent progress. The major difficulty in the analysis of the PN model lies in the fact that due to the presence of the dislocation, the displacement vector across the slip plane of the dislocation is no longer continuous, which is unlike in the Cauchy–Born rule where the displacement and its gradient are always continuous. Such a discontinuity in the PN model is handled by the $\gamma$-surface, and our work successfully establishes the convergence from atomistic model to the PN model under the one-dimensional setting. Our proof is inspired by the work of E and Ming [@W.2007-p241-297], in which the stability and convergence of the Cauchy–Born rule were rigorously analyzed for states close to perfect lattices. More precisely, we show that the dislocation solution and the associated energy of the PN model are approximations to those using the full atomistic model. An important assumption in our analysis is that the ratio of the lattice constant to the dislocation core size is small, which is valid in the bilayer graphene due to the strong intra-layer atomic interaction and weak inter-layer atomic interaction [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Dai2016-p5923-5927].
Our convergence result is based on the consistency, the linear stability, and a fixed point argument. Infinite interaction range causes difficulties in estimating the truncation error and proving the compactness for the fixed point iteration. This is solved by detailed estimates on the decaying of the derivatives of the pair potentials and the PN solution. Another difficulty is that the stability of the atomistic dislocation solution cannot be directly obtained from that of a perfect lattice because the disregistry might be as large as a (half) Burger vector. This is different from the situation in the Cauchy–Born rule [@W.2007-p241-297], where both atomistic and continuous configurations are perturbed from a common equilibrium state. To overcome this, we first prove the stability for the PN solution using the standard techniques in elliptic partial differential equations. Consequently, we obtain the first positive eigenvalue of the linearized PN operator at the PN solution. The stability of the atomistic model is then achieved by controlling the stability gap between two models. Such stability of dislocation core is still lack of systematic study in the literature. An attempt was made by Hudson and Ortner [@Hudson2014-p887-929] for an atomistic model with nearest neighbor interaction. They obtained the stability of a screw dislocation under anti-plane deformation in the sense that the dislocation solution is a global minimizer of the total energy with given total Burgers vector. To avoid the lattice periodic translation invariant, they fixed the dislocation center. Although we also fix the center of dislocation, our proofs are quite different from theirs. In particular, we consider both atomistic and continuum models for edge dislocation, and the stabilities are proved in a continuum-to-atomistic way, as shown above. Again, in the stability analysis of our atomistic model, the infinite-ranged pair potentials lead to an issue in estimating double infinite summations, which is overcome by various summability lemmas obtained in this paper.
There is an extensive literature on the convergence issue of dislocation models using the language of $\Gamma$-convergence [@Garroni2006-p535-578; @Garroni2010-p1231-1266; @Ponsiglione2007-p449-469; @DeLuca2012-p1-26; @Conti2015-p699-755]. To the best of our knowledge, they all study the upscaling from the discrete dislocation theory to the dislocation density theory in much larger scales than our situation here. In contrast to these works focusing on many dislocations to dislocation density and neglect the details of the core structure, our work looks into a single dislocation core structure and provide a quantitative error estimate for displacement in the PN dislocation solution with respect to the atomistic dislocation solution. In particular, we obtain the misfit potential in the continuum model from atomistic model according to the exact definition of $\gamma$ surface instead of a quadratic or sinusoidal approximation.
The present paper is organized as follows. We present the derivations of the models and state main results of this paper in Section 2. Section 3 provides some preliminary results for the rest of the analysis. In Section 4, we deal with the consistency issue of the PN model based on asymptotic analysis of the atomistic model. In Section 5, we focus on the existence and stability of the PN model. Section 6 is concerned with the stability of atomistic model. In Section 7, we collect the previous results to prove the existence of the atomistic solution which is close to the continuum solution in the asymptotic sense. Finally, our key assumption on the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$ is validated in the appendix using data based on first principle calculations.
Models and main results
=======================
In this paper, we study the one-dimensional form of the generalized PN model recently developed for the inter-layer dislocations in bilayer graphene [@Dai2016-p85410-85410]. That is, the dislocation is straight and the structure of the bilayer graphene is uniform in the direction of the dislocation. We focus on an edge dislocation between a planar bilayer graphene and neglect the buckling effect [@Dai2016-p85410-85410]. This is a reasonably simplified scenario, for instance, when the bilayer is bonded by a substrate such that the buckling is limited. In fact, comparing to in-plane displacement, the out-of-plane displacement affects only slightly the structure of an edge dislocation. As a result, we only study the displacement within the slip plane. The dislocation solutions are local minimizers of the total energy in the atomistic model and the PN model, respectively, subject to the constraint of the total Burgers vector. We will show that the dislocation solution of the PN model is an approximation of the dislocation solution using the atomistic model.
Atomistic model {#sec..atomistic.model}
---------------
In the one-dimensional setting, the bilayer graphene consists of two chains of atoms along the $x$ axis. The two atomic layers are located at $y =\pm\frac{1}{2}d$, respectively, where $d$ is the distance between two layers. The system is uniform in the $z$ direction. For a perfect bilayer graphene without dislocation, the atoms are located at $\Gamma_\text{a}^{\pm}=\left\{\textbf{x}^\pm_i=(x_i^\pm,\pm\frac{1}{2}d): i\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$, where $x_i^+=ia-\frac{1}{2}a$, $x_i^-=ia$, and $a$ is the lattice constant, see Fig. \[figure..lattice.dislocation\](a). This perfect lattice is the reference state of the dislocation to be described below.
Suppose that there is a dislocation centered at the origin $(0,0)$ with Burgers vector $\textbf{b}=(a,0)$. This dislocation is an edge dislocation. The dislocation structure is described by using the perfect lattice above as the reference state, and the atomic sites are $\Gamma^{\pm}_{\text{a}}=\{\textbf{x}'^\pm_i=(x_i'^{\pm}, \pm\frac{1}{2}d): i\in \mathbb{Z}\}$, where $x_i'^{+}=x_i^{+}+u_i^{+}=ia-\frac{1}{2}a+u_i^{+}$ and $x_i'^{-}=x_i^{-}+u_i^{-}=ia+u_i^{-}$. The displacement field $u=\{u^+_i,u^-_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ of this edge dislocation satisfies the boundary conditions at $\pm\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{i\rightarrow-\infty}(u_i^+-u_i^-)=0,\, \, \, \lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}(u_i^+-u_i^-)=a.\label{eq..atom.boundary.condition}\end{aligned}$$ To fix the center of the dislocation at $(0,0)$, we also assume $$\begin{aligned}
u_0^+-u_0^-=a/2.\label{eq..atom.boundary.condition1}\end{aligned}$$ See the atomic configuration of this dislocation shown in Fig. \[figure..lattice.dislocation\](b). Here we only consider the displacement within its own layer, and the vertical displacement that is normal to the bilayer is neglected due to the non-buckling case.
Suppose that the system is described by pairwise potentials. The interaction is $V\left(\frac{|\textbf{x}_j'^{\pm}-\textbf{x}_i'^{\pm}|}{a}\right)=V\left(\frac{x_j'^{\pm}-x_i'^{\pm}}{a}\right)$ for atoms $\textbf{x}_j'^{\pm}$ and $\textbf{x}_i'^{\pm}$ in the same layer; while it is $V_{\text{inter}}\left(\frac{|\textbf{x}_j'^{+}-\textbf{x}_i'^{-}|}{a}\right)$ for atoms $\textbf{x}_j'^{+}$ and $\textbf{x}_i'^{-}$ from different layers. When the distance $d$ between two layers is fixed, we have $|\textbf{x}_j'^{+}-\textbf{x}_i'^{-}|=\sqrt{(x_j'^+-x_i'^-)^2+d^2}$ and the interlayer potential only depends on the horizontal distance $|x_j'^+-x_i'^-|$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
V_d\left(\frac{x_j'^{+}-x_i'^{-}}{a}\right)
:=V_{\text{inter}}\left(\frac{|\textbf{x}_j'^{+}-\textbf{x}_i'^{-}|}{a}\right)
=V_{\text{inter}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{(x_j'^+-x_i'^-)^2+d^2}}{a}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The total energy of the atomistic model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{a}[u]&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\left\{\left[V\left(\frac{x_{i+s}'^+-x_i'^+}{a}\right)
-V(s)\right]+\left[V\left(\frac{x_{i+s}'^--x_i'^-}{a}\right)-V(s)\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[V_d\left(\frac{x_{i+s}'^+-x_i'^-}{a}\right)-V_d\left(s-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\left[V\left(s+\frac{u^+_{i+s}-u^+_i}{a}\right)+V\left(s+\frac{u^-_{i+s}-u^-_i}{a}\right)-2V(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[V_d\left(s-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i}{a}\right)-V_d\left(s-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right].\label{eq..atom.energy.original}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the state of perfect lattice is used as the reference state.
The atomic sites of the edge dislocation is determined by minimizing the total energy in Eq. subject to the displacement conditions in Eqs. and .
Peierls–Nabarro (PN) model {#sec..continuum.model}
--------------------------
In the PN model, we consider an edge dislocation with Burgers vector $\mathbf{b} = (a,0)$ centered at the origin of the $xy$ plane in the bilayer graphene $\Gamma_\text{PN}^+\cup\Gamma_\text{PN}^-$, where $\Gamma_\text{PN}^{\pm}=\left\{\mathbf{x^\pm}=(x'^\pm,\pm\frac{1}{2}d):x'^\pm=x+u^\pm(x), x\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$ . As in the atomistic model, we only consider the displacement within its own layer (i.e., the $x$ direction), and call it the horizontal displacement. The vertical displacement that is normal to the bilayer is neglected. Here $u^+(x)$ and $u^-(x)$ are the horizontal displacements along the two layers $\Gamma_\text{PN}^+$ and $\Gamma_\text{PN}^-$, respectively.
As in the classical PN model [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272], the disregistry (relative displacement) $\phi(x)$ between the two layers is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)=u^+(x)-u^-(x).\end{aligned}$$ The disregistry $\phi(x)$ of this edge dislocation satisfies the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}\phi(x)=0,\,\, \lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\phi(x)=a.\label{eq..cont.boundary.condition}\end{aligned}$$ We also assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(0)=a/2\end{aligned}$$ to fix the center of the dislocation at $x = 0$. Note that the horizontal displacement is not continuous in the $y$ direction, and the discontinuity is described by the disregistry function $\phi(x)$. The disregistry function $\phi(x)$ also describes the structure of the dislocation; more precisely, $\phi′(x)$ is the distribution of the Burgers vector.
In the framework of the PN model [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272] with $\gamma$-surface [@Vitek1968-p773-786], the total energy of the bilayer system is divided into two parts: an elastic energy due to the intra-layer elastic interaction and a misfit energy due to the nonlinear interaction between the two layers, which is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..pn.total}
E_\text{PN}[u]
=E_\text{elas}[u]+E_\text{mis}[\phi].\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_\text{elas}[u]$ is the elastic energy due to the intra-layer elastic interaction in the two layers $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..pn.elastic}
E_\text{elas}[u]
=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^-|^2\right) {\mathrm{d}}x,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the elastic modulus. Note that in each layer, the elastic energy density is $\frac{1}{2} \alpha |\nabla u^{\pm}|^2 $. The energy $E_\text{mis}[\phi]$ is the misfit energy due to the nonlinear interaction between the two layers $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..pn.misfit}
E_\text{mis}[\phi]
=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\gamma\left(\phi\right){\mathrm{d}}x,\end{aligned}$$ where the density of this misfit energy $\gamma(\phi)$ is the $\gamma$-surface (or the generalized stacking fault energy) [@Vitek1968-p773-786] that is defined as the energy increment per unit length when there is a uniform shift of $\phi$ between the two layers. Especially, when $\phi=ia$, $i\in \mathbb{Z}$, the shifted system still has the perfect lattice structure, and $\gamma(\phi)=0$. In summary, the energy density of the PN model is $$\begin{aligned}
W_\text{PN}\left(\phi,\nabla u^+,\nabla u^-\right)=\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^-|^2+\gamma\left(\phi\right).\label{eq..PNdensity}\end{aligned}$$
The $\gamma$-surface $\gamma(\phi)$ accounts for the nonlinear interaction between the two layers with displacement discontinuity $\phi$ between them. Using its definition, the $\gamma$-surface can be calculated from the atomistic model in Sec. \[sec..atomistic.model\] by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..gamma}
\gamma\left(\phi\right)=\frac{1}{a}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[V_d\left(s-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\phi}{a}\right)
-V_d\left(s-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ The constant $\alpha$ in the elastic energy can also be calculated from the atomistic model in Sec. \[sec..atomistic.model\] by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..alpha}
\alpha=\frac{1}{2a}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)|s|^2.\end{aligned}$$ The purpose of this paper is to establish the convergence from the atomistic model in Sec. \[sec..atomistic.model\] to the PN model in Eqs. –.
This PN model for the bilayer material contains the essential features of the PN models with $\gamma$-surface. That is, the system is considered as two elastic continuums connected by a misfit energy expressed in terms of the $\gamma$-surface that accounts for the nonlinear interaction between the two elastic continuums. Note that for a dislocation in $\mathbb{R}^3$, as in the classical PN model [@Peierls1940-p34-37; @Nabarro1947-p256-272] with the $\gamma$-surface [@Vitek1968-p773-786] and later generalizations as reviewed in the introduction section, the three-dimensional space is divided by the slip plane of the dislocation into two half-space elastic continuums, and they are connected by a misfit energy expressed in terms of the $\gamma$-surface across the slip plane. The total energy is $E_\text{PN}=E_\text{elas}+E_\text{mis}$, where $E_\text{elas}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3\backslash\{z=0\}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{ij}\epsilon_{ij}{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}y{\mathrm{d}}z$ and $E_\text{mis}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\gamma(\pmb{\phi}(x,y)){\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}y$. Here the $xy$ plane is the slip plane of the dislocation, and $\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{ij}\epsilon_{ij}$ is the (linear) elastic energy density, $\sigma_{ij}$ and $\epsilon_{ij}$ are the stress and strain tensors, respectively, and $\gamma(\pmb{\phi})$ is the $\gamma$-surface. Generalization can also be made to replace the energy of linear elasticity in the PN model by the energy of Cauchy–Born nonlinear elasticity.
Weak interlayer interaction and rescaling {#sec..rescaling}
-----------------------------------------
For bilayer graphene, the van der Waals like interaction between the two layers is weak compared to the strong interlayer covalent-bond interaction in each layer [@Dai2016-p85410-85410]. That is, $V_d\ll V$ in the atomistic model. We write the relationship as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..V-tildeV}
V_d=O({\varepsilon}^2)V,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}$ is some dimensionless small parameter to be defined below. Recall that in the PN model for bilayer graphene, the elastic energy $E_\text{elas}$ is due to the interlayer interaction and the misfit energy $E_\text{mis}$ comes from the interaction between the two layers. The dimensionless small parameter ${\varepsilon}$ is defined based on the PN model as follows.
For most part of the system, the atoms are away from the dislocation, and their atomistic structure is close to that of a perfect lattice. For example, when $\phi/a\ll 1$ in the PN model in Sec. \[sec..rescaling\], which happens on the negative part of the $x$ axis away from the origin, the energy density in the PN model in Eq. is approximated well by a quadratic form: $$\begin{aligned}
W_\text{PN}\left(\phi,\nabla u^+,\nabla u^-\right)
&\approx&\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^-|^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0)\phi^2\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha |\nabla u^-|^2+\frac{1}{2}a^2\gamma''(0)\left(\frac{\phi}{a}\right)^2.\label{eq..quadratic.form}\end{aligned}$$ We remark that a similar quadratic form works for the positive part, with the last term in Eq. replaced by $\frac{1}{2}a^2\gamma''(0)\left(\frac{\phi-a}{a}\right)^2$. The ratio of the coefficients $\frac{a^2\gamma''(0)}{\alpha}$ is a dimensionless constant that characterizes the relative strength of the inter-layer interaction versus the intra-layer interaction. Recall that the parameter $\alpha$ is expressed in terms of quantities in the atomistic model as in Eq. . Using the atomistic expression of $\gamma(\phi)$ in Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..gamma0}
\gamma''(0)=\frac{1}{a^3}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}V_d''\left(s-\frac{1}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Suggested by Eqs. , , and , we define the dimensionless parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..epsilon}
{\varepsilon}=\textstyle \sqrt{\frac{a^2\gamma''(0)}{\alpha}},\end{aligned}$$ and assume that $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}\ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ A validation of this assumption based on values of atomistic and first principles calculations [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Zhou2015-p155438-155438] is given in the Appendix.
Using $a/{\varepsilon}$ as the unit length for the spatial variable $x$ and $a$ as the unit length for the displacements in the PN model, we have the following rescaled quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..rescaling}
&&\tilde{x}=\frac{{\varepsilon}x}{a},\,\,\tilde{u}^{\pm}=\frac{u^{\pm}}{a},\,\,\tilde{\phi}=\frac{\phi}{a}.
\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, the variables and functionals related to energy densities are rescaled to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..rescaling1}
&&\tilde{\alpha}=a\alpha, \,\,
\tilde{\gamma}(\tilde{\phi})=a\gamma(\phi),\\
&&\tilde{W}_\text{PN}(\tilde{\phi},\nabla_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{u}^+, \nabla_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{u}^-)={\varepsilon}^{-1}W_\text{PN}(\phi,\nabla u^+, \nabla u^-),\\
&&\tilde{E}_\text{PN}[u]={\varepsilon}^{-1}E_\text{PN}[u],\,\,\tilde{E}_\text{a}[u]={\varepsilon}^{-1}E_\text{a}[u].
\end{aligned}$$
Using these rescaled variables, the total energy in the PN model can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{E}_\text{PN}[u]
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}} \tilde{W}_\text{PN}(\tilde{\phi},\nabla_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{u}^+, \nabla_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{u}^-) \ {\mathrm{d}}\tilde{x}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\alpha} |\nabla_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{u}^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\alpha} |\nabla_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{u}^-|^2+\tilde\gamma (\tilde{\phi})\right\} {\mathrm{d}}\tilde{x},\label{eq..cont.energy.functional}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\tilde\alpha=\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}V''(s)|s|^2,\label{eq..alpha.rescaled}\\
&&\tilde{\gamma}(\tilde{\phi})
=\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}} \left[U\left(s-\frac{1}{2}+u^+-u^-\right)-U\left(s-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right].\label{eq..gamma.rescaled}\end{aligned}$$ Here, following Eq. , we define in the atomistic model that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..newinterP}
U={\varepsilon}^{-2}V_d,\end{aligned}$$ so that $U=O(1)V$.
Finally, using Eq. , the total energy in the atomistic model can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{E}_\text{a}[u]
&=&\frac{{\varepsilon}^{-1}}{2}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\left[V\left(s+(\tilde{u}^+_{i+s}-\tilde{u}^+_i)\right)+V\left(s+(u^-_{i+s}-u^-_i)\right)-2V(s)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}[U(s-\frac{1}{2}+(u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i))-{U(s-\frac{1}{2})}].
\label{eq..atom.energy.functional}\end{aligned}$$
For simplicity of notations, frow now on, we will still use variables without $\sim$ in the PN model after the above rescaling.
We remark that $E_\text{PN}[u]$ is independent of ${\varepsilon}$, and thence $E_\text{PN}[u]=O(1)$. The first and the second variations of atomistic and continuum models are denoted as $\delta E_\text{a}[u]$, $\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]$, $\delta E_\text{PN}[u]$, and $\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[u]$, respectively. Their explicit form are given in Proposition \[prop..first.second.variations\].
Main results
------------
For readers’ convenience, we first collect assumptions and fix notations. After that, our main results will be stated.
[**Assumptions**]{} Here is the collection of our assumptions which are physically reasonable and will be discussed in details later.
1. (weak inter-layer interaction) ${\varepsilon}\ll 1$.
2. (symmetry) $V(x)=V(-x)$ and $U(x)=U(-x)$.
3. (regularity) $V\in C^4(\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\})$ and $U\in C^4(\mathbb{R})$.
4. (fast decay) $|V^{(4)}(x)|\leq |x|^{-8-\theta}$ and $|U^{(4)}(x)|\leq |x|^{-6-\theta}$, $|x|\geq R$ for some $R>0$ and $\theta>0$.
5. (elasticity constant) $\alpha>0$.
6. ($\gamma$-surface) $\arg\min_{\phi\in\mathbb{R}}\gamma(\phi)=\mathbb{Z}$ and $\gamma''(0)>0$.
7. (small stability gap) $
\kappa>\Delta,
$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta&=&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}\sup_{\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1}\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f} \right\rangle-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f \right\rangle_{{\varepsilon}},\label{eq..Delta.definition}\\
\kappa&=&\inf_{\|f\|_{X_0}=1}\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]f,f\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ with $v$ being the dislocation solution of the PN model (cf. Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]). The operators and functional spaces here will be defined in Eqs. –.
We remark that in our bilayer graphene setting, A1–A7 are all satisfied. In particular, a verification of Assumption A1 is provided in the Appendix, where we show that ${\varepsilon}\approx0.0475\ll 1$ based on the data from Refs. [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Zhou2015-p155438-155438].
In general, Assumptions A2–A4 are satisfied by most pair potentials, such as the Lennard–Jones potential, the Morse potential, etc. The physical meaning of Assumptions A5–A6 is that the lattice structure without defects is the unique global minimizer of the total energy.
For Assumption A7, we remark that $\Delta\geq 0$ (cf. Proposition \[prop..Delta.geq.0\]) characterizes the stability gap between atomistic model ($\delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]$) and PN model ($\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]$) at perfect lattice, while $\kappa>0$ (only depends on $R,\theta,\alpha$, and $\gamma''(0)$, cf. Proposition \[prop..PN.stability\]) depicts the stability of the dislocation solution of the PN model. We also provide an explicit formula for $\Delta$ (cf. Proposition \[prop..explicit.Delta\]). Here are two examples where A7 holds.
\[nearest neighbor interaction\] Let $V$ be nearest neighbor interaction, i.e., $V(s)=0$ for $|s|\geq 2$. Then $\Delta=0$ and Assumption A7 holds. (cf. Proposition \[prop..NN.Delta\]).
\[Lennard–Jones potential\] Let $V$ be Lennard–Jones $(m,n)$ potential, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
V(x)=V_\text{LJ}(x)=-\left(\frac{r_0}{|x|}\right)^{m}+\left(\frac{r_0}{|x|}\right)^{n},\,\,1<m<n,\,\,x\neq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ is some characteristic distance. Then $\Delta=0$ and Assumption A7 holds. (cf. Proposition \[prop..LJ.Delta\]).
[**Notations**]{} In the proofs, we do not intend to optimize the constants, and hence we frequently use $C$ to be an ${\varepsilon}$-independent constant, which may be different from line to line.
For convenience, we introduce the difference operators $D^\pm_s$ for $f$ defined on ${\varepsilon}\mathbb{Z}$ or $\mathbb{R}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..difference.operator}
D^+_{s}f(x)=\frac{f(x+{\varepsilon}s)-f(x)}{{\varepsilon}},\,\,\,\,D^{-}_{s}f(x)=\frac{f(x)-f(x-{\varepsilon}s)}{{\varepsilon}},\,\,s\in \mathbb{Z}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we denote $D f = D^+_1 f$ and $D^k f=(D^+_1)^k f$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$. For function $f$ defined on ${\varepsilon}\mathbb{Z}$, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
f_i=f({\varepsilon}i), \,\,i\in \mathbb{Z}.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we introduce discrete Sobolev spaces $H^k_{\varepsilon}=H^k_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}\mathbb{Z})=\{f:\|f\|_{{\varepsilon},k}<\infty\}$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$, where the $H^k_{\varepsilon}$ norm is defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|^2_{{\varepsilon},k}={\varepsilon}\sum_{0\leq j\leq k}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}|D^{j} f_i|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the convention, we denote $L^2_{\varepsilon}=H^0_{\varepsilon}$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{\varepsilon}=\|\cdot\|_{{\varepsilon},0}$. We refer the readers to Lemma \[lem..space.L2.epsilon\] for relations and properties of these spaces. For $f,g\in L^2_{{\varepsilon}}$, their inner products is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle f,g\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}f_i g_i.\end{aligned}$$ If $f^\pm, g^\pm\in L^2_{\varepsilon}$, then we write $f=(f^+,f^-)\in L^2_{\varepsilon}$, $D^k f=(D^k f^+, D^k f^-)$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|^2_{{\varepsilon},k}&=&\|f^+\|_{{\varepsilon},k}^2+\|f^-\|_{{\varepsilon},k}^2,\\
\left\langle f,g\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&\left\langle f^+,g^+\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}+\left\langle f^-,g^-\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, if $f^\pm, g^\pm\in L^2$, we write $f=(f^+,f^-)\in L^2$, $\nabla^k f=(\nabla^k f^+, \nabla^k f^-)$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|^2_{H^k}&=&\|f^+\|_{H^k}^2+\|f^-\|_{H^k}^2,\\
\left\langle f,g\right\rangle&=&\left\langle f^+,g^+\right\rangle+\left\langle f^-,g^-\right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We simplified the norm $\|\cdot\|_{L^2}$ as $\|\cdot\|$ for $L^2$ functions. The uniform norms on ${\varepsilon}\mathbb{Z}$ is given by $
\|f\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}=\sup_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|f_i|
$.
If $f=(f^+,f^-)\in L^2_{\varepsilon}$, we define its linear interpolation $\bar{f}=(\bar{f}^+,\bar{f}^-)\in L^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{f}^{\pm}(x)=\frac{(i+1){\varepsilon}-x}{{\varepsilon}}f^{\pm}_i+\frac{x-i{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}f^{\pm}_{i+1}\,\,\text{for}\,\,i{\varepsilon}\leq x <(i+1){\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ We define the jump of $f=(f^+,f^-)$ in $y$ direction $$\begin{aligned}
f^\perp(x)=f^+(x)-f^-(x)\,\,\text{and}\,\,
f^\perp_i=f^+_i-f^-_i.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the jump $u^\perp=\phi$ is the disregistry for the displacement of the PN model. We define solution spaces for our problems as follows $$\begin{aligned}
S_0&=&\left\{u=(u^+,u^-)\in H^1_{\text{loc}}:\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}u^\perp(x)=0,\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}u^\perp(x)=1, u^\pm(0)=\pm\frac{1}{4}\right\},\\
S_{\varepsilon}&=&\left\{u=(u^+,u^-)\in H^1_{{\varepsilon},\text{loc}}:\lim_{i\rightarrow-\infty}u^\perp_i=0, \lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}u^\perp_i=1, u^\pm_0=\pm\frac{1}{4}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the functional space $H^1_{\text{loc}}$ (respectively $H^1_{{\varepsilon},\text{loc}}$) consists of local $H^1$ (respectively $H^1_{\varepsilon}$) functions. Throughout this paper, such evaluations $u^\pm(0)$ are always in the trace sense.
We define the following functional spaces for the analysis of both models $$\begin{aligned}
&&X_0=\left\{f=(f^+,f^-)\in H^1_\text{loc}:\|f\|_{X_0}<\infty,f^\pm(0)=0\right\},\\
&&X_{\varepsilon}=\left\{f=(f^+,f^-)\in H^1_{{\varepsilon},\text{loc}}:\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}<\infty,f^\pm_0=0\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\|f\|_{X_0}=\left\langle f,f\right\rangle^{1/2}_{X_0}$ and $\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}=\left\langle f,f\right\rangle^{1/2}_{X_{\varepsilon}}$ with the following inner products $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle f,g\right\rangle_{X_0}
&=&\left\langle \nabla f^+,\nabla g^+\right\rangle +\left\langle \nabla f^-,\nabla g^-\right\rangle+\left\langle f^\perp,g^\perp\right\rangle ,\\
\left\langle f,g\right\rangle_{X_{\varepsilon}}
&=&\left\langle Df^+,Dg^+\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}+\left\langle Df^-,Dg^-\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}+\left\langle f^\perp,g^\perp\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}.\label{eq..inner.product.X_eps}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that $X_0$ and $X_{\varepsilon}$ are both Hilbert spaces with respect to inner products $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{X_0}$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{X_{\varepsilon}}$. We remark that $
\|f\|_{X_0}^2=\|\nabla f\|^2+\|f^\perp\|^2
$ and $
\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2=\|D f\|_{\varepsilon}^2+\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2
$. Finally, the following linear subspace will also be useful in the proofs $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\varepsilon}=\{f=(f^+,f^-)\in H^1_{{\varepsilon},\text{loc}}:f^+_i=-f^-_i=-f^+_{-i},\,\,i\in\mathbb{Z}\}.\label{eq..def.M_e}\end{aligned}$$
[**Main results**]{} For the PN model, we solve the minimization problem for $v=(v^+,v^-)\in S_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{u\in S_0} E_\text{PN}[u].\label{eq..PN.minimization}\end{aligned}$$ The Euler–Lagrange equation of this minimization problem reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\delta E_\text{PN}[u]=0,\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}u^\perp(x)=0,\,\, \lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}u^\perp(x)=1,\,\, u^\pm(0)=\pm\frac{1}{4}.
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq..cont.Euler.Lagrange}\end{aligned}$$ For the atomistic model, we solve the minimization problem for $v^{\varepsilon}=(v^{{\varepsilon},+},v^{{\varepsilon},-})\in S_{\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{u\in S_{\varepsilon}} E_\text{a}[u].\label{eq..atom.minimization}\end{aligned}$$ The Euler–Lagrange equation of this minimization problem reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\delta E_\text{a}[u]=0,\\
\lim_{i\rightarrow-\infty}u^\perp_i=0,\,\, \lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}u^\perp_i=1,\,\, u^\pm_0=\pm\frac{1}{4}.
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq..atom.Euler.Lagrange}\end{aligned}$$
Our main results of this paper are
\[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\] If Assumptions A1–A6 hold, then the PN problem has a unique solution $v=(v^+,v^-)$ and $v\in S_0$ is the $X_0$-global minimizer of the energy functional . Moreover, $v^+(x)=-v^-(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$, and $v^+(\cdot)$ is strictly increasing and smooth (at least $C^5$).
\[thm..atom.existence.minimizer\] If Assumptions A1–A7 hold, then there exists an ${\varepsilon}_0$ such that for any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$, the atomistic problem has a solution $v^{\varepsilon}=(v^{{\varepsilon},+},v^{{\varepsilon},-})$ and $v^{\varepsilon}\in S_{\varepsilon}$ is a $X_{\varepsilon}$-local minimizer of the energy functional . Furthermore, $\|v^{{\varepsilon}}-v\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$, where $v$ is the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\].
Thanks to the convergence of displacement, we have the following important corollary for convergence of energy.
\[cor..energy.consistency\] If Assumptions A1–A7 hold, then there exists an ${\varepsilon}_0$ such that for any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|E_\text{PN}[v]-E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]\right|\leq C{\varepsilon}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ and $v^{\varepsilon}$ are the solutions of the PN model and the atomistic model, respectively, in Theorems \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\] and \[thm..atom.existence.minimizer\].
Note that $E_\text{PN}$ is of order $O(1)$ in this corollary, and hence the relative error is of order $O({\varepsilon})$. Before the rescaling, $E_\text{PN}$ is of order $O({\varepsilon})$ and the relative error is still of order $O({\varepsilon})$.
Preliminaries
=============
We provide some preliminary results in this section, including the calculation of variations of both models and some lemmata characterizing the properties of pair potentials and $\gamma$-surface.
We first list the explicit expressions of the variations for both model.
\[prop..first.second.variations\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A4 hold.
1\. For $u\in S_{\varepsilon}$ and $f, g\in X_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle\delta E_{\text{a}}[u],f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}\left[V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u_i^+)(D^+_s f^+_i)
+V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u_i^-)(D^+_s f^-_i)
\right]\nonumber\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)\right]
,\label{eq..atom.first.variation}\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]f,g\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}\left[V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u^+_i)(D^+_s f^+_i)(D^+_s g^+_i)+V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u^-_i)(D^+_s f^-_i)(D^+_s g^-_i)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)(g^+_{i+s}-g^-_i)
\right]
.\label{eq..atom.second.variation}
\end{aligned}$$
2\. For $u\in S_0$ and $f, g\in X_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta E_\text{PN}[u] ,f\right\rangle
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{
\alpha \nabla u^+ \nabla f^+ +\alpha \nabla u^- \nabla f^- +\gamma'(u^\perp)f^\perp\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x,\label{eq..cont.first.variation.weak}\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[u]f,g\right\rangle
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{
\alpha \nabla f^+ \nabla g^+ +\alpha \nabla f^- \nabla g^- +\gamma''(u^\perp)f^\perp g^\perp\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x.\label{eq..cont.second.variation.weak}
\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, if $u\in H^2_\text{loc}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\delta E_\text{PN}[u]\right)^\pm
&=&-\alpha \nabla^2 u^\pm \pm\gamma'(u^\perp),\label{eq..cont.first.variation.strong}\\
\left(\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[u]f\right)^\pm
&=&-\alpha \nabla^2 f^\pm \pm\gamma''(u^\perp)f^\perp.\label{eq..cont.second.variation.strong}
\end{aligned}$$
Using difference operators, the atomistic energy reads as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{a}[u]
&=&{\varepsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}\left[V\left(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_{s}u^+_i\right)+V\left(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_{s}u^-_i\right)-2V(s)\right]\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[U(s-\frac{1}{2}+(u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i))- U(s-\frac{1}{2})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. – are obtained via direct calculations. For $u\in H^2_\text{loc}$, integrating by parts leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta E_\text{PN}[u] ,f\right\rangle
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{\left[-\alpha \nabla^2 u^+ +\gamma'(u^\perp)\right]f^+
+\left[-\alpha \nabla^2 u^- -\gamma'(u^\perp)\right]f^-
\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x,\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[u]f,g\right\rangle
&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{\left[-\alpha \nabla^2 f^+ +\gamma''(u^\perp)f^\perp\right]g^+
+\left[-\alpha \nabla^2 f^- -\gamma''(u^\perp)f^\perp\right]g^-
\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x.
\end{aligned}$$ Then the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations implies Eqs. –.
Next, we study the regularity of $\gamma$-surface and summability of pair potentials in our models. For notation economy, we set, for $k=0,1,2,\ldots$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&V_{k,s}= \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{|\xi-s|\leq\frac{1}{2}|s|}|\nabla^k V(\xi)|, \,\,s\in \mathbb{Z}^*\label{eq..V_s^k}\\
&&U_{k,s}= \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{|\xi-s+\frac{1}{2}|\leq\frac{1}{2}}|\nabla^k U(\xi)|, \,\,s\in \mathbb{Z},\label{eq..U_s^k}\\
&&v_{k,s,i}=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{{\varepsilon}(i-|s|)\leq x \leq {\varepsilon}(i+|s|)}\left|\nabla^k v^+(x)\right|, \,\,i, s\in \mathbb{Z}.\label{eq..u_is^k}\end{aligned}$$ Roughly speaking, $V_{k,s}$ (or $U_{k,s}$, respectively) is a bound for $\nabla^k V(\xi)$ (or $\nabla^k U(\xi)$, respectively) nearby $\xi=s$, and $v_{k,s,i}$ is a bound for $\nabla v$ in ${\varepsilon}|s|$-neighbor nearby $x={\varepsilon}i$. These quantities may appear in proofs from time to time.
\[lem..decay.properties.V.U\] Suppose that Assumptions A3–A4 hold. Then there exists a constant $C=C(R)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\textstyle |V^{(k)}(x)|\leq C|x|^{-k-4-\theta},\,\,|x|\geq \frac{1}{2},\,\,k=0,1,\ldots,4,\\
&&\textstyle |U^{(k)}(x)|\leq C|x|^{-k-2-\theta},\,\,|x|>0,\,\,k=0,1,\ldots,4.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, there exists a constant $C=C(R,\theta)$ satisfying the summability conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\textstyle \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}|s|^{k+3} V_{k,s}\leq C,\,\,k=0,1,\ldots,4,\\
&&\textstyle \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}|s|^{k+1} U_{k,s}\leq C,\,\,k=0,1,\ldots,4.
\end{aligned}$$
Thanks to Assumption A4, there exists $C=C(R)$ such that $|V^{(4)}(x)|\leq C|x|^{-8-\theta}$ for $|x|\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Taking iterative integrals on both sides lead to $\textstyle |V^{(k)}(x)|\leq C|x|^{-k-4-\theta}$, $|x|\geq \frac{1}{2}$, $k=0,1,\ldots,4$ for some constant $C$. Recall the defintion Eq. . Then we have $V_{k,s}\leq C (\frac{1}{2}|s|)^{-k-4-\theta}$. Therefore, for $k=0,1,\ldots,4$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}|s|^{k+3}V_{k,s}
\leq \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}2^{k+4+\theta}C |s|^{-1-\theta}\leq C.
\end{aligned}$$ It is similar to show these properties for $U$.
\[lem..regularity.gamma\] Suppose that Assumptions A3–A4 hold. Then there exist $C=C(R,\theta)$ and ${\varepsilon}_0={\varepsilon}_0(R,\theta)$ such that for any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma\in C^4(\mathbb{R})\,\, \text{and}\,\,\|\nabla^k \gamma\|_{L^\infty}\leq C \,\,\text{for}\,\,k=0,1,\cdots,4.
\end{aligned}$$
Assumption A3 with Lemma \[lem..decay.properties.V.U\] implies that $\gamma\in C^4(\mathbb{R})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^k\gamma(\xi)=\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U^{(k)}(s-\frac{1}{2}+\xi),\,\,k=1,2,\cdots,4.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $n$ be the nearest integer of $\xi$. By Lemma \[lem..decay.properties.V.U\] again, we have $
|\nabla^k\gamma(\xi)|\leq \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{k,s+n}\leq C.
$ If $k=0$, then $|\gamma(\xi)|\leq \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[U_{0,s+n}+U_{0,s}\right]\leq C$.
This regularity of $\gamma$-surface is indispensable and it essentially relies on the regularity and summability of the pair potential $V_d$ (or $U$). Consequently, a smooth dislocation solution depends on the regularity of $V_d$ (or $U$).
\[lem..gamma.properties\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. Then we have the following properties of the $\gamma$-surface $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..symmetry.local.stability.gamma.surface}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{(periodicity)} &\textstyle \gamma(\xi+1)=\gamma(\xi),\,\, \xi\in \mathbb{R},\\
\text{(symmetry)}&\textstyle \gamma(\xi)=\gamma(-\xi),\,\, \xi\in \mathbb{R},\\
\text{(local stability)}&\gamma(\xi)\geq \frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0) \xi^2,\,\,|\xi|\leq C,
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C=C(R,\theta,\gamma''(0))$.
Given $\xi\in \mathbb{R}$, let $n$ be the nearest integer of $\xi$. Then the series $\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}} U(s-\frac{1}{2}+\xi)$ is absolutely summable and its sum is irrelevant to the summation order. In particular, we have $
\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}[U(s+\frac{1}{2}+\xi)-U(s)]=\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}[U(s-\frac{1}{2}+\xi)-U(s)]
$. That is $\gamma(\xi+1)=\gamma(\xi)$.
Next, the symmetry $\gamma(\xi)=\gamma(-\xi)$ follows immediately from Assumption A2.
Finally, Assumption A5 with the regularity of $\gamma$ (Lemma \[lem..regularity.gamma\]) implies $\gamma(\xi)\geq \frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0) \xi^2$ for $|\xi|\leq C.$
In the classic PN model, the misfit energy density reads as $\gamma(\phi)=\frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi^2 d}[1-\cos (2\pi \phi)]$ which satisfies Eq. . Here $d$ is the interplanar distance, $b$ is the length of the Burgers vector, and $\mu$ is the shear modulus.
Existence and Stability of the PN Model
=======================================
In this section, we study the dislocation solution of the PN model, in particular, its existence and stability.
For the existence, we rewrite our one-step minimization problem into a two-step minimization problem: first minimizing $u=(u^+,u^-)$ with fixed $u^\perp=\phi$, then minimizing the energy with respect to $\phi$. This two-step procedure becomes a routine since the original works of Peierls and Nabarro [@Nabarro1947-p256-272; @Peierls1940-p34-37], however, the equivalence lacks a rigorous proof. Here we provide a detailed discussion on the relation of these two minimization problems. We use our bilayer system setting in order to be consistent with this work. The equivalence result and its proof can both be straightforward extended to the general PN model (e.g., in three dimension and for curved dislocations).
We define the function space for disregistry $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_0=\left\{\phi\in H^1_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R}):\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}\phi(x)=0, \lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\phi(x)=1, \phi(0)=\frac{1}{2} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ In our bilayer system, the two-step minimization reads as:
\(i) given $\phi\in \Phi_0$, find $u_\phi=(u^+_\phi,u^-_\phi)\in S_0$ with $u^\perp_{\phi}=\phi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..two-step.minimization.inner}
E_\text{elas}[u_{\phi}]=\inf_{
u\in S_0,\,\,
u^\perp=\phi}E_\text{elas}[u],\end{aligned}$$ and denote $E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi]=\inf_{
u\in S_0,\,\,
u^\perp=\phi}E_\text{elas}[u]$;
\(ii) find $\phi^*\in \Phi_0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..two-step.minimization.outer}
E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^*]=\inf_{\phi\in \Phi_0} E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi],\end{aligned}$$ where the total energy functional in this two-step minimization problem is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]&=&E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi]
+E_\text{mis}[\phi].\end{aligned}$$ We remark that, in general, $E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi]$ always exists, even if the optimal displacement $u$ may not exist (in $S_0$) for some given disregistry $\phi$ with the consistency $u^\perp=\phi$. In many applications such as the original PN model, there is an explicit solution for the step (i) problem . It follows that one simply needs to solve the step (ii) problem . This is a great advantage to use this two-step minimization model.
The following proposition establishes the equivalence between two minimization problems.
\[prop..two.step.minimization\] Suppose there exist $u^0\in S_0$ such that $E_\text{PN}[u^0]<+\infty$. Then the two-step minimization problem and is equivalent to the one-step minimization problem in the following sense:
1\. $m^{I}=m^{II}$, where $m^I=\inf_{u\in S_0}
E_\text{PN}[u]$ and $m^{II}=\inf_{\phi\in \Phi_0} E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]$
2\. Given any minimizing sequence $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of problem , then $\{\phi^i:=u^{i,\perp}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ is a minimizing sequence of problem . Conversely, given any minimizing sequence $\{\phi^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of problem , there exists a sequence $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ with $u^{i,\perp}=\phi^i$, $i\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ is a minimizing sequence of problem .
3\. If $u^*$ is a minimizer of problem , $\phi^*:=u^{*,\perp}$ is a minimizer of problem . Conversely, if $\phi^*$ is a minimizer of problem and $u^*$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{elas}[u^*]=\inf_{u\in S_0,\,\,u^\perp=\phi^*}E_\text{elas}[u],\label{eq..equiv.elastic.I.II}
\end{aligned}$$ then $u^*$ is a minimizer of problem . In particular, if the minimizer $u^*$ in is unique, then $u^*$ and $\phi^*$ has an one-to-one correspondence.
Condition means $E_\text{elas}[u^{*}]=E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi^*]$. For most applications, including our case $E_\text{elas}[u]=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^-|^2\right){\mathrm{d}}x$, the minimizer $u^*\in S_0$ satisfying Eq. exists, and it is unique.
Although $m^{I}$ and $m^{II}$ may be $-\infty$, they are prevented to be $+\infty$ due to the assumption $E_\text{PN}[u^0]<+\infty$.
1\. If $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ is a minimizing sequence of problem , then $\lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}E_\text{PN}[u^i]=m^{I}$. For all $i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..m_II<m_I}
m^{II}\leq E_\text{PN}^{II}[u^{i,\perp}]
\leq E_\text{PN}[u^i].
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $i\rightarrow +\infty$, we obtain $m^{II}\leq m^{I}$.
Conversely, if $\{\phi^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ a minimizing sequence of problem , then $
\lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^i]=m^{II}
$. For any $i$, there exist $u^i\in S_0$ with $u^{i,\perp}=\phi^i$ such that $E_\text{elas}[u^i]\leq i^{-1}+E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi^i]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..m_I<m_II}
m^{I}\leq E_\text{PN}[u^i]
\leq i^{-1}+E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^i]
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $i\rightarrow +\infty$, we obtain $m^{I}\leq m^{II}$. Hence $m^{I}=m^{II}$.
2\. If $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ is a minimizing sequence of problem , then we set $\phi^i=u^{i,\perp}$ for all $i\in \mathbb{N}$. Thus $\lim_{i\rightarrow}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^i]=m^{II}$ follows from Eq. and $m^I=m^{II}$.
Conversely, if $\{\phi^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ a minimizing sequence of problem , then we choose $u^i\in S_0$ with $u^{i,\perp}=\phi^i$ such that $E_\text{elas}[u^i]\leq i^{-1}+E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi^i]$. Thus $\lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}E_\text{PN}[u^i]=m^I$ follows from Eq. and $m^I=m^{II}$.
3\. If $E_\text{PN}[u^*]=m^{I}$, then $E_\text{PN}^{II}[u^{*,\perp}]\leq E_\text{PN}[u^*]=m^I=m^{II}$. Conversely, if $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^{*}]=m^{II}$ and $E_\text{elas}[u^{*}]=\inf_{u\in S_0,\,\,u^\perp=\phi^*}E_\text{elas}[u]$, then $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{PN}[u^*]
=E_\text{elas}[u^*]+E_\text{mis}[u^{*,\perp}]
=E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi^*]+E_\text{mis}[\phi^*]=E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^*]=m^{I}.
\end{aligned}$$
Now we prove Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\] by solving the two-step minimization. The first step is explicitly solvable. Next, the existence of the minimizer $\phi$ is then proved by the direct method in the calculus of variations. Different from the standard case, any admissible function $\phi\in S_0$ is definitely not $L^2$. Hence, a reference state $\phi^0$ is needed. We then finish the proof by working on the deviation of the solution $\phi-\phi^0$.
1\. Two-step minimization problem. Recall that $
E_\text{elas}[u]=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^-|^2\right){\mathrm{d}}x.
$ For any $\phi\in\Phi_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{u\in S_0,u^\perp=\phi}E_\text{elas}[u]
=\arg\min_{u\in S_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^+|^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha|\nabla u^+-\nabla \phi|^2\right){\mathrm{d}}x
=\left(\frac{1}{2}\phi,-\frac{1}{2}\phi\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi]=E_\text{elas}[(\frac{1}{2}\phi,-\frac{1}{2}\phi)]=\frac{1}{4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\alpha|\nabla \phi|^2{\mathrm{d}}x$. By Proposition \[prop..two.step.minimization\], we only need to minimize the following energy $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]$ in terms of disregistry $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\frac{1}{4}\alpha|\nabla \phi|^2+\gamma(\phi)\right){\mathrm{d}}x.\label{eq..E_c,II}
\end{aligned}$$
2\. Existence. Let $\phi^0(x)=\min\{\max\{x+\frac{1}{2},0\},1\}$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Denote $m=\inf_{\phi\in \Phi_0} E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]$. By Assumption A5, $\inf_{\xi\in\mathbb{R}}\gamma(\xi)=\gamma(0)=0$, and hence $m\geq 0$. Also $m\leq E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^0]<+\infty$. Hence $m$ is finite. Let $\{\phi^k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}\subset \Phi_0$ be a minimizing sequence for $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\cdot]$.
Let $\omega^k=\phi^k-\phi^0$. Then $\|\nabla \omega^k\|^2\leq \|\nabla \phi^k\|^2+\|\nabla \phi^0\|^2\leq \frac{4}{\alpha}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^k]+\frac{4}{\alpha}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^0]$. Next we estimate $\|\omega^k\|^2$. According to Lemma \[lem..gamma.properties\], there exist a constant $c_0 (\leq \frac{1}{4})$ such that $\gamma(\xi)\geq \frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0) \xi^2$ for $|\xi|\leq c_0$. Let $m'=\min_{c_0\leq \xi \leq 1-c_0}\gamma(\xi)>0$. Note that the characteristic function $\chi_{\{c_0\leq \phi^k(x) \leq 1-c_0\}}\leq \frac{\gamma(\phi^k)}{m'}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega^k\|^2
&=&\textstyle \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}|\phi^k-x-\frac{1}{2}|^2{\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\phi^k-0|^2{\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+\infty}|\phi^k-1|^2{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&\leq&\textstyle 1+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\phi^k|^2\chi_{\{0\leq \phi^k\leq c_0\}}{\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\phi^k|^2\chi_{\{c_0\leq \phi^k\leq 1\}}{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&&+\textstyle \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+\infty}|\phi^k-1|^2\chi_{\{1-c_0\leq \phi^k\leq 1\}}{\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+\infty}|\phi^k-1|^2\chi_{\{\frac{1}{2}\leq \phi^k\leq 1-c_0\}}{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&\leq&\textstyle 1+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2}{\gamma''(0)}\gamma(\phi^k){\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{m'}\gamma(\phi^k){\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+\infty}\frac{2}{\gamma''(0)}\gamma(\phi^k){\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{m'}\gamma(\phi^k){\mathrm{d}}x\\
&\leq&\textstyle 1+(\frac{2}{\gamma''(0)}+\frac{1}{m'})E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^k].
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega^k\|_{H^1}^2
=\|\omega^k\|^2+\|\nabla \omega^k\|^2
\leq \textstyle 1+(\frac{2}{\gamma''(0)}+\frac{1}{m'}+\frac{4}{\alpha})E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^k]+\frac{4}{\alpha}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\psi^0].
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi^k$ is a minimizing sequence, we obtain that $\omega^k$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1$.
Passing to a subsequence, $\omega^k$ converges weakly to $\omega^*$ in $H^1$. The Sobolev imbedding theorem implies $\{\omega^k\}_{k=1}^\infty\subset C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb{R})$ and $\omega^*\in C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb{R})$. This leads to $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm\infty}\omega(x)=0$ and $\omega(x)=0$. Let $\phi^*=\omega^*+\phi^0$. Then $\phi^*\in \Phi_0$ and $\phi^k-\phi^*$ converges weakly to $0$ in $H^1(\mathbb{R})$. Thanks to the convexity of $E_\text{elas}^{II}[\phi]$, $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\cdot]$ is weakly lower semicontinuous on $H^1_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R})$. Thus $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^*]\leq \lim\inf_{k\rightarrow\infty}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^k]=m$. It follows that $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi^*]=m=\min_{\phi\in \Phi_0}E_\text{PN}^{II}[\phi]$. Thus $\phi^*$ is the minimizer of energy functional in $\Phi_0$. Therefore, $v:=(\frac{1}{2}\phi^*,-\frac{1}{2}\phi^*)$ is the minimizer of energy functional $E_\text{PN}[\cdot]$ in $S_0$.
3\. Euler–Lagrange equation. Since $\phi^*$ is the minimizer of energy functional $E_\text{PN}^{II}[\cdot]$ in $\Phi_0$, it is the weak solution of the Euler–Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}\alpha \nabla^2 \phi^*-\gamma'(\phi^*)=0.\label{eq..E-L.phi}
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\gamma'(\cdot)$ is continuous. As a result, $\phi^*\in C^2$ is a classical solution of the Euler–Lagrange equation . Therefore $v=(\frac{1}{2}\phi^*,-\frac{1}{2}\phi^*)\in C^2$ is the classical solution of the Euler–Lagrange equations .
4\. Monotonicity. For $x\in \mathbb{R}$, we have $-\frac{1}{2}\alpha (\nabla^2 \phi^*)(\nabla \phi^*)+\gamma'(\phi^*)(\nabla \phi^*)=0$. Taking integral from $x$ to $+\infty$, we have $
-\frac{1}{4}\alpha (\nabla \phi^*(x))^2+\gamma(\phi^*(x))
=\lim_{\xi\rightarrow+\infty}\left[-\frac{1}{4}\alpha(\nabla \phi^*(\xi))^2+\gamma(\phi^*(\xi))\right]=0
$. Thus $\nabla \phi^*=\pm\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha}\gamma(\phi^*)}$. Since $\nabla \phi^*$ is continuous and $\frac{4}{\alpha}\gamma(\phi^*)>0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $\nabla \phi^*$ does not change the sign. Hence $\nabla \phi^*=\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha}\gamma(\phi^*)}>0$ follows the fact that $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \nabla \phi^*{\mathrm{d}}x=1>0$. Therefore, $\nabla v^{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{\alpha}\gamma(\pm 2v^\pm)}$. In other words, $v^+$ (respectively, $v^-$) is monotonically increasing (respectively, decreasing) on $\mathbb{R}$.
5\. Uniqueness. The uniqueness of the classical solution of the Euler–Lagrange equations follows from that of the initial value problem $\nabla v^{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{\alpha}\gamma(\pm 2v^\pm)}$ with the initial condition $v^\pm(0)=\pm\frac{1}{4}$.
6\. Symmetry. Since $v=(\frac{1}{2}\phi^*,-\frac{1}{2}\phi^*)$ is the unique minimizer of the $E_\text{PN}[\cdot]$ in $S_0$, we immediately have the symmetry $v^+(x)=-v^-(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$.
7\. Regularity. Note that $\|\phi^*\|_{L^\infty}\leq 1$. Since $\nabla \phi^*\in C^1(\mathbb{R})$, $\nabla \phi^*\geq 0$ and the fact that $\phi^*$ is bounded, we have $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm\infty}\nabla \phi^*(x)=0$. Thus $\|\nabla \phi^*\|_{L^\infty}\leq C$. Utilizing Eq. , it is no difficulty to bootstrap the regularity of $\phi^*$, and hence the regularity of $v=(\frac{1}{2}\phi^*,-\frac{1}{2}\phi^*)$. Indeed, thanks to Lemma \[lem..regularity.gamma\], we have $v\in C^k(\mathbb{R})$ and $\|\nabla^k v\|_{L^\infty}\leq C$ for $k=3,4,5$, where $C=C(\alpha,R,\theta)$ is independent of ${\varepsilon}$.
A corollary of Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\] shows the symmetry property of $v^\pm$.
Let $v=(v^+,v^-)$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. Then $v$ has the symmetry with respect to $x$: $v^+(x)+v^+(-x)=\frac{1}{2}$ and $v^-(x)+v^-(-x)=-\frac{1}{2}$, $x\in \mathbb{R}$.
By the symmetry and periodicity of $\gamma$-surface (cf. Lemma \[lem..gamma.properties\]), we have $\gamma(\frac{1}{2}+\xi)=\gamma(\xi-\frac{1}{2})=\gamma(\frac{1}{2}-\xi)$ for all $\xi\in \mathbb{R}$. Then it is easy to see the solution of ODE $\nabla \phi^*=\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha}\gamma(\phi^*)}$ with initial value $\phi^*(0)=\frac{1}{2}$ satisties $\phi^*(x)-\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}-\phi^*(-x)$ for $x\geq 0$. This with the fact that $v=(\frac{1}{2}\phi^*,-\frac{1}{2}\phi^*)$ completes the proof.
Due to the translation invariant, the second variation of energy at the dislocation solution $\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]$ has a zero eigenvalue. The following proposition guarantees that this zero eigenvalue is simple. In other words, the eigenfunctions corresponding to zero eigenvalue form a one-dimension linear space.
\[prop..cont.zero.eigenvalue\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. If $f\in C^2$ with $\|f\|_{X_0}<\infty$ and $f$ solves $\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]f=0$, then $f=A \nabla v+B$ for some constants $A$ and $B$.
Let $g=\nabla v$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]f\right)^\pm=-\alpha \nabla^2 f^\pm \pm\gamma''(v^\perp)(f^+-f^-)=0,\\
&&\left(\delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]g\right)^\pm=-\alpha \nabla^2 g^\pm \pm\gamma''(v^\perp)(g^+-g^-)=\nabla \left[-\alpha \nabla^2 v^\pm \pm\gamma'(v^\perp)\right]=0.
\end{aligned}$$ The first equation implies $\nabla^2 f^+ (x)=-\nabla^2 f^-(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Thus $\nabla f^+(x)+\nabla f^-(x)$ is a constant for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Since $f\in C^2$ and $\|f\|_{X_0}<\infty$, we have $\nabla f^+(x)=-\nabla f^-(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Thus $f^+(x)=-f^-(x)+2B$ for some constant $B$ and all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Let $h(x)=f(x)-B$. Then $f^+-f^-=2f^+-2B=2h^+=-2h^-$. Note that $g^+(x)=-g^-(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\alpha \nabla^2 h^\pm+2\gamma''(v^\perp)h^\pm=0,\\
&&-\alpha \nabla^2 g^\pm+2\gamma''(v^\perp)g^\pm=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Eliminating $\gamma''(v^\perp)$ term leads to $$\begin{aligned}
-\alpha g^\pm\nabla^2 h^\pm+\alpha h^\pm \nabla^2 g^\pm=0\,\,\text{or}\,\,\alpha \nabla \left(g^\pm \nabla h^\pm-h^\pm\nabla g^\pm\right)=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $g^\pm\nabla h^\pm-h^\pm\nabla g^\pm$ is a constant. Since $f\in C^2$ and $\|f\|_{X_0}<\infty$, we can derive that $h^\pm, \nabla h^\pm \rightarrow 0$ as $|x|\rightarrow \infty$. Hence $g^\pm\nabla h^\pm-h^\pm\nabla g^\pm=0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$. By strictly monotonicity of $v^\pm$ (cf. Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]), we have $g^\pm=\nabla v^\pm \neq 0$. Thus $(g^\pm)^2\nabla \left(\frac{h^\pm}{g^\pm}\right)=g^\pm\nabla h^\pm-h^\pm \nabla g^\pm=0$. Therefore $h=A g=A \nabla v$ and $f=A \nabla v +B$ for some constants $A$ and $B$.
The physical meaning of Proposition \[prop..cont.zero.eigenvalue\] is that the dislocation solution $v$, satisfying the boundary conditions but not the center condition, is invariant under translation. Indeed, let us consider an infinitesimal translation ${\mathrm{d}}x$ of the dislocation solution. The translated displacement field is $v(x+{\mathrm{d}}x)$ and hence the perturbation is $v(x+{\mathrm{d}}x)-v(x)=(\nabla v){\mathrm{d}}x$. This perturbation mode is exactly the eigenfunction, in the previous proposition, corresponding to the zero eigenvalue.
Now we are ready to obtain the stability result of the PN model. Later, we will see that the stability of the atomistic model can be achieved by this PN stability with the small stability gap Assumption A7.
\[prop..PN.stability\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. There exists a constant $\kappa=\kappa(R,\theta,\alpha,\gamma''(0))>0$ such that for $f\in X_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]f, f\right\rangle\geq \kappa\|f\|_{X_0}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
We prove the statement by contradiction. Suppose there exists a sequence $\left\{f^n\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ satisfying the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\|f^n\|_{X_0}=1\,\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\,\,
\textstyle \frac{1}{n}\|f^n\|_{X_0}^2>\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]f^n,f^n\right\rangle
=\textstyle I[f^n],
\end{aligned}$$ where the functional $
I[f]=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{\alpha |\nabla f^{+}|^2+\alpha |\nabla f^{-}|^2+\gamma''(v^\perp)(f^{\perp})^2\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x
$.
The uniformly boundedness $\|f^n\|_{X_0}=1$ implies that there exists a subsequence $\left\{f^{k_n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ with $f^*\in X_0$ satisfying (1) $f^{k_n,\pm}_x\rightarrow f^{*,\pm}_x$ weakly in $L^2$ and (2) $f^{k_n,\perp}\rightarrow f^{*,\perp}$ strongly in $L^2$. By lower semi-continuity, we have $I[f^*]\leq 0$. Since $v$ minimizes the energy $E_\text{c}$, we have $I[f^*]\geq 0$. Thus $f^*$ minimizes the functional $I[f]$ and hence solves Euler–Lagrange equation in the weak sense $$\begin{aligned}
-\alpha \nabla^2 f^{*,\pm}\pm\gamma''(v^\perp)f^{*,\perp}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\gamma''(v^\perp)$ is continuous by Lemma \[lem..regularity.gamma\]. We apply the Schauder estimate and obtain $f^{*,\pm}\in C^{2,\alpha}_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R})$ [@Gilbarg2001-p-]. Proposition \[prop..cont.zero.eigenvalue\] implies $f^*=A \nabla v+B$. Note that $A \nabla v^\perp(0)=f^{*,\perp}(0)=0$ and $\nabla v^\perp(0)\neq 0$. Then $A=0$ and $f^{*,\pm}\equiv B$ for some constant $B\in\mathbb{R}$. There exists $K<\infty$, such that $\gamma''(v^\perp(x))\geq \frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0)>0$ on $\mathbb{R}\backslash(-K,K)$. Notice that $H^1(\mathbb{R})$ can be embedded in $C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb{R})$. Utilizing Arzela–Ascoli theorem, we obtain $f^{k_n,\perp}\rightarrow f^{*,\perp}\equiv 0$ uniformly on $(-K,K)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I[f^n]
&\geq&-\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}}|\gamma''(v^\perp(x))|\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{-K}^{K}(f^{n,\perp})^2{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&&+\alpha\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{|\nabla f^{n,+}|^2+|\nabla f^{n,-}|^2\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x+\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}\backslash(-K,K)}\gamma''(v^\perp)(f^{n,\perp})^2{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&\geq&\min\left\{\alpha,\frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0)\right\}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\{\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left( |\nabla f^{n,+}|^2+|\nabla f^{n,-}|^2\right){\mathrm{d}}x+\int_{\mathbb{R}\backslash(-K,K)}(f^{n,\perp})^2{\mathrm{d}}x\right\}\\
&=&\min\left\{\alpha,\frac{1}{2}\gamma''(0)\right\}>0.
\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts with $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I[f^n] \leq\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\|f^n\|_{X_0}^2=0$. Hence the original statement holds.
Consistency of the PN Model
===========================
In this section, the force consistency is obtained at the dislocation solution of the PN model. More precisely, the force in the atomistic model is $O({\varepsilon}^2)$-close to its counterpart in the PN model, provided that the displacement of the atomistic model is exactly the dislocation solution in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. This asymptotic analysis is not only formal but also rigorous in the sense that we estimate the truncation error in $X_{\varepsilon}$ norm.
Here we first provide several lemmata connecting the discrete Sobolev spaces.
\[lem..space.L2.epsilon\] For $k\in \mathbb{N}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{\varepsilon}\leq \|f\|_{{\varepsilon},k}\leq 2^{k+1}\max\{1,{\varepsilon}^{-k}\}\|f\|_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$
By definition, we have $\|f\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq \|f\|_{{\varepsilon},k}^2$ and $\|D^{j} f\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq 4{\varepsilon}^{-2}\|D^{j-1} f\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq 2^{2j}{\varepsilon}^{-2j}\|f\|_{\varepsilon}^2$ for $j=1,\cdots,k$. Then $
\|f\|_{{\varepsilon},k}^2
\leq\sum_{j=0}^{k}2^{2j}{\varepsilon}^{-2j}\|f\|_{\varepsilon}^2
\leq 2^{2k+2}\max\{1,{\varepsilon}^{-2k}\}\|f\|_{\varepsilon}^2
$.
\[lem..subspace.M\] The linear space $M_{\varepsilon}$ is a Hilbert space with inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}$. Moreover, we have $M_{\varepsilon}\subset H^1_{\varepsilon}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|^2_{{\varepsilon},1}\leq \|f\|^2_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq 2\|f\|^2_{{\varepsilon},1}.\label{eq..M_e.norm}
\end{aligned}$$
The Hilbert space is easy to check. And Eq. follows from $\|f^\perp\|^2_{\varepsilon}=2\|f\|^2_{\varepsilon}$ for $f\in M_{\varepsilon}$.
\[lem..sum.D\_s.f.L2\] If $s\in \mathbb{Z}^*$ and $f\in L^2_{\varepsilon}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\|D^\pm_s f\|_{\varepsilon}\leq |s|\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality, we suppose $s>0$ and prove the result for $D^+_s f$. By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have $
(D_s^+ f^\pm_i)^2=(\sum_{j=i}^{i+s-1}D f^\pm_j)^2\leq s\sum_{j=i}^{i+s-1} (Df^\pm_j)^2
$. Then $\|D^+_s f\|^2_{\varepsilon}\leq s^2\|D f\|_{\varepsilon}^2$ follows this.
The following summability lemma is quite helpful in estimating the truncation errors (cf. Proposition \[prop..consistency\]).
\[lem..u\^k\_is.L2norm\] Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. Given $k=0,1,\cdots,4$ and $s\in \mathbb{Z}^*$, ${\varepsilon}\leq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}v_{k,s,i}\leq C|s|\,\,\text{and}\,\,
\|v_{k,s}\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq C |s|,\label{eq..u_is^k_L2norm}
\end{aligned}$$ where $C=C(\|\nabla v\|_{W^{k,1}},\|v\|_{W^{k,\infty}})$ is independent of $s$.
Without loss of generality, we suppose that $s>0$. For each $i\in \mathbb{Z}$, there exists some $\xi_i$ with ${\varepsilon}(i-s)\leq \xi_i\leq{\varepsilon}(i+s)$ satisfying $v_{k,s,i}=|\nabla^k v^+(\xi_i)|$. Note that $
\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}v_{k,s,i}=\sum_{j=0}^{2s-1}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}v_{k,s,2ns+j}.
$ Then for each $j\in \{0,1,2,\cdots, 2s-1\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
2s{\varepsilon}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}v_{k,s,2ns+j}
&\leq& \sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}(2(n-1)s+j)}^{{\varepsilon}(2ns+j)}|\nabla^k v^+(\xi_{2ns+j})-\nabla^k v^+(x)|+|\nabla^k v^+(x)|{\mathrm{d}}x\\
&\leq& \sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}(2(n-1)s+j)}^{{\varepsilon}(2ns+j)}
\left(\int_{x}^{\xi_{2ns+j}}|\nabla^{k+1}v^+(\xi)|{\mathrm{d}}\xi\right) {\mathrm{d}}x+\|\nabla^k v^+\|_{L^1}\\
&\leq& 2s{\varepsilon}\|\nabla^{k+1} v^+\|_{L^1}+\|\nabla^k v^+\|_{L^1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $
{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} v_{k,s,i}\leq 2s{\varepsilon}\|\nabla^{k+1}v^+\|_{L^1}+\|\nabla^{k}v^+\|_{L^{1}}\leq2s\|\nabla v^+\|_{W^{k,1}}
$. Obviously, we have $\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} v_{k,s,i}\leq \|v^+\|_{W^{k,\infty}}$. Eq. follows this.
\[prop..consistency\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\], then there exist $C$ and ${\varepsilon}_0$ such that for $0<{\varepsilon}< {\varepsilon}_0$ and $f\in M_{\varepsilon}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..consistence.Lp}
|\langle\delta E_\text{a}[v]-\delta E_\text{PN}[v],f\rangle_{\varepsilon}|\leq C{\varepsilon}^2\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $C$ and ${\varepsilon}_0$ depend on $R$, $\theta$, $\alpha$, and $\gamma''(0)$.
The Sobolev imbedding theorem says that $\|\nabla v\|_{W^{3,\infty}}\leq C\|\nabla v\|_{W^{4,1}}$. By Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\], we have $\|v\|_{W^{4,\infty}}\leq \max\{\|v\|_{L^\infty}, C\|\nabla v\|_{W^{4,1}}\}$. Let ${\varepsilon}\leq 1$.
1\. We rewrite the difference $
\langle \delta E_\text{a}[v]-\delta E_\text{PN}[v],f
\rangle_{\varepsilon}=R_\text{elas}+R_\text{mis}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
R_\text{elas}&=&-\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}\sum_\pm\frac{1}{2}\left\{D^-_s[V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^\pm)]-{\varepsilon}V''(s) s^2 \nabla^2 v^\pm_i\right\} f^\pm_i,\\
R_\text{mis}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)
-U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i}-v^-_i)(f^+_i-f^-_i)\right]\\
&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{2}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)+U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_{i-s})(f^+_i-f^-_{i-s})
\right.\\
&&\left.-2U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i}-v^-_i)(f^+_i-f^-_i)\right].
\end{aligned}$$
2\. Estimate $|R_\text{elas}|$. Rewrite $R_\text{elas}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
R_\text{elas}=-{\varepsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}\left\{{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]-{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]-2{\varepsilon}^2 V''(s) s^2 \nabla^2 v^+_i\right\} f^+_i.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Taylor expansion for $V'(\cdot)$ at $V'(s)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]-{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]\\
&=&V'(s+v^+_{i+s}-v^+_i)-V'(s+v^+_i-v^+_{i-s})
-V'(s-v^+_{i+s}+v^+_i)+V'(s-v^+_i+v^+_{i-s})\\
&=&2({\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i+{\varepsilon}D^+_{-s} v^+_i)V''(s)+{\varepsilon}^3[(D^+_s v^+_i)^3+(D^+_{-s} v^+_i)^3]V^{(4)}(\xi)
\end{aligned}$$ for some $\xi$. Note that $|{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i+{\varepsilon}D^+_{-s} v^+_i-{\varepsilon}^2s^2\nabla^2 v^+_i|\leq \frac{1}{12}{\varepsilon}^4 s^4 v_{4,s,i}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}^3|(D^+_s v^+_i)^3+(D^+_{-s} v^+_i)^3|
\leq {\varepsilon}^3|D^+_s v^+_i+D^+_{-s} v^+_i|\cdot3s^2 \|\nabla v\|^2_{L^\infty}\leq 3{\varepsilon}^4 s^4 v_{2,s,i} \|\nabla v\|^2_{L^\infty}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{gathered}
\left|{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]-{\varepsilon}D^-_s[V'(s-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v_i^+)]-2{\varepsilon}^2 V''(s) s^2 \nabla^2 v^+_i\right|\\
\leq3(1+\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^\infty})(v_{2,s,i}+v_{4,s,i}){\varepsilon}^4 (s^4V_{2,s} +s^4V_{4,s}).
\end{gathered}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|R_\text{elas}|
&\leq& {\varepsilon}^2\frac{3}{2}(1+\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^\infty})\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}(s^4V_{2,s} +s^4V_{4,s}){\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(v_{2,s,i}+v_{4,s,i})|f^+_i|\\
&\leq& C{\varepsilon}^2\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}(|s|^5V_{2,s} +|s|^5V_{4,s})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\\
&\leq& C{\varepsilon}^2\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\end{aligned}$$ 3. Estimate $|R_\text{mis}|$. Rewrite $R_\text{mis}=R_\text{mis,1}+R_\text{mis,2}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
R_\text{mis,1}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{2}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)
+U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_{i-s})\right.\\
&&\left.-2U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i}-v^-_i)\right](f^+_i-f^-_i),\\
R_\text{mis,2}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{2}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^+_i)+U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_{i-s})(f^-_i-f^-_{i-s})
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Since $f\in M_{\varepsilon}$, we have $f^+=-f^-$ and $$\begin{aligned}
R_\text{mis,2}
={\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{2}\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)(f^+_{i+s}-f^+_i+f^-_{i+s}-f^-_i)\right]
=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to the symmetry of $v$, we have $U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_{i-s})=U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i-s}-v^-_i)$. Applying Taylor expansion, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)
+U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i-s}-v^-_i)-2U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i}-v^-_i)\right|\\
&\leq& |v^+_{i+s}+v^+_{i-s}-2v^+_i||U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i}-v^-_i)|+\frac{1}{2}(|v^+_{i+s}-v^+_i|^2+|v^+_{i-s}-v^+_i|^2)U_{3,s}\\
&\leq&{\varepsilon}^2 s^2 U_{2,s} v_{2,s,i}+{\varepsilon}^2 \|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty} s^2 U_{3,s} v_{1,s,i}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus by using Lemma \[lem..u\^k\_is.L2norm\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|R_\text{mis}|=|R_\text{mis,1}|
&\leq&{\varepsilon}^2(1+\|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty} )\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(s^2 U_{2,s}+s^2 U_{3,s}\right){\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(v_{2,s,i}+v_{1,s,i})|f^+_i|\\
&\leq&C {\varepsilon}^2 \sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(|s|^3 U_{2,s}+|s|^3 U_{3,s}\right) \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\\
&\leq&C {\varepsilon}^2 \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Stability of the Atomistic Model {#sec..atom.stability}
================================
In this section, the linear stability analysis is applied to the atomistic model. We will first study this stability at the dislocation solution of the PN model $v$, then extend it to displacement field $u$ which is sufficient close to $v$.
We start with the following key observation: with or without a dislocation, the stability gap between the atomistic and PN models remains the same, up to an $O({\varepsilon})$ truncation error.
\[prop..stability.gap.w/o.disl\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold and that ${\varepsilon}\leq 1$. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. For $f\in X_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{PN}[v]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle
=\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle
+O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
1\. Recall second variations at continuum dislocation solution $v$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\sum_{\pm}\frac{1}{2}V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^\pm_i)\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2\nonumber\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_{i})(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2,\label{eq..atom.second.variation.f.f}\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{a}[0]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\sum_\pm\frac{1}{2}V''(s)\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2})(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2,\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{PN}[v]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle
&=&\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\left\{\alpha |\nabla \bar{f}^+|^2+\alpha |\nabla \bar{f}^-|^2
+\gamma''(v^+-v^-)(\bar{f}^\perp)^2\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x,\\
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle
&=&\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\left\{\alpha |\nabla \bar{f}^+|^2+\alpha |\nabla \bar{f}^-|^2
+\gamma''(0)(\bar{f}^\perp)^2\right\}{\mathrm{d}}x,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*} \frac{1}{2}V''(s) s^2$ and $\gamma''(\xi)=\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+\xi)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{a}[0]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle+\left\langle \delta^2 E_\mathrm{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle
=\sum_{k=1}^5 R_k,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R_1&=&
{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\sum_\pm\frac{1}{2}\left[
V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^\pm_i)-V''(s)\right](D^+_s f^\pm_i)^2,\\
R_2&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[
U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)\right](f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2,\\
R_3&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}
\left[U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2})\right]\left[(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2-(f^+_i-f^-_i)^2\right],\\
R_4&=&\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+-v^-)\right](f^+_i-f^-_i)^2{\mathrm{d}}x,\\
R_5&=&\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+-v^-)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2})\right]\left[(f^+_i-f^-_i)^2-(\bar{f}^+-\bar{f}^-)^2\right]{\mathrm{d}}x.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $v^\pm=v^\pm(x)$. It remains to show $R_{i}=O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2$ for $i=1,2,\cdots,5$.\
2. We estimate $R_i$, $i=1,2,\cdots,5$.\
(1) Note that $|V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^\pm_i)-V''(s)|\leq V_{3,s}|{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^\pm_i|\leq {\varepsilon}\|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty}V_{3,s} |s|$. Using Lemma \[lem..sum.D\_s.f.L2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
|R_1|\leq \frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}\|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty}\|D^+_s f\|^2_{\varepsilon}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*} V_{3,s} |s|
\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ (2) Next, $(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2\leq 2(f^+_{i+s}-f^+_i)^2+2(f^\perp_i)^2\leq 2{\varepsilon}^2(D^+_s f^+_i)^2+2(f^\perp_i)^2
$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2\leq 2{\varepsilon}|s|^2\|D f^+\|^2_{\varepsilon}+2{\varepsilon}^{-1}\|f^\perp\|^2_{\varepsilon}\leq {\varepsilon}^{-1}(2|s|^2+2)\|f\|^2_{X_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $|U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_{i+s}-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)|\leq U_{3,s}|v^+_{i+s}-v^+_i|\leq {\varepsilon}\|\nabla v^+\|_{L^\infty} U_{3,s} |s|$, Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|R_2|&\leq&{\varepsilon}^2 \|\nabla v^+\|_{L^\infty}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}} U_{3,s} |s| \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2\\
&\leq& {\varepsilon}\|\nabla v^+\|_{L^\infty}\|f\|^2_{X_{\varepsilon}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}} U_{3,s} |s| (2|s|^2+2)\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ (3) Next, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}|(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2-(f^+_i-f^-_i)^2|
&\leq&\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(f^+_{i+s}-f^+_i)^2+\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}2|f^+_{i+s}-f^+_i|\cdot|f^+_i-f^-_i|\nonumber\\
&\leq&{\varepsilon}^2\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|D^+_s f^+_i|^2+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|D^+_s f^+_i|^2+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|f^\perp_i|^2\nonumber\\
&\leq&({\varepsilon}+1)|s|^2\|D f^+\|_{\varepsilon}^2+\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2\nonumber\\
&\leq&2|s|^2\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2,\label{eq..sum.f_{i+s}+f_i}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[lem..sum.D\_s.f.L2\]. Note that $|U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2})|\leq \|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty} U_{3,s} $. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|R_3|&\leq& {\varepsilon}\|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty} \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{3,s} \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}
|(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2-(f^+_i-f^-_i)^2|\\
&\leq&2{\varepsilon}\|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2 \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{3,s} |s|^2
\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ (4) We have $|U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+-v^-)|\leq 2{\varepsilon}\|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty}U_{3,s}$. Note that $\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)} (f^+_i-f^-_i)^2{\mathrm{d}}x=\|f^\perp\|^2_{\varepsilon}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
|R_4|\leq 2{\varepsilon}\|\nabla v\|_{L^\infty}\|f^\perp\|^2_{\varepsilon}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{3,s}
\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ (5) Finally, we have $|U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^+_i-v^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2})|\leq \|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty}U_{3,s}$. Note that $|f^\perp_i-\bar{f}^\perp|=\frac{x-i{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}|f^\perp_{i+1}-f^\perp_i|=(x-i{\varepsilon})|Df^+_i-Df^-_i|\leq (x-i{\varepsilon})\cdot(|Df^+_i|+|Df^-_i|)$ and $|\bar{f}^\perp|\leq |f^\perp_i|+|f^\perp_{i+1}|$ for $i{\varepsilon}\leq x<(i+1){\varepsilon}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
|(f^\perp_i)^2-(\bar{f}^\perp)^2|
&\leq& |f^\perp_i-\bar{f}^\perp|\cdot(|f^\perp_i|+|\bar{f}^\perp|)\\
&\leq& 2(x-i{\varepsilon})(|Df^+_i|+|Df^-_i|)\cdot(|f^\perp_i|+|f^\perp_{i+1}|).
\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}|(f^\perp_i)^2-(\bar{f}^\perp)^2|{\mathrm{d}}x
&\leq& {\varepsilon}^2\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}(|Df^+_i|+|Df^-_i|)\cdot(|f^\perp_i|+|f^\perp_{i+1}|)\nonumber\\
&\leq& {\varepsilon}(\|Df^+\|_{\varepsilon}+\|Df^-\|_{\varepsilon})\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}\nonumber\\
&\leq& 2{\varepsilon}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.\label{eq..f_i^2-f^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
|R_5|\leq 2{\varepsilon}\|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}} U_{3,s}
\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Next lemma reveals the relation between a function in $X_{\varepsilon}$ and its extension.
If $f\in X_{\varepsilon}$, then its extension $\bar{f}\in X_0$. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle\|D f\|_{\varepsilon}^2+\frac{1}{3}\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq \|\bar{f}\|_{X_0}^2\leq \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.\label{eq..H^1.H^1_eps}
\end{aligned}$$
By definition, we have $\nabla \bar{f}^\pm(x)=D f^\pm_i$ for $i{\varepsilon}\leq x< (i+1){\varepsilon}$, and hence $\|\nabla \bar{f}\|^2=\|D f\|_{\varepsilon}^2$. Direct calculation leads to $
\|\bar{f}^\perp\|^2
={\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{3}[(f^\perp_i)^2+f^\perp_if^\perp_{i+1}+(f^\perp_{i+1})^2]
$. Thus $
\frac{1}{3}\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq \|\bar{f}^\perp\|^2\leq\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2
$. Eq. follows these immediately.
\[prop..explicit.Delta\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold and that ${\varepsilon}\leq 1$. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. For $f\in X_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f \right\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f} \right\rangle
\geq -\Delta \|Df\|_{\varepsilon}^2+O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\Delta$ can be calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta
=\sup_{\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1}\left\{{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\geq 2}\sum_\pm V''(s)\left[\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2-s^2(D f^\pm_i)^2\right]\right\}.\label{eq..Delta.explicit}
\end{aligned}$$
By direct calculations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f \right\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f} \right\rangle
&=& {\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[\sum_\pm\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}V''(s)\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2
+\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2})(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2\right]\\
&&-\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\left[\sum_\pm\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\frac{1}{2}V''(s)s^2|\nabla \bar{f}^\pm|^2-\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2})(\bar{f}^\perp)^2\right]{\mathrm{d}}x.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_1&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}
U''(s-\frac{1}{2})\left[(f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i)^2-(f^+_i-f^-_i)^2\right],\\
\tilde{R}_2&=&\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\int_{{\varepsilon}i}^{{\varepsilon}(i+1)}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U''(s-\frac{1}{2})\left[(f^\perp_i)^2-(\bar{f}^\perp)^2\right]{\mathrm{d}}x.
\end{aligned}$$ Recall Eqs. and , thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{R}_1|&\leq& 2{\varepsilon}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{2,s}|s|^2\leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2,\\
|\tilde{R}_2|&\leq& 2{\varepsilon}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}U_{2,s} \leq O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\nabla \bar{f}^\pm(x)=D f^\pm_i$ for $i{\varepsilon}\leq x< (i+1){\varepsilon}$. Recall the definition . Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta&=&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}\sup_{\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1}\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f} \right\rangle-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f \right\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}\\
&=& \lim_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}\sup_{\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1}\left\{{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\sum_\pm\frac{1}{2}V''(s)\left[\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2-s^2(D f^\pm_i)^2\right]-\tilde{R}_1-\tilde{R}_2\right\}\\
&=& \sup_{\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\geq 2}\sum_\pm V''(s)\left[\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2-s^2(D f^\pm_i)^2\right],
\end{aligned}$$ where we use the symmetry of $V$ (Assumption A2) in the last step.
\[prop..Delta.geq.0\] The stability gap is non-negative: $\Delta\geq 0$.
By Lemma \[lem..decay.properties.V.U\], we have $\sum_{s\geq 2}|V''(s)|s^2\leq \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*} V_{2,s}s^2<C$. Then for any $M\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exists an $t\in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $\sum_{s\geq t+1}|V''(s)|s^2<\frac{1}{M}$. For $s\geq 2$, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}(D^+_s f^\pm_i)^2
\leq \sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}s\sum_{j=i}^{i+s-1}(D f^\pm_j)^2
=s^2\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}(D f^\pm_i)^2.\label{eq..D^s.D.Cauchy.Schwatz}
\end{aligned}$$ We define $g$ as follows: $g_i=(2{\varepsilon}Mt)^{-1/2}$ for $1\leq i\leq Mt$ and $g_i$ otherwise. Obviously, $\|g\|_{\varepsilon}^2=\frac{1}{2}$. Note that if we define $Df^\pm=\pm g$, then $\|Df\|_{\varepsilon}=1$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\geq {\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\geq 2}2 V''(s)\left[(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2 g_i ^2\right].
\end{aligned}$$ If $2\leq s\leq t$, then $(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2g_i^2=0$ for $i\not\in T$, where $T=\{-s+2,-s+2,\cdots,0\}\cup\{Mt-s+2,Mt-s+3,\cdots,Mt\}$. For $i\in T$, we have $|(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2g_i^2|\leq s^2 (2{\varepsilon}Mt)^{-1}$. Note that $|T|=2(s-1)$. Thus for any $2\leq s\leq t$, we have $
{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\left[(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2 g_i ^2\right]
\geq-{\varepsilon}2(s-1)s^2(2{\varepsilon}Mt)^{-1}\geq -\frac{s^2}{M}
$.
If $s\geq t+1$, Eq. implies that ${\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}[(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2 g_i ^2]\geq -{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} s^2 g_i^2=- \frac{s^2}{2}$.
Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta
&\geq&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\left\{\sum_{s=2}^{t}+\sum_{s=t+1}^\infty\right\}
2 V''(s)\left[(g_i+\cdots+g_{i+s-1})^2-s^2 g_i ^2\right]\\
&\geq& -\sum_{s=2}^t 2|V''(s)|\frac{s^2}{M}-\sum_{s=t+1}^{\infty}2|V''(s)|
\frac{s^2}{2}\\
&\geq& -\frac{1+2C}{M}.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $M$ go to infinity, we obtain $\Delta \geq 0$.
\[prop..NN.Delta\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. If $V''(s)\leq 0$ for all $|s|\geq 2$, then $
\Delta = 0
$, and thence $\kappa>\Delta$. In particular, if $V(\cdot)$ is a nearest neighbor potential then $\kappa>\Delta=0$.
Eq. and $V''(s)\leq 0$ imply that $
V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[\left(D^+_s f^\pm_i\right)^2-s^2(D f^\pm_i)^2\right]\leq 0
$ for $|s|\geq 2$. Hence $\Delta\leq 0$. According to Proposition \[prop..Delta.geq.0\], we have $
\Delta=0
$.
\[prop..atom.stability\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A7 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. There exist $C$ and ${\varepsilon}_0$ such that for $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$ and for all $f\in X_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..atomistic.stability}
\textstyle \left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f, f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}\geq C\|f\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $C$ and ${\varepsilon}_0$ depend on $R$, $\theta$, $\alpha$, $\gamma''(0)$, and $\Delta$.
By Propositions \[prop..stability.gap.w/o.disl\] and \[prop..explicit.Delta\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}&=&\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[v]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle+\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[0]f,f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{PN}[0]\bar{f},\bar{f}\right\rangle+O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2\\
&\geq&\textstyle\kappa \|Df\|_{\varepsilon}^2+\frac{1}{3}\kappa\|f^\perp\|_{\varepsilon}^2-\Delta \|Df\|_{\varepsilon}^2+O({\varepsilon})\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2\\
&\geq& C\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2
\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$. Here we utilize the assumption $\kappa>\Delta$.
We finish this section with a detailed verification on the stability condition of Lennard–Jones $(m,n)$ potential. The commonly used case is $(m,n)=(6,12)$.
\[prop..LJ.Delta\] Let $V(\cdot)$ be Lennard–Jones $(m,n)$ potential, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
V(x)=V_\text{LJ}(x)=-\left(\frac{r_0}{|x|}\right)^{m}+\left(\frac{r_0}{|x|}\right)^{n},\,\,1<m<n,\,\,x\neq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ is some characteristic distance. Then $\Delta=0$, provided ${\varepsilon}$ is sufficiently small.
We first remark that $r_0$ is not arbitrary but related to the minimal distance $s_0=1$ (the rescaled lattice constant). Note that $s_0=1$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s_0}\left(\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^*}V(ks_0)+\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}V_d(ks_0-\frac{1}{2}s_0)\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $V_d={\varepsilon}^2 U$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq..solving.s_0}
\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^*}kV'(k)+{\varepsilon}^2 \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}(k-\frac{1}{2})U'(k-\frac{1}{2})=0.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem..decay.properties.V.U\], we have $
|\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}(k-\frac{1}{2})U'(k-\frac{1}{2})|
\leq\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}(|s|+1)U_{1,s}\leq C
$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
0=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^*}kV'(k)+O({\varepsilon}^2)
&=&\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^*}\left[m\frac{r_0^m}{k^m}-n\frac{r_0^{n}}{k^{n}}\right]+O({\varepsilon}^2)\\
&=&2m\zeta(m)r_0^m-2n\zeta(n)r_0^{n}+O({\varepsilon}^2),\end{aligned}$$ where the zeta function $\zeta(t)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k^{-t}$, $t>1$. Therefore, for sufficient small ${\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
r_0^{n-m}=\frac{m\zeta(m)}{n\zeta(n)}+O({\varepsilon}^2).\end{aligned}$$
For $s\geq 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
V''(s)
&=&m(m+1)\frac{r_0^m}{s^{m+2}}\left[-1+\frac{n(n+1)r_0^{n-m}}{m(m+1)s^{n-m}}\right]\\
&\leq &m(m+1)\frac{r_0^m}{s^{m+2}}\left[-1+\frac{n(n+1)}{m(m+1)}\cdot\frac{\frac{m\zeta(m)}{n\zeta(n)}+O({\varepsilon}^2)}{2^{n-m}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown that $\frac{(n+1)\zeta(m)}{(m+1)\zeta(n)}<2^{n-m}$. Hence $V''(s)\leq 0$, $s\geq 2$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$. By Propositions \[prop..Delta.geq.0\] and \[prop..NN.Delta\], we obtain $\Delta=0$.
Existence of the Atomistic Model and Convergence
================================================
In this section, we show that the atomistic model has a solution $v^{\varepsilon}$ which is $O({\varepsilon}^2)$ away from the PN solution $v$ in terms of the metric induced by $X_{{\varepsilon}}$ norm. Let us first provide the following lemma which makes use of the continuity of $\delta^2 E_\text{a}$ at $v$.
\[lem..nonexpansive\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A6 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. There exist constants ${\varepsilon}_0$ and $C$ such that for any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$ and any $u, u'$ satisfying $u-v\in X_{\varepsilon}$, $u'-v\in X_{\varepsilon}$, $\|u-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}$ and $\|u'-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\left\langle \left(\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]-\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u']\right)f, g\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}|\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|g\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\label{eq..Hu.Hu'.difference.f.g}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $f, g \in X_{\varepsilon}$. Moreover, if $u-v\in M_{\varepsilon}$, $u'-v\in M_{\varepsilon}$, and $f\in M_{\varepsilon}$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\left(\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]-\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u']\right)f\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}.\label{eq..Hu.Hu'.difference}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $c$ and $C$ depend on $R$, $\theta$, $\alpha$, $\gamma''(0)$, and $\Delta$.
Setting $g=\left(\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]-\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u']\right)f$ in Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|g\|_{\varepsilon}^2
\leq C \|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|g\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing Lemmata \[lem..space.L2.epsilon\] and \[lem..subspace.M\], we obtain $\|g\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C\|g\|_{{\varepsilon},1} \leq C{\varepsilon}^{-1} \|g\|_{\varepsilon}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|g\|_{\varepsilon}^2
&\leq& C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|g\|_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ This leads to Eq. . It remains to show Eq. .
Note that $\|D^+_s(u-v)\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq|s|\|D(u-v)\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq|s|{\varepsilon}^{1/2}$. This with $\|D^+_s v\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|\|v\|_{C^{0,1}}\leq C|s|$ implies $\|D^+_s u\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq C|s|$. Similarly, we have $\|D^+_s(u'-v)\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u'-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}} \leq |s|{\varepsilon}^{1/2}$, $\|D^+_s(u'-u)\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u'-u\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|{\varepsilon}^{1/2}$, and $\|D^+_s u'\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq C|s|$. For sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u^\pm_i)-V''(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s u'^\pm_i)|
=|V^{(3)}(\xi)||{\varepsilon}D^+_s(u'^\pm_i-u^\pm_i)|
\leq V_{3,s}|s|{\varepsilon}^{1/2}\|u'-u\|_{X_{\varepsilon}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $|\xi-s|\leq \max\{|{\varepsilon}D^+_s u^\pm_i|,|{\varepsilon}D^+_s u'^\pm_i|\}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{1/2}|s|\leq \frac{1}{2}|s|$.
Note that $\|u^\perp-v^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}^{1/2}$. This with $\|v^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq 1$ implies that $\|u^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq 1+{\varepsilon}^{1/2}\leq 2$. Similarly, we have $\|u'^\perp-v^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u'-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq {\varepsilon}^{1/2}$, $\|u'^\perp-u^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq 2{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u'-u\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq 2{\varepsilon}^{1/2}$, and $\|u'^\perp\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq 2$. For sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&|U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+u^+_{i+s}-u^-_i)-U''(s-\frac{1}{2}+u'^+_{i+s}-u'^-_i)|\\
&\leq& |U^{(3)}(\xi)||{\varepsilon}D^+_s(u'^+_i-u^+_i)+(u'^\perp_i-u^\perp_i)|\\
&\leq &\left(\sum\nolimits_{j=-|s|-2}^{|s|+2} U_{3,s+j}\right)(|s|+2){\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u'-u\|_{X_{\varepsilon}},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $
|\xi-(s-\frac{1}{2})|
\leq \max\{|{\varepsilon}D^+_s u'^+_i|+|u'^\perp_i|,|{\varepsilon}D^+_s u^+_i|+|u^\perp_i|\}
\leq |s|+2
$ and that $\sup_{|\xi-(s-\frac{1}{2})|\leq |s|+2}|U^{(3)}(\xi)|\leq \sum_{j=-|s|-2}^{|s|+2} U_{3,s+j}$.
Recall Eq. and hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\left\langle \left(\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]-\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u']\right)f, g\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}|\\
&\leq& {\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}} \cdot\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{\pm}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*} V_{3,s}|s| \left|D^+_s f^\pm_i\right| \cdot \left|D^+_s g^\pm_i\right| \\
&&+{\varepsilon}^{-1/2}\|u-u'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left(\sum\nolimits_{j=-|s|-2}^{|s|+2} U_{3,s+j}\right)(|s|+2) \left|f^+_{i+s}-f^-_i\right|\cdot\left|g^+_{i+s}-g^-_i\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing Lemmas \[lem..decay.properties.V.U\] and \[lem..sum.D\_s.f.L2\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}V_{3,s}|s| \sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\left|D^+_s f^\pm_i\right|\cdot\left|D^+_s g^\pm_i\right|
\leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}^*}V_{3,s}|s|^3\|D f^\pm\|_{\varepsilon}\|D g^\pm\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|g\|_{X_{\varepsilon}},\\
&&{\varepsilon}\sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}}\left(\sum\nolimits_{j=-|s|-2}^{|s|+2} U_{3,s+j}\right)(|s|+2) \sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\left|f^+_{i+s}+f^-_i\right|\cdot\left|g^+_{i+s}+g^-_i\right|
\leq C \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|g\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, Eq. is obtained by collecting these inequalities.
\[lem..atom.stability.u\] Suppose that Assumptions A1–A7 hold. Let $v$ be the dislocation solution of the PN model in Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\]. There exist constants ${\varepsilon}_0$ and $C$ such that for any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$ and any $u$ satisfying $u-v\in X_{\varepsilon}$ and $\|u-v\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}\leq {\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle \left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]f, f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}\geq C\|f\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}^2\label{eq..atomistic.stability.u}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $f\in X_{\varepsilon}$. Here $c$ and $C$ depend on $R$, $\theta$, $\gamma''(0)$, $\Delta$, and $\kappa$.
Thanks to Proposition \[prop..atom.stability\], we know $\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f, f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}\geq C\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2$ for all $f\in X_{{\varepsilon}}$. It is sufficient to show that $|\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[v]f, f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}-\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[u]f, f\right\rangle_{\varepsilon}|\leq \frac{1}{2}C\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2$. The latter can be obtained by setting $v=u'$ in Lemma \[lem..nonexpansive\].
As all preparations are complete, we provide a proof of our main theorem.
By Theorem \[thm..cont.existence.minimizer\], we have $v\in C^5$ and $\|\nabla v\|_{W^{4,1}}\leq C$ independent of ${\varepsilon}$. Define a closed ball $B$ of $M_{\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
B=\left\{w\in M_{\varepsilon}:\|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C_0{\varepsilon}^2\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C_0$ can be chosen properly later. Given $w\in B$, we define operator $A_{w}: M_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow M_{\varepsilon}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_{w}f,g\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}=\int_{0}^{1}\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[u^t]f,g\rangle_{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{d}}t, \,\,f,g\in M_{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}$$ where $u^t=v+tw$ for $t\in [0,1]$. It is easy to check that this operator is well-defined. Next, we have $\|u^t-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}=t\|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C_0{\varepsilon}^2$. Then by Lemma \[lem..atom.stability.u\], we have $\left\langle \delta^2 E_\text{a}[u^t]f,f\right\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}\geq C\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2$ for $t\in [0,1]$ and $f\in M_{\varepsilon}\subset X_{\varepsilon}$. Thus $
\langle A_w f, f\rangle_{{\varepsilon}} \geq C\|f\|^2_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\geq C\|f\|^2_{\varepsilon}$ and $A_{w}$ is invertible. Since $-\delta E_\text{a}[v]\in M_{\varepsilon}$, we have $-A_w^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\in M_{\varepsilon}$.
By Taylor’s theorem with remainder, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E_\text{a}[v+w]
=\delta E_\text{a}[v]+\int_{0}^{1}\delta^2 E_\text{a}[u^t]w{\mathrm{d}}t
=\delta E_\text{a}[v]+A_w w,
\end{aligned}$$ where $w\in B$ and $u^t=v+tw$ for $t\in [0,1]$.
To solve the atomistic model, we are sufficient to find $w\in B$ solving $A_{w}w=-\delta E_\text{a}[v]$. Define a map $G: B\rightarrow M_{\varepsilon}$ for any $w\in B$, $$\begin{aligned}
G(w)=-A_w^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v].
\end{aligned}$$
Next, we check that $G(B)\subset B$. Indeed, by Lemma \[lem..atom.stability.u\] and the consistency (Proposition \[prop..consistency\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
C\|G(w)\|^2_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}
&\leq&\langle A_w G(w),G(w)\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}\\
&\leq&|\langle\delta E_\text{a}[v],G(w)\rangle_{{\varepsilon}}|\\
&\leq&O({\varepsilon}^2)\|G(w)\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}},\\
\|G(w)\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}&\leq& C_0{\varepsilon}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
We are going to apply the contraction mapping theorem to $G$. Obviously, $B$ is a non-empty complete metric space with metric $d(u,v)=\|u-v\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}$. To guarantee the existence (and uniqueness) of a fixed point in $B$, it remains to show that $G: B\rightarrow B$ is a contraction mapping, i.e., $\|G(w)-G(w')\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq L\|w-w'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}$ for any $w, w'\in B$ and for some Lipschitz constant $L<1$. $$\begin{aligned}
\|G(w)-G(w')\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
&=&\|\left(A_w^{-1}-A_{w'}^{-1}\right)\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}\\
&=&\|A_w^{-1}(A_w-A_{w'})A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\\
&\leq& P_1
\cdot P_2
\cdot P_3
\cdot\|\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_1&:=&\frac{\|A_w^{-1}(A_w-A_{w'})A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}{\|(A_w-A_{w'})A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{\varepsilon}}
\leq \sup_{f\in M_{\varepsilon}}\frac{\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}{\|A_w f\|_{\varepsilon}},\\
P_2&:=&\frac{\|(A_w-A_{w'})A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{\varepsilon}}{\|A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}
\leq \sup_{f\in M_{\varepsilon}}\frac{\|(A_w-A_{w'})f\|_{\varepsilon}}{\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}},\\
P_3&:=& \frac{\|A_{w'}^{-1}\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}{\|\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{\varepsilon}}
\leq \sup_{f\in M_{\varepsilon}}\frac{\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}{\|A_{w'} f\|_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$
For $f\in M_{\varepsilon}$, $f\neq 0$ and $w\in B$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C \|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\leq \frac{\langle A_w f, f\rangle_{\varepsilon}}{\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}}
\leq \frac{\langle A_w f, f\rangle_{\varepsilon}}{\|f\|_{\varepsilon}}
\leq \|A_w f\|_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
P_1\leq C,\,\,P_3\leq C.
\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lem..nonexpansive\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|(A_w-A_{w'})f\|_{\varepsilon}&\leq&\int_{0}^{1}\|(\delta^2 E_\text{a}[v+tw]-\delta^2 E_\text{a}[v+tw'])f\|_{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{d}}t\\
&\leq&\int_{0}^{1}C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|tw-tw'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}{\mathrm{d}}t\\
&\leq&C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|w-w'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\|f\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
P_2\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|w-w'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Combining these estimates with $\|\delta E_\text{a}[v]\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|G(w)-G(w')\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}
\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-3/2}\|w-w'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}} C{\varepsilon}^2
\leq L \|w-w'\|_{X_{\varepsilon}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $L<1$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$. Therefore, $G$ is a contraction mapping. There exists a unique fixed point $w^{\varepsilon}$ solving $H_{w^{\varepsilon}}w^{\varepsilon}=-\delta E_\text{a}[v]$. Let $v^{\varepsilon}=v+w^{\varepsilon}$. Then $v^{\varepsilon}$ solves the Euler–Lagrange equation of the atomistic model and satisfies $\|v^{{\varepsilon}}-v\|_{X_{{\varepsilon}}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$. Finally, $v^{\varepsilon}$ is a local minimizer of $E_\text{a}$ in $X_{\varepsilon}$ norm. In fact, for any $w\in X_{\varepsilon}$ with $\|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C_0{\varepsilon}^2$, we apply Lemma \[lem..atom.stability.u\] and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}+w]-E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]=\int_0^1(1-t)\langle\delta^2 E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}+tw]w,w\rangle_{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{d}}t\geq C\|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}^2>0.
\end{aligned}$$
1\. We suppose, without loss of generality, that ${\varepsilon}\leq 1$. Since $v^+=-v^-$, the total energy of the PN model at $v$ reads as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{PN}[v]=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left[\alpha |\nabla v^+|^2+\gamma(2v^+)\right]{\mathrm{d}}x.
\end{aligned}$$ Using trapezoidal rule, we have the numerical approximation of this energy $$\begin{aligned}
E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]={\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[\alpha |\nabla v^+_i|^2+\gamma(2v^+_i)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that $\left|E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]-E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]\right|\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$ and $\left|E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]-E_\text{PN}[v]\right|\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$.
2\. Estimate $|E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]-E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]|$. Recall Eqs. and . Let $E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]-E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]=R_\text{elas}+R_\text{mis}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
R_\text{elas}&=&\frac{{\varepsilon}^{-1}}{2}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}
\left[V(s+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)+V(s-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)-2V(s)-{\varepsilon}^2V''(s)s^2(\nabla v^+_i)^2\right],\\
R_\text{mis}&=&{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[U(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_{i+s}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)-U(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_i)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Let $w=v^{\varepsilon}-v$ on ${\varepsilon}\mathbb{Z}$. Thanks to Theorem \[thm..atom.existence.minimizer\], we have $w\in M_{\varepsilon}$ and $\|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$. This implies that $v^{{\varepsilon},+}=-v^{{\varepsilon},-}$, $\|Dw\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^\frac{3}{2}$, and $\|Dw\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$. Using Lemmas \[lem..sum.D\_s.f.L2\] and \[lem..u\^k\_is.L2norm\], we have $\|D^+_s w\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|\|D w\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq C|s|{\varepsilon}^2$ and $\|D^+_s v\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq |s| \|D v\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|\|v_{1,1}\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C|s|$. Also notice that $\|D^+_s v\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|\|v\|_{C^{0,1}}\leq C|s|$ and $\|D^+_s w\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq |s|\|D w\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq C|s|{\varepsilon}^{\frac{3}{2}}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon}}\|_{{\varepsilon}}\leq \|D^+_s v\|_{{\varepsilon}}+\|D^+_s w\|_{{\varepsilon}} \leq C|s|,\\
&&\|D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}\leq \|D^+_s v\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}}+\|D^+_s w\|_{L^\infty_{\varepsilon}} \leq C|s|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C|s|{\varepsilon}^2$, we have $\|D^-_s D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}\leq |s|\|D D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-1}|s|\|D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C s^2 {\varepsilon}$. Note that $\|D^-_s D^+_s v\|_{\varepsilon}\leq s^2\|v_{2,1}\|_{\varepsilon}\leq Cs^2$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|D^-_s D^+_s v^{\varepsilon}\|_{\varepsilon}\leq \|D^-_s D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}+\|D^-_s D^+_s v\|_{\varepsilon}\leq Cs^2.
\end{aligned}$$
To estimate the elastic part, we apply Taylor theorem: $$\begin{aligned}
|R_\text{elas}|\leq \left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[(D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)^2-(s\nabla v^+_i)^2\right]\right|+\frac{{\varepsilon}^{3}}{24}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{4,s}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i|^4.\label{eq..energy.consistency1}
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term on the right hand side of , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\varepsilon}^{3}}{24}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{4,s}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}|D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i|^4
\leq C{\varepsilon}^2\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{4,s}s^2 \|D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon}}\|_{\varepsilon}^2\leq C{\varepsilon}^2\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{4,s}s^4\leq C{\varepsilon}^2.\label{eq..energy.consistency11}
\end{aligned}$$ We notice that $D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i-s\nabla v^+_i=D^+_s w_i+D^+_s v^+_i-s\nabla v^+_i$ and $|D^+_s v^+_i-s\nabla v^+_i-\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}s^2\nabla^2 v^+_i|\leq \frac{1}{6}{\varepsilon}^2 |s|^3 v_{3,s,i}$ (Recall Eq. ). Using Lemma \[lem..u\^k\_is.L2norm\], we have $\|v_{3,s}\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C|s|^{1/2}$ and $\|\nabla^k v\|_{\varepsilon}\leq \|v_{k,1}\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C$, $k=1,2$. For the first term on the right hand side of Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left[(D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)^2-(s\nabla v^+_i)^2\right]\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq& \left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(D^+_s w_i+D^+_s v^+_i-s\nabla v^+_i)(D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i+s\nabla v^+_i)\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{2,s}(\|D^+_s w\|_{\varepsilon}+\frac{1}{6}{\varepsilon}^2 |s|^3\|v_{3,s}\|_{\varepsilon})(\|D^+_s v^{\varepsilon}\|_{\varepsilon}+|s|\|\nabla v\|_{\varepsilon})\nonumber\\
&&+\left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}s^2\nabla^2 v^+_i\right) D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i\right|+\left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}s^2\nabla^2 v^+_i\right) \nabla v^+_i\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq& C{\varepsilon}^2\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{2,s}|s|^5+C {\varepsilon}^2 \sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{2,s}s^4+0\leq C{\varepsilon}^2.\label{eq..energy.consistency12}
\end{aligned}$$ We have used the following fact that $\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\nabla^2 v^+_i \nabla v^+_i=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}(\nabla^2 v^+_i \nabla v^+_i+\nabla^2 v^+_{-i} \nabla v^+_{-i})=0$, $\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)s^2D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)s^2(D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i+D^+_{-s} v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)=\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)s^2(D^-_s D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)$, and that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}s^2\nabla^2 v^+_i\right) D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i\right|
&\leq& \left|\frac{{\varepsilon}^3}{8}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V''(s)s^2\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\nabla^2 v^+_i D^-_s D^+_s v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i\right|\\
&\leq& C {\varepsilon}^2 \sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}^*}V_{2,s}s^4.
\end{aligned}$$
Next, we estimate the misfit part. Thanks to Lemma \[lem..subspace.M\], we have $\|w^+\|_{\varepsilon}\leq \|w\|_{X_{\varepsilon}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^2$. Also recall that $\|v^+\|_{\varepsilon}\leq C$. Note that $v^{{\varepsilon},+}_{i+s}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i-2v^+_i=w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i$ and $v^{{\varepsilon},+}_{i+s}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i-2v^+_{i+s}=w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i$. Since $\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}U'(s-\frac{1}{2})=0$ and the following series is absolutely summable, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
U'(s-\frac{1}{2})(w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i)=2\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}w^+_i\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}U'(s-\frac{1}{2})=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Now repeatedly applying Taylor theorem to $U$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
|2R_\text{mis}|&=&\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}} \left[2U(s-\frac{1}{2}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_{i+s}+v^{{\varepsilon},+}_i)-U(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_i)-U(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_{i+s})\right]\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_i)+U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_{i+s})\right](w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i)\right|\nonumber\\
&&+\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
\left[U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_i)-U'(s-\frac{1}{2}+2v^+_{i+s})\right]{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i
\right|\nonumber\\
&&
+\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
\frac{1}{2}U_{2,s}\left[(w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i+{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i)^2+(w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i-{\varepsilon}D^+_s v^+_i)^2\right]\right|
\nonumber\\
&\leq&\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
2U'(s-\frac{1}{2})(w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i)\right|
+\left|{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}
U_{2,s}(2v^+_i+2v^+_{i+s})(w^+_{i+s}+w^+_i)\right|\nonumber\\
&&+{\varepsilon}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{s\in\mathbb{Z}}2U_{2,s}|{\varepsilon}D^+_{s}v^+_{i}|^2
+C{\varepsilon}^2
\nonumber\\
&\leq&0+C{\varepsilon}^2+C{\varepsilon}^2+C{\varepsilon}^2\leq C {\varepsilon}^2.\label{eq..energy.consistency2}
\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. , , , and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|E_\text{a}[v^{\varepsilon}]-E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]|\leq C {\varepsilon}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
3 Estimate $\left|E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]-E_\text{PN}[v]\right|$. Let $g(x)=\alpha (\nabla v^+(x))^2+\gamma(2v^+(x))$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Then $g\in C^4$ and $$\begin{aligned}
g'(x)&=&2\alpha\nabla v^+\nabla^2 v^+ +2\gamma'(2v^+)\nabla v^+,\\
g''(x)&=&2\alpha(\nabla^2 v^+)^2+2\alpha\nabla v^+\nabla^3 v^+ +4\gamma''(2v^+)(\nabla v^+)^2+2\gamma'(2v^+)\nabla^2 v^+.
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem..regularity.gamma\], we have $\|\gamma^{(k)}\|_{L^\infty}\leq C$, $k=1,2$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{(i-1/2){\varepsilon}\leq\xi\leq (i+1/2){\varepsilon}}|g''(\xi)|
\leq C\left\{(v_{2,1,i})^2+v_{1,1,i}v_{3,1,i}+(v_{1,1,i})^2+v_{2,1,i}\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we apply Lemma \[lem..u\^k\_is.L2norm\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|E^\text{app}_\text{PN}[v]-E_\text{PN}[v]\right|
&\leq& \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left|\int_{(i-1){\varepsilon}}^{(i+1){\varepsilon}}g(x){\mathrm{d}}x-{\varepsilon}g(i{\varepsilon})\right|\\
&\leq& \frac{{\varepsilon}^3}{3}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\max_{(i-1/2){\varepsilon}\leq\xi\leq (i+1/2){\varepsilon}}|g''(\xi)|\\
&\leq&C{\varepsilon}^3\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\left\{(v_{2,1,i})^2+v_{1,1,i}v_{3,1,i}+(v_{1,1,i})^2+v_{2,1,i}\right\}\\
&\leq&C{\varepsilon}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Appendix: Small parameter ${\varepsilon}$ calculated by atomistic and first principles calculations {#appendix-small-parameter-varepsilon-calculated-by-atomistic-and-first-principles-calculations .unnumbered}
===================================================================================================
In this appendix, we calculate the small parameter ${\varepsilon}$ defined in Eq. in Sec. \[sec..rescaling\] that characterizes the strength of the weak van der Waals interlayer interaction v.s. the strong covalent-bond intralayer interaction in the bilayer graphene, using the data of atomistic and first principles calculations [@Dai2016-p85410-85410; @Zhou2015-p155438-155438].
In the PN model for bilayer graphene in Ref. [@Dai2016-p85410-85410], the two dimensional $\gamma$-surface was fitted by a truncated trigonometric series as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{2\text{d}}(\phi,\psi)&=&c_0+c_1\left[\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi+\frac{\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi-\frac{\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\cos\frac{4\pi\psi}{\sqrt{3}a}\right]\\
&&+c_2\left[\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi+\sqrt{3}\psi\right)+\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi-\sqrt{3}\psi\right)+\cos\frac{4\pi\phi}{a}\right]\\
&&+c_3\left[\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(2\phi+\frac{2\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\cos\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(2\phi-\frac{2\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\cos\frac{8\pi\psi}{\sqrt{3}a}\right]\\
&&+c_4\left[\sin\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi-\frac{\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)-\sin\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\phi+\frac{\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\sin\frac{4\pi\psi}{\sqrt{3}a}\right]\\
&&+c_5\left[\sin\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(2\phi-\frac{2\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)-\sin\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(2\phi+\frac{2\psi}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\sin\frac{8\pi\psi}{\sqrt{3}a}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\{c_i\}_{i=1}^5$ are constants obtained by fitting the data of first principles calculations [@Zhou2015-p155438-155438] as $$\begin{aligned}
&&c_0=21.336\times10^{-3},\,\,c_1=-6.127\times10^{-3},\,\,c_2=-1.128\times10^{-3},
\\&& c_3=0.143\times10^{-3},
c_4=\sqrt{3}c_1,\,\,c_5=-\sqrt{3}c_3,\end{aligned}$$ where the units are $\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{m}^2$. On the other hand, the elasticity constants of each monolayer graphene, in the unit of $\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{m}^2$, are [@Dai2016-p85410-85410] $$\begin{aligned}
C_{11}=312.67,\,\,C_{12}=91.66,\,\,C_{44}=110.40.\end{aligned}$$
In our one-dimensional case, $\gamma(\phi)=\gamma_{2\text{d}}(\phi,0)$ and $\alpha=C_{11}$. Using the above values and Eq. in Sec. \[sec..rescaling\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}=\sqrt{\frac{a^2\frac{\partial^2\gamma_{2\text{d}}(0,0)}{\partial \phi^2}}{C_{11}}}\approx 0.0475.\end{aligned}$$ Thus it is reasonable to set ${\varepsilon}$ as a small parameter.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council General Research Fund 16313316. The work of Ming was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Distinguished Young Scholars 11425106, and National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants 91630313, and by the support of CAS NCMIS.
[10]{}
M. P. Ariza and M. Ortiz. Discrete dislocations in graphene. , 58, 710–734 (2010).
M. P. Ariza, R. Serrano, J. P. Mendez, and M. Ortiz. Stacking faults and partial dislocations in graphene. , 92, 2004–2021 (2012).
Le Bris C. Lions P.-L. Blanc, X. From molecular models to continuum mechanics. , 164, 341–381 (2002).
M. Born and K. Huang. . Oxford University Press (1954).
A. Braides, G. Dal Maso, and A. Garroni. Variational formulation of softening phenomena in fracture mechanics: The one-dimensional case. , 146, 23–58 (1999).
V. V. Bulatov and E. Kaxiras. Semidiscrete variational [P]{}eierls framework for dislocation core properties. , 78, 4221–4223 (1997).
S. Conti, G. Dolzmann, B. Kirchheim, and S. Müller. Sufficient conditions for the validity of the [C]{}auchy-[B]{}orn rule close to [SO]{}(n). , 8, 515–530 (2005).
S. Conti, A. Garroni, and S. Müller. Singular kernels, multiscale decomposition of microstructure, and dislocation models. , 199, 779–819 (2011).
S. Conti, A. Garroni, and S. Müller. Dislocation microstructures and strain-gradient plasticity with one active slip plane. , 93, 240–251 (2016).
S. Conti, A. Garroni, and M. Ortiz. The line-tension approximation as the dilute limit of linear-elastic dislocations. , 218, 699–755 (2015).
S. Dai, Y. Xiang, and D. J. Srolovitz. Structure and energy of (111) low-angle twist boundaries in [Al, Cu and Ni]{}. , 61, 1327–1337 (2013).
S. Dai, Y. Xiang, and D. J. Srolovitz. Atomistic, generalized [Peierls–Nabarro]{} and analytical models for (111) twist boundaries in [Al, Cu and Ni]{} for all twist angles. , 69:, 162–174 (2014).
S. Dai, Y. Xiang, and D. J. Srolovitz. Structure and energetics of interlayer dislocations in bilayer graphene. , 93, 085410 (2016).
S. Dai, Y. Xiang, and D. J. Srolovitz. Twisted bilayer graphene: Moire with a twist. , 16, 5923–5927 (2016).
S. Dai, Y. Xiang, and T.-Y. Zhang. A continuum model for core relaxation of incoherent twin boundaries based on the [Peierls–Nabarro]{} framework. , 64, 438–441 (2011).
L. De Luca, A. Garroni, and M. Ponsiglione. -convergence analysis of systems of edge dislocations: the self energy regime. , 206, 1–26 (2012).
W. E and J. Lu. Electronic structure of smoothly deformed crystals: [C]{}auchy-[B]{}orn rule for the nonlinear tight-binding model. , 63, 1432–1468 (2010).
W. E and P. Ming. Cauchy–born rule and the stability of crystalline solids: static problems. , 183, 241–297 (2007).
J. D. Eshelby. Edge dislocations in anisotropic materials. , 40, 903–912 (1949).
A. Z. Fino, H. Ibrahim, and R. Monneau. The [P]{}eierls–[N]{}abarro model as a limit of a [F]{}renkel–[K]{}ontorova model. , 252, 258–293 (2012).
Y. I. Frenkel and T. Kontorova. The model of dislocation in solid body. , 8, 1340–1348 (1938).
G. Friesecke and F. Theil. On the validity and failure of the [C]{}auchy–[B]{}orn rule in a two-dimensional mass-spring model. , 12, 445–478 (2002).
A. Garroni, G. Leoni, and M. Ponsiglione. Gradient theory for plasticity via homogenization of discrete dislocations. , 12, 1231–1266 (2010).
A. Garroni and S. Müller. of a phase-field model of dislocations. , 36, 1943–1964 (2005).
A. Garroni and S. M[ü]{}ller. A variational model for dislocations in the line tension limit. , 181(3), 535–578 (2006).
D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger. . Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd edition (2001).
J. Hartford, B von Sydow, G. Wahnström, and B. I. Lundqvist. Peierls barriers and stresses for edge dislocations in [Pd]{} and [Al]{} calculated from first principles. , 58, 2487–2496 (1998).
J. P. Hirth and J. Lothe. . John Wiley, New York, 2nd edition (1982).
T. Hudson and C. Ortner. Existence and stability of a screw dislocation under anti-plane deformation. , 213, 887–929 (2014).
E. Kaxiras and M. S. Duesbery. Free energies of generalized stacking faults in [Si]{} and implications for the brittle-ductile transition. , 70, 3752–3755 (1993).
M. Koslowski, A. M. Cuitino, and M. Ortiz. A phase-field theory of dislocation dynamics, strain hardening and hysteresis in ductile single crystals. , 50, 2597–2635 (2002).
G. Lu, V. V. Bulatov, and N. Kioussis. A nonplanar [Peierls–Nabarro]{} model and its application to dislocation cross-slip. , 83, 3539–3548 (2003).
G. Lu, N. Kioussis, V. V. Bulatov, and E. Kaxiras. Generalized stacking fault energy surface and dislocation properties of aluminum. , 62, 3099–3108 (2000).
J. Lu and P. Ming. Convergence of a force-based hybrid method in three dimensions. , 66, 83–108 (2013).
C. Makridakis and E. Suli. Finite element analysis of [C]{}auchy-[B]{}orn approximations to atomistic models. , 207, 813–843 (2013).
J. R. Mianroodi and B. Svendsen. Atomistically determined phase-field modeling of dislocation dissociation, stacking fault formation, dislocation slip, and reactions in fcc systems. , 77, 109–122 (2015).
R. Miller, R. Phillips, G. Beltz, and M. Ortiz. A non-local formulation of the [Peierls]{} dislocation model. , 46, 1845–1867 (1998).
A. B. Movchan, R. Bullough, and J. R. Willis. Stability of a dislocation: [D]{}iscrete model. , 9, 373–396 (1998).
A. B. Movchan, R. Bullough, and J. R. Willis. Two-dimensional lattice models of the [Peierls]{} type. , 83, 569–587 (2003).
F. R. N. Nabarro. Dislocations in a simple cubic lattice. , 59, 256–272 (1947).
C. Ortner and F. Theil. Justification of the [C]{}auchy-[B]{}orn approximation of elastodynamics. , 207, 1025–1073 (2013).
R. Peierls. The size of a dislocation. , 52, 34–37 (1940).
M. Ponsiglione. Elastic energy stored in a crystal induced by screw dislocations: from discrete to continuous. , 39(2), 449–469 (2007).
G. Schoeck. The generalized [Peierls–Nabarro]{} model. , 69, 1085–1095 (1994).
G. Schoeck. Peierls energy of dislocations: a critical assessment. , 82, 2310–2313 (1999).
G. Schoeck. The [Peierls]{} energy revisited. , 79, 2629–2636 (1999).
C. Shen, J. Li, and Y. Wang. Predicting structure and energy of dislocations and grain boundaries. , 74, 125–131 (2014).
C. Shen and Y. Wang. Incorporation of $\gamma$-surface to phase field model of dislocations: simulating dislocation dissociation in fcc crystals. , 52, 683–691 (2004).
V. Vitek. Intrinsic stacking faults in body-centred cubic crystals. , 18, 773–786 (1968).
V. Vitek, L. Lejček, and D. K. Bowen. On the factors controlling the structure of dislocation cores in b.c.c. crystals. In P. C. Gehlen, Jr. Beeler, J. R., and R. I. Jaffee, editors, [ *Interatomic Potentials and Simulation of Lattice Defects*]{}, 493–508. Plenum Press, New York (1971).
S. Wang. The dislocation equation as a generalization of [Peierls]{} equation. , 95, 3768–3784 (2015).
S. Wang, S. Dai, X. Li, J. Yang, D. J. Srolovitz, and Q. S. Zheng. Measurement of the cleavage energy of graphite. , 6, 7853 (2015).
H. Wei and Y. Xiang. A generalized [Peierls–Nabarro]{} model for kinked dislocations. , 89, 2333–2354 (2009).
H. Wei, Y. Xiang, and P. Ming. A generalized peierls-nabarro model for curved dislocations using discrete fourier transform. , 4, 275–293 (2008).
Z. X. Wu and W. A. Curtin. Mechanism and energetics of 〈c+a〉 dislocation cross-slip in hcp metals. , 113, 11137–11142 (2016).
Y. Xiang. Modeling dislocations at different scales. , 1, 383–424 (2006).
Y. Xiang. Continuum approximation of the [P]{}each–[K]{}oehler force on dislocations in a slip plane. , 57, 728–743 (2009).
Y. Xiang, H. Wei, P. Ming, and W. E. A generalized [P]{}eierls–[N]{}abarro model for curved dislocations and core structures of dislocation loops in [Al]{} and [Cu]{}. , 56, 1447–1460 (2008).
G. Xu and A. S. Argon. Homogeneous nucleation of dislocation loops under stress in perfect crystals. , 80, 605–611 (2000).
S. Zhou, J. Han, S. Dai, J. Sun, and D. J. Srolovitz. van der [Waals]{} bilayer energetics: Generalized stacking-fault energy of graphene, boron nitride, and graphene/boron nitride bilayers. , 92, 155438 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A topological space is said to be sequential if every sequentially closed subspace is closed. We consider Banach spaces with weak\*-sequential dual ball. In particular, we show that if $X$ is a Banach space with weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball and $Y \subset X$ is a subspace such that $Y$ and $X/Y$ have weak\*-sequential dual ball, then $X$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball. As an application we obtain that the Johnson-Lindenstrauss space $JL_2$ and $C(K)$ for $K$ scattered compact space of countable height are examples of Banach spaces with weak\*-sequential dual ball, answering in this way a question of A. Plichko.'
address: |
Departamento de Matemáticas\
Facultad de Matemáticas\
Universidad de Murcia\
30100 Espinardo, Murcia\
Spain
author:
- 'Gonzalo Martínez-Cervantes'
title: 'Banach spaces with weak\*-sequential dual ball'
---
Introduction
============
All topological spaces considered in this paper are Hausdorff. The symbol $\w^\ast$ denotes the weak\* topology of the corresponding Banach space. A topological space $T$ is said to be *sequentially compact* if every sequence in $T$ contains a convergent subsequence. Moreover, $T$ is said to be *Fréchet-Urysohn* (FU for short) if for every subspace $F$ of $T$, every point in the closure of $F$ is the limit of a sequence in $F$. Every FU compact space is sequentially compact. A Banach space with weak\*-FU dual ball is said to have *weak\*-angelic dual*. Some examples of Banach spaces with weak\*-angelic dual are WCG Banach spaces and, in general, WLD Banach spaces. On the other hand, every weak Asplund Banach space and every Banach space without copies of $\ell_1$ in the dual have weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball [@Diest Chapter XIII].
In this paper we are going to focus on sequential spaces, which is a generalization of the FU property. If $T$ is a topological space and $F$ is a subspace of $T$, the *sequential closure* of $F$ is the set of all limits of sequences in $F$. $F$ is said to be *sequentially closed* if it coincides with its sequential closure. A topological space is said to be *sequential* if any sequentially closed subspace is closed. Thus, every FU space is sequential. Another natural generalization of the FU property is countable tightness. A topological space $T$ is said to have *countable tightness* if for every subspace $F$ of $T$, every point in the closure of $F$ is in the closure of a countable subspace of $F$. It can be proved that every sequential space has countable tightness. However, whether the converse implication on the class of compact spaces is true is known as the Moore-Mrowka Problem and it is undecidable in ZFC [@Ba88]. Therefore, for a compact space $K$, we have the following implications: $$\begin{aligned}
K \mbox{ is FU} \Longrightarrow & ~K \mbox{ is sequential} & \hspace{-2cm} \Longrightarrow K \mbox{ is sequentially compact} \\
& \hspace{1cm} \Downarrow \\
&K \mbox{ has countable tightness}
\end{aligned}$$
In [@Pli15] A. Plichko asked whether every Banach space with weak\*-sequential dual ball has weak\*-angelic dual. In the next section we prove the following theorem, which is applied to prove that the Johnson-Lindenstrauss space $JL_2$ provides a negative answer to Plichko’s question:
\[TeoBase\] Let $X$ be a Banach space with weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball. Let $Y \subset X$ be a subspace with weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \gamma_1$ and such that $X/Y$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \gamma_2$. Then $X$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \gamma_1+\gamma_2$.
One of the properties studied by A. Plichko in [@Pli15] is property $\EE$ of Efremov. A Banach space $X$ is said to have *property $\EE$* if every point in the weak\*-closure of any *convex* subset $C \subset B_{X^\ast}$ is the weak\*-limit of a sequence in $C$. We say that $X$ has *property $\EE'$* if every weak\*-sequentially closed *convex* set in the dual ball is weak\*-closed. Thus, if $X$ has weak\*-angelic dual then it has property $\EE$ and if $X$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball then $X$ has property $\EE'$. We also provide a convex version of Theorem \[TeoBase\] (see Theorem \[TeoConv\]).
Another related Banach space properties are Mazur property and property (C). A Banach space $X$ has *Mazur property* if every $x^{\ast \ast} \in X^{\ast \ast}$ which is weak\*-sequentially continuous on $X^\ast$ is weak\*-continuous and, therefore, $x^{\ast \ast} \in X$. Notice that if a topological space $T$ is sequential then any sequentially continuous function $f:T \rto \R$ is continuous. Thus, it follows from the Banach-Dieudonné Theorem that every Banach space with weak\*-sequential dual ball has the Mazur property. Moreover, property $\EE'$ also implies Mazur property.
A Banach space $X$ has *property (C)* of Corson if and only if every point in the closure of $C$ is in the weak\*-closure of a countable subset of $C$ for every convex set $C$ in $B_{X^\ast}$ (this characterization of property (C) is due to R. Pol [@Pol80]).
Thus, we have the following implications among these Banach space properties:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{weak*-angelic dual} & \Rightarrow \mbox{weak*-sequential dual ball} \Rightarrow \mbox{weak*-sequentially compact dual ball} \\
\Downarrow ~~~~ & \hspace{3cm} \Downarrow \\
\mbox{property } \EE & \hspace{0.5cm} \Longrightarrow \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{ property } \EE' \hspace{0.5cm} \Longrightarrow \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{ property } (C) \\
& \hspace{3cm} \Downarrow \\
& \hspace{2cm} \mbox{Mazur property}
\end{aligned}$$
Notice that $\CC([0,\w_1])$ has weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball but it is not weak\*-sequential. Moreover, $\ell_1({\w_1})$ has the Mazur property [@Edg79 Section 5] but it does not have property $(C)$.
In [@PY00] it is asked whether property (C) implies property $\EE$. J.T. Moore in an unpublished paper and C. Brech in her PhD Thesis [@Brech08] provided a negative answer under some additional consistent axioms, but the question is still open in ZFC. Notice that the convex version of Plichko’s question is whether property $\EE'$ implies property $\EE$. A negative answer to this question would provide an example of a Banach space with property (C) not having property $\EE$.
In [@FKK13 Lemma 2.5] it is proved that the dual ball of $\CC(K)$ does not contain a copy of $\w_1+1=[0,\w_1]$ when $K$ is a scattered compact space of finite height satisfying some properties. It is also proved in [@Kap86] that $\CC(K)$ has the Mazur property whenever $K$ is a scattered compact space of countable height. We generalize these results by proving that $\CC(K)$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball whenever $K$ is a scattered compact space of countable height (Theorem \[CoroC(K)\]).
Banach spaces with weak\*-sequential dual ball
==============================================
Let $T$ be a topological space and $F$ a subspace of $T$. For any $\alpha \leq \w_1$ we define $S_\alpha(F)$ the $\alpha$th sequential closure of $F$ by induction on $\alpha$: $S_0(F)=F$, $S_{\alpha+1}(F)$ is the sequential closure of $S_\alpha(F)$ for every $\alpha< \w_1$ and $S_\alpha(F)=\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha} S_\beta (F)$ if $\alpha $ is a limit ordinal.
Notice that $S_{\w_1}(F)$ is sequentially closed for every subspace $F$. Thus, a topological space $T$ is sequential if and only if $S_{\w_1}(F)=\overline{F}$ for every subspace $F$ of $T$. We say that $T$ has *sequential order $\alpha$* if $S_{\alpha}(F)=\overline{F}$ for every subspace $F$ of $T$ and for every $\beta < \alpha$ there exists $F$ with $S_{\beta}(F) \neq \overline{F}$. Therefore, a topological space $T$ is sequential with sequential order $\leq 1$ if and only if it is FU. We will use the following Lemma in the proof of Theorem \[TeoBase\]:
\[LemmAuxClau\] Let $f:K \rto L$ be a continuous function, where $K, L$ are topological spaces and $K$ is sequentially compact. Then, $f(S_\alpha(F))=S_\alpha(f(F))$ for every $F\subset K$ and every ordinal $\alpha$.
The inclusion $f(S_\alpha(F)) \subset S_\alpha(f(F))$ follows from the continuity of $f$.
We prove the other inclusion by induction on $\alpha$. The case $\alpha=0$ is immediate. Suppose $\alpha=1$. Take $s \in S_1(f(F))$. Then, there exists a sequence $t_n$ in $F$ such that $f(t_n)$ converges to $s$. Since $K$ is sequentially compact, without loss of generality we may suppose $t_n$ is converging to some point $t$. Then, it follows from the continuity of $f$ that $f(t)=s$. Thus, $s \in f(S_1(F))$.
Now suppose the result true for every $\beta < \alpha$ and $\alpha \geq 2$. If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal then $$f(S_\alpha(F))= f( \bigcup_{\beta < \alpha}S_\beta(F))=\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha}f(S_\beta(F))=\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha}S_\beta(f(F))=S_\alpha (f(F)).$$
If $\alpha=\beta+1$ is a successor ordinal then $$f(S_\alpha(F))=f(S_1(S_\beta(F)))=S_1(f(S_\beta(F)))=S_1(S_\beta(f(F)))=S_\alpha(f(F)).$$
*Proof of Theorem 1.* It is enough to prove that if $F\subset B_{X^\ast}$ and $0 \in \overline{F}^{\w^\ast}$ then $0 \in S_{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}(F)$. Let $R: X^\ast \rto Y^\ast$ be the restriction operator. For each finite set $A \subset X$ and each $\varepsilon >0$, define $$F_{A, \varepsilon} = \lbrace x^\ast \in F: |x^\ast (x)| \leq \varepsilon \mbox{ for all } x \in A \rbrace.$$ Since $R$ is weak\*-weak\* continuous and $0 \in \overline{F_{A,\varepsilon}}^{\w^\ast}$, we have that $$0 \in \overline{R(F_{A,\varepsilon})}^{\w^\ast}=S_{\gamma_1}(R(F_{A, \varepsilon}))=R(S_{\gamma_1}(F_{A, \varepsilon})),$$ where the last equality follows from Lemma \[LemmAuxClau\].
Thus, for every finite set $A\subset X$ and every $\varepsilon >0$ we can take $x_{A,\varepsilon}^\ast \in S_{\gamma_1}(F_{A, \varepsilon})$ such that $R(x_{A,\varepsilon}^\ast)=0$.
Therefore, $0 \in \overline{G}^{\w^\ast}$, where $$G:= \lbrace x_{A, \varepsilon}^\ast : A \subset X \mbox{ finite, } \varepsilon >0 \rbrace \subset Y^\perp \cap B_{X^\ast}.$$
Note that $(Y^\perp \cap B_{X^\ast}, \w^\ast)$ is homeomorphic to the dual ball of $(X/Y)^\ast$. Hence $$0 \in S_{\gamma_2}(G) \subset S_{\gamma_2}( S_{\gamma_1}(F)) = S_{\gamma_1+ \gamma_2}(F).$$ $\square$
If $(x_n)_{n<\w}$ is a sequence in a Banach space, we say that $(y_k)_{k<\w}$ is a *convex block subsequence* of $(x_n)_{n<\w}$ if there is a sequence $(I_k)_{k<\w}$ of subsets of $\w$ with $\max(I_k)< \min(I_{k+1})$ and a sequence $a_n \in [0,1]$ with $\sum_{n \in I_k} a_n = 1$ for every $k<\w$ such that $y_k = \sum_{n \in I_k} a_n x_n$. A Banach space $X$ is said to have *weak\*-convex block compact dual ball* if every bounded sequence in $X^\ast$ has a weak\*-convergent convex block subsequence. Every Banach space containing no isomorphic copies of $\ell_1$ has weak\*-convex block compact dual ball [@Bou79]. Therefore, every WPG Banach space (i.e. every Banach space with a linearly dense weakly precompact set) also has weak\*-convex block compact dual ball.
For any ordinal $\gamma \leq \w_1$, we say that $X$ has *property $\EE(\alpha)$* if $S_\alpha(C)=C$ for every convex subset $C$ in $(B_{X^\ast}, \w^\ast)$. Thus, property $\EE$ is property $\EE(1)$ and property $\EE'$ is property $\EE(\w_1)$. The proof of the following theorem is an immediate adaptation of the proof of Lemma \[LemmAuxClau\] and Theorem \[TeoBase\].
\[TeoConv\] Let $X$ be a Banach space with weak\*-convex block compact dual ball. Let $Y \subset X$ be a subspace with property $\EE(\gamma_1)$ such that $X/Y$ has property $\EE(\gamma_2)$. Then $X$ has property $\EE(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)$.
Let $X$ be a Banach space and $(X_n)_{n < \w}$ an increasing sequence of subpaces with $X= \overline{\bigcup_{n < \w} X_n}$. Suppose that each $X_n$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\alpha_n$. Then $X$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \alpha +1$, where $\alpha:= \sup \lbrace \alpha_n :n<\w \rbrace$.
Set $R_n: X^\ast \rto X_n^\ast$ the restriction operator for every $n < \w$. Since the countable product of sequentially compact spaces is sequentially compact and $(B_{X^\ast}, \w^\ast)$ is homeomorphic to a subspace of $\prod (B_{X_n^\ast}, \w^\ast)$, it follows that $X$ has weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball. In order to prove the theorem, it is enough to prove that if $F \subset B_{X^\ast}$ and $0 \in \overline{F}^{\w^\ast}$ then $0 \in S_{\alpha+1}(F)$. Since $B_{X^\ast}$ is weak\*-sequentially compact, we have that $0 \in \overline{R_n(F)}^{\w^\ast} = S_{\alpha}(R_n(F))= R_n(S_{\alpha}(F))$ for every $n < \w$, where the last equality follows from Lemma \[LemmAuxClau\]. Thus, we can take a sequence $x_n^\ast \in S_{\alpha}(F)$ such that $R_n(x_n^\ast)=0$. Now there exists some subsequence of $x_n^\ast$ converging to a point $x^\ast \in S_{\alpha+1}(F)$. Since $R_n(x^\ast)=0$ for every $n<\w$, we conclude that $x^\ast=0$.
\[CoroIncreasing\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and $(X_\alpha)_{\alpha < \gamma}$ an increasing sequence of subpaces with $X= \overline{\bigcup_{\alpha < \gamma} X_\alpha}$, where $\gamma$ is a countable limit ordinal. Suppose that each $X_\alpha$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \theta_\alpha$. Then $X$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \theta+1$ where $\theta:= \sup \lbrace \theta_\alpha : \alpha< \gamma \rbrace $.
The next theorem follows from combining Theorem \[TeoBase\] and Corollary \[CoroIncreasing\] :
\[Thm\]
Let $\gamma$ be a countable ordinal, $X_\gamma$ a Banach space and $(X_\alpha)_{\alpha \leq \gamma}$ an increasing sequence of subpaces of $X_\gamma$ such that:
1. $X_0$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \theta$;
2. each quotient $X_{\alpha+1}/X_{\alpha}$ has weak\*-angelic dual;
3. $X_\alpha = \overline{\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha} X_\beta}$ if $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal;
4. $X_\gamma$ has weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball.
Then each $X_\alpha$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \theta +\alpha$ if $\alpha < \w$ and sequential order $\leq \theta+\alpha +1$ if $\alpha \geq \omega$.
It follows from $(4)$ that every $X_\alpha$ has weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball. Thus, the result for $\alpha < \w$ follows by applying inductively Theorem \[TeoBase\]. Suppose $\alpha \geq \w$ and $X_\beta$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \theta+\beta+1$ for every $\beta < \alpha$. If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal then it follows from (3) and from Corollary \[CoroIncreasing\] that $X_\alpha$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq \sup_{\beta<\alpha}\lbrace \theta+\beta+1 \rbrace +1=\theta+\alpha+1$. If $\alpha$ is a successor ordinal then the result is a consequence of Theorem \[TeoBase\].
We also have the following convex equivalent version of the previous theorem:
Let $\gamma$ be a countable ordinal, $X_\gamma$ a Banach space and $(X_\alpha)_{\alpha \leq \gamma}$ an increasing sequence of subpaces of $X_\gamma$ such that:
1. $X_0$ has property $\EE(\theta)$;
2. each quotient $X_{\alpha+1}/X_{\alpha}$ has $\EE$;
3. $X_\alpha = \overline{\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha} X_\beta}$ if $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal;
4. $X_\gamma$ has weak\*-convex block compact dual ball.
Then each $X_\alpha$ has property $\EE(\theta+\alpha)$ if $\alpha < \w$ and property $\EE( \theta+\alpha +1)$ if $\alpha \geq \omega$.
Applications
============
As an application of Theorem \[TeoBase\], we obtain that the Johnson-Lindenstrauss space $JL_2$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball. Let us recall the definition of $JL_2$:
Let $\lbrace N_r: r \in \Gamma \rbrace$ be an uncountable maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $\w$. For each $N_r$, $\chi_{N_r} \in \ell_\infty$ denotes the characteristic function of $N_r$. The Johnson-Lindenstrauss space $JL_2$ is defined as the completion of $\spn \( c_0 \cup \lbrace \chi_{N_r}: r \in \Gamma \rbrace \) \subset \ell_\infty $ with respect to the norm: $$\norm[\bigg]{x+ \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} a_i \chi_{N_{r_i}}}= \max \bigg\lbrace \norm[\bigg]{x+ \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} a_i \chi_{N_{r_i}} }_\infty, \bigg({\sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} |a_i|^2}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}} \bigg\rbrace ,$$ where $x \in c_0$ and $\| \cdot \|_\infty$ is the supremum norm in $\ell_\infty$. If we just consider the supremum norm in the definition then we obtain the space $JL_0$. We refer the reader to [@JL74] for more information about these spaces.
\[JL\] The Johnson-Lindenstrauss space $JL_2$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $2$.
We use the following results proved in [@JL74]:
1. $JL_2$ has an equivalent Fréchet differentiable norm;
2. $JL_2/c_0$ is isometric to $\ell_2(\Gamma)$.
It follows from (i) that $JL_2$ has weak\*-sequentially compact dual ball (cf. [@HS80]). It follows from (ii) and Theorem \[TeoBase\] that $JL_2$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq 2$. Since $JL_2$ does not have weak\*-angelic dual (cf. [@Edg79 Proposition 5.12]) we have that $JL_2$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order 2.
Theorem \[JL\] provides an example of a Banach space with weak\*-sequential dual ball which does not have weakly\* angelic dual, answering a question of A. Plichko in [@Pli15].
For a scattered compact space $K$, we denote by $ht(K)$ the height of $K$, i.e. the minimal ordinal $\gamma$ such that the $\gamma$th Cantor-Bendixson derivative $K^{(\gamma)}$ is discrete. Since every Banach space with weak\*-sequential dual ball has the Mazur property, the following theorem improves [@Kap86 Theorem 4.1]:
\[CoroC(K)\] If $K$ is an infinite scattered compact space with $ht(K)< \w_1$, then $\CC(K)$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order $\leq ht(K)$ if $ht(K)<\w$ and with sequential order $\leq ht(K)+1$ if $ht(K) \geq \w$.
It is well-known that if $K$ is scattered then $\CC(K)$ is Asplund and therefore $B_{C(K)^\ast}$ is weak\*-sequentially compact (see, for example, [@Yos93]). Denote by $\lbrace K^{(\alpha)}: \alpha \leq \gamma \rbrace$ the Cantor-Bendixson derivatives of $K$, where $\gamma=ht(K)$. For every $\alpha \leq \gamma $, set $$X_\alpha = \lbrace f \in \CC(K): f(t)=0 \mbox{ for every } t \in K^{(\alpha)} \rbrace .$$
Since $\CC(K)$ contains a complemented copy of $c_0$, every finite-codimensional subspace of $\CC(K)$ is isomorphic to $\CC(K)$. Therefore, since $X_\gamma$ is a finite-codimensional subspace of $\CC(K)$, it is isomorphic to $\CC(K)$. Notice that for every $0 \leq \alpha < \gamma $ we have that $X_{\alpha+1}/X_\alpha$ is isomorphic to $c_0 ( K^{(\alpha)} \setminus K^{(\alpha+1)})$. Moreover, if $\alpha \leq \gamma$ is a limit ordinal then $\bigcap_{\beta <\alpha} K^{(\beta)}= K^{(\alpha)}$ and therefore $$\overline{\bigcup_{\beta< \alpha} X_\beta}= \overline{ \lbrace f \in \CC(K): \exists \beta<\alpha \mbox{ with }f(t)=0 ~~ \forall t \in K^{(\beta)} \rbrace}=X_\alpha.$$ Now the conclusion follows from Theorem \[Thm\].
R. Haydon [@Hay78] and K. Kunen [@Ku81] constructed under CH a FU compact space $K$ such that $B_{C(K)^\ast}$ does not have countable tightness. Thus, it is not true for a general compact space $K$ that if $K$ is sequential then $B_{C(K)^\ast}$ is sequential. We refer the reader to [@FPR00] for a discussion on this topic.
It can be easily checked that the space $JL_0$ is isomorphic to a $\CC(K)$ space where $K$ is a scattered compact space with $ht(K)=2$ and sequential order 2. Thus, $JL_0$ has weak\*-sequential dual ball with sequential order 2.
The known examples in ZFC of sequential compact spaces are all of sequential order $\leq 2$. However, A. Dow constructed under the assumption $\mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{c}$ a scattered compact space $K$ of sequential order $4$ such that the sequential order and the scattering heigth coincide [@Dow].
\[Existence\] Under $\mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{c}$, there exist Banach spaces with weak\*-sequential dual balls of any sequential order $\leq 4$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank José Rodríguez for his helpful suggestions and remarks.
[9]{} Z. Balogh, *On compact Hausdorff spaces of countable tightness*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 105 (1988), 755-764.
P. Borodulin-Nadzieja, G. Plebanek, *On sequential properties of Banach spaces, spaces of measures and densities*, Czech. Math. J. 60 (2010), 381–399.
J. Bourgain, La proprieté de Radon-Nikodým, Publ. Math. Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie 36 (1979).
C. Brech, *Construções genéricas de espaços de Asplund C(K)*, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de São Paulo and Université Paris 7 (2008).
J. Diestel, *Sequences and series in Banach spaces*, Springer New York (1984).
A. Dow, *Sequential order under MA*, Topp. Appl. 146/147 (2005), 501–510.
G.A. Edgar, *Measurability in a Banach space, II*, Ind. Univ. Math. J. 28 (1979), 559–579.
J. Ferrer, P. Koszmider, W. Kubiś, *Almost disjoint families of countable sets and separable complementation properties*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 401 (2013), 939–949.
R. Frankiewicz, G. Plebanek, C. Ryll-Nardzewski, *Between the Lindelöf property and countable tightness*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (2000) 97–103
J. Hagler, F. Sullivan, *Smoothness and weak\* sequential compactness*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1980), 497–503.
R. Haydon, *On dual $L^1$-spaces and injective bidual Banach spaces*, Isr. J. Math. 31 (1978), 142–152.
W.B. Johnson, J. Lindenstrauss, *Some remarks on weakly compactly generated [B]{}anach spaces*, Isr. J. Math. 17 (1974), 219–230.
T. Kappeler, *Banach spaces with the condition of Mazur*, Math. Z. 191 (1986), 623–631.
K. Kunen, A compact $L$-space under CH, Topology Appl. 12 (1981), 283–287.
R. Pol, *On a question of H.H. Corson and some related problems*, Fund. Math. 109 (1980)m 143–154.
A. Plichko, *Three sequential properties of dual Banach spaces in the weak\* topology*, Top. Appl. 190 (2015), 93–98.
A. Plichko, D. Yost, *Complemented and uncomplemented subspaces of Banach spaces*, Ext. Math. 15 (2000), 335–371, III Congress on Banach Spaces (Jarandilla de la Vera, 1998).
D. Yost, *Asplund spaces for beginners*, Acta. Univ. Carolin. Math. Phys. 34 (1993), 159–177.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a study about the dynamical effects of the Galaxy on the external region of the Oort Cloud. The aims of this paper are: i) to determine an outer limit for the Oort Cloud; and ii) to analyse the dynamical behaviour of the most external objects of the Cloud and how they are ejected from the Solar System. This is undertaken by following the temporal evolution of massless test particles in the Galactic environment of the solar neighbourhood. Here we show that the effect of the perturbations from the Galactic tide in the particles is similar to that find for the evolution of wide binary stars population. Moreover, in the Oort Cloud we found a dynamical structure around 10$^5$ au conformed by objects unbound of the Sun. This structure allows us to define a transition region of stability and an outer boundary for the Oort Cloud, and it is also in agreement with previous results about the disruption of wide binary stars.'
author:
- |
J. A. Correa-Otto,[^1] M. F. Calandra,[^2]\
Grupo de Ciencias Planetarias, Dpto. de Geof[í]{}sica y Astronom[í]{}a, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, F[í]{}sicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de San Juan - CONICET,\
Av. J. I. de la Roza 590 oeste, J5402DCS Rivadavia, San Juan, Argentina\
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'The stability in the most external region of the Oort Cloud: The evolution of the ejected comets.'
---
\[firstpage\]
celestial mechanics – methods: numerical – Oort Cloud – comets: general – (Galaxy:) solar neighbourhood.
Introduction {#intro}
============
In $1950$ Oort (1950) proposed the existence of a spherical cloud of icy objects around the Sun. This structure called now Oort Cloud would be the reservoir of observed long-period comets. The Cloud is probably the remnant of planetary formation, a process that places the comets at such large heliocentric distances through a combination of planetary and external perturbations.
This large and low density structure has an estimated mass between 2 and 40 $m_\oplus$ (Francis 2005), and it is believe to be formed by $10^{10}$ to $10^{12}$ icy bodies larger than 2.3 km (Weissman 1996; Brasser & Morbidelli 2013). These small objects are isotropically distributed and orbit the Solar System outside the planetary region with perihelia larger than 32 au and semi-major axes ($a$) between 3 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ and 10$^{5}$ au (Dones et al. 2015). Moreover, the density profile of the Cloud is roughly a power law proportional to $r^{-3.5}$, where $r$ is the heliocentric distance (Duncan et al. 1987; Fouchard et al. 2017). However, the perihelia of Oort Cloud objects are usually driven into the planetary region by the effects of external perturbations such as passing stars (Rickman 1976; Rickman et al. 2008; Fernandez 1980; Fouchard et al. 2011a,b), the tidal field of the Milky Way (Byl 1983; Heisler & Tremaine 1986), and encounters with giant molecular clouds(Hut & Tremaine 1985; Jakubik & Neslusan 2009).
There are several theoretical studies about the origin of the Oort Cloud, which consider different scenarios for its formation process. Dones et al. (2015) reviewed this topic in detail. There still is a great debate how the Oort Cloud formed, but it is believed that it was an interplay between planetary scattering and external influences, and this process took place during the first 0.5 Gyr of the Solar System evolution. On the other hand, several authors modeled different environments for the primordial Solar System. Brasser & Morbidelli (2013) took into account the actual position of the Sun in the Galaxy for the external influence and assumed that the formation of the Oort Cloud starts with the giant planet migration according to the Nice model (Tsiganis et al. 2005). Other authors considered a migration of the Sun in the Galaxy, so that the external environment changes frequently with consequences for the evolution of the Cloud (Brasser et al. 2010; Kaib et al. 2011), or analyzed the possibility of an early formation of the Oort Cloud when the Sun was still in its birth cluster (Fernandez & Brunini 2000; Brasser et al. 2006; Kaib & Quinn 2008).
Another interesting topic related to the Oort Cloud is its shape and limits. This large structure can be divided into an outer and inner Oort Cloud formed by objects with semi-major axes larger or smaller than 2 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ au respectively, where the distinction between the two regions is supported by considerations of the evolution of cometary orbits (Hills 1981; Duncan et al. 1987), and the boundary between them has been defined by the minimum semimajor axis a comet must have to be sufficiently perturbed by Galactic tides or stellar encounters to enter the inner Solar System.
The Inner Oort Cloud has been more studied in the past (see, Dones et al. 2004, 2015), while the most external part of the Oort Cloud is more complicated to analyze. However, the discovery of the first interstellar minor body 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua, Bacci et al. 2017; Meech et al. 2017a,b) has induced new research about the subsequent evolution of the icy bodies when they left the Solar System (e.g., Hanse et al. 2018). In any case, there are several questions without a clear answer about the dynamical evolution of the outer Oort Cloud and its exterior limit.
For stability studies in the most external regions of the Solar System at semimajor axes larger than 5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au, it would be incorrect to assume that the object disappears instantaneously when its orbit becomes unbound. This is because the restricted two-body potential (i.e., Sun-comet) is no longer valid at so large separations, and the three-dimensional Galactic tidal field becomes significant. Then, in this region, the dynamics of small bodies are dominated by the Galactic potential (Heisler & Tremaine 1986; Jiang & Tremaine 2010; Correa-Otto et al. 2017), and the existence of an unbound Oort Cloud is possible. This cloud would be formed by icy bodies unbound from the Solar System that eventually will be ejected.
The aim of this paper is to study the stability of the most external objects of the Oort Cloud, which are under the effects of the gravitational potential of the Galaxy and passing stars, in order to improve our understanding about the outer dynamical limit of our Solar System. In section \[system\] we define the initial configuration for the Cloud. In Sect. \[model\] we describe the numerical methods employed for our dynamical study. In Sect. \[result\] we present our results and we analyze the stability of the objects. Finally, discussions and conclusions close the paper in Sect. \[conclu\].
Initial conditions for the objects of the Oort cloud {#system}
====================================================
To analyze the stochastic effect of stellar passages we consider three different synthetic Oort Clouds formed by $10^6$ massless particles, we call them Sample 1, 2 and 3. We also considered that the bodies orbit the Sun in a coordinate system $(x, y, z)$, where the reference plane is the Galactic plane. The positive $z-axis$ is perpendicular to the Galactic plane and points towards the South Galactic Pole. Besides, in this heliocentric coordinate system, the reference line is the positive $x-axis$, which points radially outwards from the Galactic center, and therefore, the positive $y-axis$ points in the direction of the Galactic rotation. As the Sun orbits around the Galactic center, the particles are in a rotating not-inertial coordinate system.
The inclination ($I$) of the orbital plane of each massless particle is defined concerning the Galactic plane, and the longitude of the ascending node ($\Omega$) is defined from the positive $x-axis$. The eccentricity ($e$) define the shape of the orbit and the angular position of the perihelion is given by the argument of perihelion ($\omega$). Finally, we identify by $a$ the semimajor axis of the orbit, and the mean anomaly ($M$) indicates the position of the particle in its orbit.
The initial shape of the Cloud was generated following the standard model of a thermalized Oort Cloud described in Rickman et al. (2008) and Hanse et al. (2018), which assumes a spherically symmetric and isotropic distribution with initial radial density profile $\propto$ $r_0^{-3.5}$, where $r_0$ is the initial distance to the Sun (Duncan et al. 1987; Dybczynski 2002; Fouchard et al. 2011b, 2014; Feng & Bailer-Jones 2014). Therefore, for the initial angular orbital elements and the initial cosine of inclination we assume uniform distributions, and for the initial distributions of the semimajor axis ($a_0$) and the eccentricity ($e_0$) we considered a probability density proportional to $a_0^{-1.5}$ and $e_0$, respectively. The lower and upper limits for distribution of $a_0$ are 3 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ au and 10$^{5}$ au, respectively, while in order to keep the initial orbit of the particles outside the planetary region we set an upper limit for $e_{0}$: $e_{max}=1-35\, (a_0)^{-1}$.
In our simulations, we do not include the planets because the outer part of the Cloud is dynamically governed by the external perturbations, so in a first approximation we can ignore any planetary effect. Therefore, the test particles are removed from the simulation when their heliocentric distances became smaller than 35 au because we can not predict the posterior evolution of such objects accurately. Moreover, to study the outer region of the Cloud, we have not defined an outer threshold, so that we can follow the fictitious minor bodies after they become unbound.
Numerical test for the stability of the Oort Cloud {#model}
==================================================
To determine the stability of the particles of the three samples, we perform several numerical simulations searching for objects that can survive during a period similar to the estimated age of the Solar System ($\sim$ 5 Gyr). To solve the exact equations of motion, we used a Bulirsch–Stoer integrator with an adaptive step size, and an error tolerance of 10$^{-13}$.
In our numerical simulations we included the disturbing effects of the Galactic tidal field and passing stars. However, we do not took into account other perturbative effects such as encounters with molecular clouds or changes in the density of the Galactic environment (Brasser et al. 2010; Kaib et al. 2011). Then, it is worth to mention that the stability of the Cloud could be affected by these more powerful perturbations.
For the coordinate system described in Sect. \[system\] the tidal field can be analytically modeled by the Hill’s approximation (Heggie 2001; Binney & Tremaine 2008), assumimg a symmetric Galactic potential on the plane $z = 0$ (Jiang & Tremaine 2010). Let $x$, $y$, $z$ denote the components of the heliocentric position of the massless particles, and $\dot{x}$, $\dot{y}$, $\dot{z}$ the components of the velocity. Then, from Jiang & Tremaine (2010) the equations of motion for the particles are:
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
\ddot{x} &=& - \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 x}{r^{3}} + 2 \Omega_G \dot{y} + 4 \Omega_G A_G x \, \rm{,}\\
\\
\ddot{y} &=& - \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 y}{r^{3}} - 2 \Omega_G \dot{x} \, \rm{,}\\
\\
\ddot{z} &=& - \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 z}{r^{3}} - \nu_G^2 z \, \rm{,}\\
\label{eq1}
\end{array}$$
where $\mathcal{G}$ is the gravitational constant and $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$. The effects of the Galactic tide are represented by the terms involving $\Omega_G$, $A_G$ and $\nu_G$ which are the angular speed of the Galaxy, the Oort constant, and the frequency for small oscillations in $z$, respectively. For the distance of the Sun to the Galactic centre ($\sim$ 8 kpc) their approximate values are (Jiang & Tremaine 2010): $A_G^{-1} \sim 2 \, \Omega_G^{-1} \sim 4.8 \, \nu_G^{-1} \sim $ 6.61 $\times$ 10$^7$ yr.
Equations (\[eq1\]) have a stationary solution (Jiang & Tremaine 2010): $$\begin{array}{l}
\ddot{x}\,=\, \ddot{y}\,=\, \ddot{z} \,=\, 0 \rm{,} \\
\\
\ddot{x}\,=\, \dot{y}\,=\, \dot{z} \,=\, 0 \rm{,} \\
\\
y \, = \, z \, = 0 \rm{,} \\
\\
x\, = \pm r_J = \pm \left[ \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 }{4 A_G \Omega_G} \right] ^{1/3} \, \rm{,} \label{eq3}
\end{array}$$
where $r_J \sim$ 2.8 $\times$ 10$^{5}$ au is the Jacobi or tidal radius of the test particles. Moreover, the system Sun-particle admits one integral of motion, the Jacobi constant: $$\begin{array}{lcl}
C_J & = & \dfrac{1}{2} (\dot{x}^2 + \dot{y}^2 + \dot{z}^2) - \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 }{r} - 2 A_G \Omega_G x^2 + \dfrac{\nu_G^2}{2} z^2 \,\, \rm{,} \\
& & \\
& = & \dfrac{1}{2} v^2 + \phi_K + \phi_G \,\, \rm{,} \\
& & \\
& = & \dfrac{1}{2} v^2 + \phi_{eff} \,\, \rm{,} \label{eq4}
\end{array}$$
where $v^2 = \dot{x}^2 + \dot{y}^2 + \dot{z}^2$ is the velocity, and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\phi_K = - \dfrac{\mathcal{G} m_0 }{r} \\
\phi_G = - 2 A_G \Omega_G x^2 + \dfrac{\nu_G^2}{2} z^2 \rm{,} \label{eq5}
\end{array}$$
are the potentials of the restricted two-body Keplerian problem and that of the Galactic tide, while $\phi_{eff} = \phi_K + \phi_G $ is the effective potential. Therefore, $\phi_{eff}$ has a maximum in the stationary solution (eq. \[eq3\]), which is called the critical Jacobi constant: $$C_{crit} = -3 \left[ \dfrac{A_G \Omega_G (\mathcal{G} m_0)^2}{2} \right] ^{1/3} \rm{,} \label{eq6}$$
which for the objects of the Oort Cloud is $C_{crit} \sim$ -2.125 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ au$^2$ yr$^{-2}$. For the Keplerian two-body problem the particles will be unbound of the Sun at $r \sim \infty$ (or $e\sim1$), however, if we consider the effective potential the separation can occur at a smaller distance. Moreover, for high values of $C_J$ close to the Sun (i.e., $r<$ 0.5 $r_J$) the Keplerian potential can define a bound eccentric orbit, when in fact it corresponds to an unbound particle.
Figure \[fig1\] shows the effective potential $\phi_{eff}$ as function of the heliocentric distance. The particles with $C_J > C_{crit}$ are able to reach any distance close to or far from the Sun, while for those particles with $C_J < C_{crit}$ there is a range of distances where the motion is forbidden because the kinetic energy is negative, which is indicated in the figure with a striped area in blue. Fig. \[fig1\] is also a helpful tool to understand the dynamical limit for the particles orbiting the Sun. We can define four regions: i) region $B$, for particles with $C_J < C_{crit}$ and $r < r_J$, ii) region $U_1$, for particles with $C_J > C_{crit}$ and $r < r_J$, iii) region $U_2$, for particles with $C_J > C_{crit}$ and $r > r_J$, and iv) region $U_3$, for particles with $C_J < C_{crit}$ and $r > r_J$. Only the objects in region $B$ will remain bound to the Sun in absence of external perturbations. The objects in regions $U_2$ and $U_3$ have been ejected of the Solar System, while in region $U_1$ the particles are unbound of the Sun but still not ejected.
For the test particles in region $B$ and $U_1$ with distance $r \leq 10^5$ au the motion can be approximated by a disturbed two-body problem (Heisler & Tremaine 1986; Correa-Otto et al. 2017). For the other two regions ($U_2$ and $U_3$) the particles are unbound and far from the Sun, so the Keplerian potential can be ignored, and the motion equations (\[eq1\]) can be reduced to:
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
\ddot{x} &=& 2 \Omega_G \dot{y} + 4 \Omega_G A_G x \, \rm{,}\\
\\
\ddot{y} &=& - 2 \Omega_G \dot{x} \, \rm{,}\\
\\
\ddot{z} &=& - \nu_G^2 z \, \rm{,}\\
\label{eq7}
\end{array}$$
whose general solution is:
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
x(t) &=& x_0 + x_1 \cos(\kappa_G t + x_2) \, \rm{,}\\
\\
y(t) &=& y_0 - 2 A_G x_0 t - \dfrac{2 \Omega_G}{\kappa_G} x_1 \sin(\kappa_G t + x_2) \, \rm{,}\\
\\
z(t) &=& z_0 \cos(\nu_G t + z_1) \, \rm{,}\\
\label{eq8}
\end{array}$$
where $x_0$, $x_1$, $x_2$, $y_0$, $z_0$ and $z_1$ are arbitrary constants, $\nu_G$ is the frequency for small oscillations in $z$, and $\kappa_G = 2 \sqrt{\Omega_G (\Omega_G - A_G)}$ is the epicyclic frequency in the $x$-$y$ plane. Therefore, the result is a uniform secular motion along the $y$-axis in the direction of the Galactic rotation.
On the other hand, the particles can be separated from the Sun by the cumulative effect of stellar passages, which correspond to a stochastic perturbation. Although the high relative velocities between the stars in the solar neighbourhood allows to include this perturbation using a model of impulse approximation (Rickman 1976), we prefer to solve each encounter with a second star, $m_1$, by a direct numerical integration of a restricted three body problem with the additional perturbation of the Galactic potential.
For the total time of integration ($T=$ 5 Gyr) and the maximum impact parameter, defined by the extension of our Clouds ($q_M \sim$ 1 pc), we found $N = 4 \times 10^4$ stellar passages with background stars (see, Brunini & Fernández 1996; Jiang & Tremaine 2010; Correa-Otto & Gil-Hutton 2017), which are randomly distributed along the simulation. The frequency of encounters considered in our work is 8 Myr$^{-1}$, which is smaller than that considered in other recent works (e.g., Vokrouhlicky et al. 2019). So, our frequency of encounter can be considered as an approximation because it is an underestimation of a more realistic encounter rate.
To generate the stellar passages we followed the scheme developed by Rickman et al. (2008), which is described in detail in Section 2 of that work. To select the mass $m_1$ of the passing star we use the mass-luminosity function in the solar neighbourhood (Reid et al. 2002; Ninkovic & Trajkovska 2006) and the initial relative velocity for the encounter is taken from the velocity dispersion of nearby stars available in the Hipparcos data (Garcia-Sanchez et al. 2001), which is a function of the stellar masses. Then, we have the information needed to generate the random sequence of stellar passages. However, the scheme of Rickman et al. (2008) to generate stellar passages assume a isotropic distribution of the stellar velocities in the solar neighbourhood, which is not true due to the solar apex motion. This assumption in the scheme to generate encounters represent an approximation in our simulations.
It is worth to mention that the recent release of the Gaia DR2 data (Bailer-Jones et al. 2018) has updated the rate of encounters with different stellar types/classes in the solar neighbourhood. However, we are in the same situation of Vokrouhlicky et al. (2019), because these data had been published without any debugging when we started our simulations, which took several months due to our limited computing capacity. Therefore, we will discuss the implications of this approximation for our results in Sect. \[conclu\].
Finally, to be able to develop a statistical study of the stochastic effect of stellar passages, we would like to perform several sequences of stellar passages. However, once again, we are restricted by our computer capabilities because our simulations demand very much CPU time. So, we have randomly generated only three different sequences of stellar passages from the same encounter distribution. The sequence *i* is apply to the Sample *i*, with *i*=1, 2 and 3, so that we have performed three numerical experiments.
-------- ------------ ------------ -------- ------------
Sample Final percentage Final percentage
state % region %
bound 53 B 53
U$_1$ 1
1 unbound 34 U$_2$ 20
U$_3$ 13
eliminated 13 - -
bound 70 B 70
U$_1$ 1
2 unbound 16 U$_2$ 14
U$_3$ 1
eliminated 14 - -
bound 68 B 68
U$_1$ 1
3 unbound 18 U$_2$ 11.5
U$_3$ 5.5
eliminated 14 - -
-------- ------------ ------------ -------- ------------
: Final results of our simulations for the three samples. Second and third columns separate the final result of each Sample between the *bound*, *unbound* and *eliminated* particles. Moreover, fourth and fifth columns separate the subsample of *unbound* particles according to the schematic description of Fig. \[fig1\]. []{data-label="table1"}
Results {#result}
=======
The Galactic effects inject particles to the inner Solar System, which become comets, but also eject particles from the Solar System, which is the topic of interest in this work. Previous works considered that a particle escapes of the Solar System when the heliocentric distance is larger than $r_J$ (see, Sect. 3, Jiang & Tremaine 2010; Fouchard et al. 2011b, 2017). However, in this work we follow the evolution of the particles until the end of each integration allowing them to reach distances larger than $r_J$ to study the stability of the most external particles of the Oort Cloud.
Table \[table1\] shows the final results of our simulations for the three samples. We can separate our results in three groups, i) particles that enter the planetary region, crossing the threshold of 35 au and are *eliminated* from the simulation, ii) the objects that remains *bound* to the Sun after 5 Gyr, and iii) the particles ejected from the Solar System, which are *unbound* and remain evolving in the Galaxy. The percentage of these three groups are in column 3 of Table \[table1\], and in fourth and fifth columns the results for the *unbound* particles (third group) are detailed according to the schematic description of Fig. \[fig1\].
We found that at the end of the integration time the percentage of particles that reach the limit of 35 au is $\sim$ 14 % for the three samples. Therefore, our results indicate that the eliminated particles by crossing the threshold of 35 au are not very strongly affected by the sequence of stellar passages. Instead, the particles ejected from the Solar System and the objects that remain *bound* to the Sun after 5 Gyr, shown different percentages for the three samples, which indicate a dependence with the sequence of stellar passages. For example, the percentage of *unbound* particles in Sample 1 is the double of that in the other two.
In Fig. \[fig3\] we show in grey a histogram for the final distribution of the heliocentric distances for particles that survive all the integration time. The Samples 1, 2 and 3 are shown in the top, middle and bottom panel, respectively, and we have included the initial distribution of each one in blue. We can see the presence of two peaks, the first one for $r < r_J$ (or interior peak) which is due to the initial distribution. The exterior peak correspond to ejected particles ($r > r_J$) and is a consequence of the dynamic process beyond the tidal radius (see Sect. \[model\]). These particles have an epicyclic motion in the $x$-$y$ plane with frequency $\kappa_G$, small oscillations in $z$ with frequency $\nu_G$, and a secular uniform motion in $y$, so this secular linear motion in the direction of rotation of the Galaxy plus the logarithmic representation of $r$ are responsible for the accumulation of particles at such large distance. Moreover, since the ejected particles have been moving away for less than 5 Gyr, they can not reach distances larger than a certain maximum determined by their velocity and the total integration time. The figure also shows a minimum in the number of objects at a heliocentric distance of $\sim$ 10$^{6}$ au ($\sim$ 3.6 $r_J$) which is also a consequence of the secular dynamic and the logarithmic representation.
To improve the dynamical analysis, it is possible to discriminate in the histogram shown in Fig. \[fig3\] the particles belonging to the regions $B$, $U_1$, $U_2$ and $U_3$ indicated in Fig. \[fig1\], following the same color code.
We can see some similar characteristic in the three samples. There are more particles in the region $U_2$ than in region $U_3$, and the unbound particles of the region $U_1$ increase from $r \sim$ 10$^4$ au until some distance beyond 10$^5$ au where they become dominant. Furthermore, we also find differences between the samples: for example, the Sample 1 has a greater percentage of particles in region $U_2$ (see, Table \[table1\]), although the particles in this sample do not achieve distances larger than 10$^9$ au, while in Samples 2 and 3 this is possible for some objects. The Sample 2 has a small percentage of ejected objects in region $U_3$ in comparison with Samples 1 and 3, and there are a similar percentage of bound particles at the end of the simulation for Samples 2 and 3, while for Sample 1 this percentage is lower. In the next Section we try to explain why we observe such differences between the Samples.
Fig. \[fig5\] shows the relation between the heliocentric distance and the velocity at the end of simulation for the Samples 1, 2 and 3 at the top, middle and bottom panel, respectively. The blue dashed line correspond to zero-energy for Keplerian orbits: $ v_{E0} = \sqrt{2 \mathcal{G} m_0 /r}$, while the tidal radius $r_J$ is indicated by a dashed yellow line. We have separated in each Sample the particles with $C_J < C_{crit}$, which are indicated in red, and particles with $C_J > C_{crit}$ in black, so that it is possible to appreciate the four schematic regions (see, Fig. \[fig1\]).
For the three samples we found some similar characteristics in the final velocity distribution. The ejected particles ($r>r_J$) of region $U_2$ ($C_J > C_{crit}$) can reach values of maximum velocity larger than that of the particles of region $U_3$ ($C_J < C_{crit}$), which is because $v^2 \propto C_J$ (see, eq. \[eq4\]). For the small percentage of unbound particles close to the Sun (i.e., region $U_1$) we can see two groups, while particles with $r<$ 10$^5$ au live in a limited range of values of $v$, the objects with distances beyond 10$^5$ au have a greater dispersion. This is because the particles closer to the Sun are in a disturbed Keplerian regime of motion (Heisler & Tremaine 1986; Correa-Otto et al. 2017), and due to the disturber effects of the Galactic potential they are unbound particles with high eccentric orbits which are close to the blue dashed line of Fig. \[fig5\]. Instead, the unbound particles of region $U_1$ with $r>$ 10$^5$ au are strongly influenced by the Galactic tide, and therefore we can find them even at low values of $v$.
Besides, it is possible to find some differences in the final distribution of velocities of the three samples, specially between Sample 1 and the other two. The main difference is the maximum value of $v$ achieved by the particles of region $U_2$ in Samples 2 and 3 that can reach 10 km s$^{-1}$, a value which is not observed in Sample 1. This difference explain why for the Samples 2 and 3 we can observe particles of the region $U_2$ at distances larger than 10$^9$ au, while the corresponding particles of Sample 1 do not achieve such distances.
On the other hand, in Fig. \[fig5\] at $r \sim r_J$ it is possible to see that although there are some unbound particles with $v > v_{E0}$ (i.e., hyperbolic orbits with $C_J > C_{crit}$), most of the unbound objects in such region live below the blue line in elliptic orbits with $C_J > C_{crit}$. In the case of ejected particles ($r > r_J$), it is worth to note that the unbound objects of region $U_3$ are over the theoretical zero-energy line for Keplerian orbits, which is in agreement with a hyperbolic orbit. Instead, there are some particles of region $U_2$ that live under the dashed blue line of zero velocity. These are interesting results, because such group of particles with $v < v_{E0}$ have been ejected from the Solar System, but according to the keplerian two-body problem they are still bound to the Sun. So, these results confirm the need to consider the Galactic potential for studies about the dynamic evolution of the outer region of the Oort Cloud.
Finally, it is worth to note that the final distributions of $r$ and $v$ are similar to that of Jiang & Tremaine (2010) for wide binary stars. Such result indicates that there is not a dynamic difference between a disturbed two-body problem (i.e., star-star) and a disturbed restricted two-body problem (i.e., Sun-comet), when the Galaxy is the disturber, which is in agreement with the result obtained by Correa-Otto et al. (2017) and confirm that the dynamical evolution of a pair of objects in the Galaxy is slightly dependent on the mass of the binary system.
Evolution of the ejected particles {#evol}
----------------------------------
To improve our comprehension about the dynamical process that eject particles from the Solar System, we analyse the temporal evolution of the particles that ends the integration in an unbound state. Fig. \[fig7\] shows the evolution of these particles, separated according to the defined regions $U_1$, $U_2$ and $U_3$, for all the samples. The particles in region $U_1$ shown the same behaviour for the three samples, with an increment until 0.02 at the beginning of the simulation and a stabilization at the end close to 0.01. The Sample 1 however shows an important instantaneous increase to 0.21 at $\sim$ 1.5 Gyr, which quickly decreases 0.2 Gyr later. For the particles of regions $U_2$ and $U_3$, in all the samples we can see a continuous increase of the fraction of unbound ejected particles, and there is an important increase of ejected particles of Sample 1 at 1.5 Gyr.
The ejection of particles is a consequence of the stellar passages whose influence can be appreciated in the peaks of unbound particles in region $U_1$ and in stepped increases of ejected particles of regions $U_2$ and $U_3$. Some stellar passages can produce important consequence in the process of ejection, for example the important increase at $\sim$ 1.5 Gyr of Sample 1. The influence in the Cloud of a stellar passage depends on its dynamical characteristic. In order to identify the most important stellar passages of each sample, in the three panels of Figure \[fig8\] are shown the impact parameter ($q$), the stellar mass of the disturbing star ($m_1$) and the relative velocity ($v_{rel}$) for all the stellar passages with $q<$ 3 $\times$ 10$^3$ au and for the three samples. For a maximum impact parameter $q_M \sim$ 3 $\times$ 10$^3$ au, the predicted number of passages is $\sim$ 9 (see Sect. \[model\]), and the results for the three samples are in agreement with the theoretical prediction because we find 11, 7 and 16 stellar passages for the Samples 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Then, for all the samples we find matches between some of the stellar passages in Fig. \[fig8\] and the instant when the number of unbound particles increase for region $U_1$ in Fig. \[fig7\]. The two most important events for each Sample take place at $\sim$ 0.5 and 1.5 Gyr for the Sample 1, at $\sim$ 1.3 and 1.8 Gyr for Sample 2, and at $\sim$ 1.6 and 4.1 Gyr for Samples 3. Of these six stellar passages, five of them produce an increase lower than 0.01 in the fraction of unbound particles of region $U_1$, while the relative velocity seems to be the parameter that defines the impact in the dynamical evolution of the cloud of particles, since all them have $v_{rel}<$ 8 km/s. Instead, the stellar passage of Sample 1 which happens at $\sim$ 1.5 Gyr has important consequences in the evolution of the synthetic sample of particles. The corresponding star has a mass of $\sim$ 2 m$_\odot$ and a small relative velocity ($\sim$ 5 km/s), and it match with the instants of most important stepped growth in the fraction of unbound particles (see Fig. \[fig7\]). It is worth to note that the high increase of particles in region $U_1$ ($\sim$ 0.18) at 1.5 Gyr is later distributed between the two regions of ejected particles, $\sim$ 0.11 in region $U_2$ and $\sim$ 0.07 in region $U_3$, in a way such that at $\sim$ 1.7 Gyr the fraction of particles in the region $U_1$ returns to the normal value (0.01). Then, while in the other samples the most important stellar passages eject a fraction of particles that does not exceed $\sim$ 0.01, the exceptional event of Sample 1 can duplicate the total fraction of ejected particles in a relative short time ($\sim$ 0.2 Gyr). Here after, we will call this stellar passage so efficient to eject particles from the Solar System an “special event”.
In the six selected cases of the previous paragraph we can see that the increase in the unbound fraction is always appreciated before in region $U_1$, and an instant later in regions $U_2$ and $U_3$. This behaviour seems to indicate a two-step mechanism to eject particles from the system. First, the particles are excited by an increment of the Jacobi constant due to a stellar passage, which moves the particles from region $B$ to region $U_1$. The second step is an increase of the heliocentric distance produced by the following passages plus the Galactic tide, but it could happen in two different ways: with a small change of $C_J$ where the particle ends in the region $U_2$, or with an important decrease of $C_J$ where the particle ends in the region $U_3$. This mechanism is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig1\], where the green star represent the initial position of a fictitious particle, which with a first stellar passage jump to the region $U_1$ (unfilled green star 1) by an increase of $C_J$. Then, the particle can be moved to the region $U_2$ (unfilled green star 2) by the Galactic potential or by other stellar passage, or to the region $U_3$ (unfilled green star 3), but in this last case only a stellar passage can move the particle with a decrease of $C_J$. We call to this mechanism “continuous process” for the continuous ejection of particles out of the Solar System.
Moreover, our final results (see, Table \[table1\]) show that the ejection of particles to the region $U_2$ is the most probable, which can be explained easily through the method described in the previous paragraph. Then, to move particles from region $U_1$ to region $U_3$ we need a change in $C_J$ for which we need a stellar passage. On the other hand, the region $U_2$ is the natural destination for a unbound particle because the Galactic potential can eject it from the region $U_1$ even without a stellar passage.
Another result is obtained when we compare Samples 2 and 3 where the percentage of unbound particles is similar, but we can see that the number of ejected particles into regions $U_2$ and $U_3$ is different for both samples. Such result indicates that there is a stochastic process filling the regions of ejection which is associated to the effect produced by the stellar passages. Then, we have find that the sequence of stellar passages modulate the dynamic mechanism of escape from the Solar System.
Heisler & Tremaine (1986)shown that the stellar passages are responsible of the comet showers, but our results show that they are also responsible for the ejection of particle from the Solar System. In Fig. \[fig7\] we also show the dynamical evolution of the eliminated particles which also has a linear increase like that of the ejected particles.
The mechanism of “continuous process” ejects and injects material from the Cloud, which is particularly confirmed in Sample 2 where there are a small fraction of particles in region $U_3$ and we can see a similar increase rate of the injected and ejected particles (green and black lines in Fig. \[fig7\]). Also, for Samples 2 and 3 the final fraction of unbound particles ($\sim$ 0.17) is similar to that of eliminated particles ($\sim$ 14 %), which indicates that the “continuous process” has the same efficiency to eject or inject particles from the Oort Cloud. Moreover, while the “special event” of Sample 1 can duplicate the number of ejected particles, it does not have important consequences for the total number of eliminated particles. This difference indicate that the “special event” is very efficient to unbound particles, but it is not so efficient to make particles cross the threshold of 35 au.
Moreover, if in Sample 1 we remove the fraction of ejected particles due to the “special event” ($\sim$ 0.18), we would have only a fraction of $\sim$ 0.16 of particles ejected, which is similar to the other two samples. Then, this allows us to arrive at an important result: in absence of a “special event” the final percentage of ejected particles is independent of the sequence of stellar passages.
Finally, to complete our analysis we show the evolution of the density distribution for the heliocentric distance of Sample 1, 2 and 3 in the top, middle and bottom panel of Figure \[fig9\], respectively. The tidal radius $r_J$ is indicated with a dotted black line. The effects produced by the stellar passages to eject particles from the Oort Cloud are evident in the plots. It is possible to see that the objects are ejected as a shower of particles in a similar way to that observed for the cometary showers. As we have described in Sect. \[model\], every ejected particle has a linear increase of the heliocentric distance (see, eq. \[eq8\]), so a set of particles ejected by the same stellar passage will evolve together towards high values of $r$ with small differences in the fast epicyclic motion on the $x$-$y$ plane. For example, with the great number of particles ejected by the “special event” at 1.5 Gyr in Sample 1, we can confirm the secular evolution due to the Galactic potential described in Sect. \[model\]. Moreover, this bulk of high density seems to increase with time, which is because our logarithm representation of $r$, as we have explained in Sect. \[result\]. Therefore, the temporal evolution of the distribution of $log_{10}(r)$ presented in Fig. \[fig9\] allows us to see the formation of the apparent exterior peak at $\sim$ 10$^8$ au for the three samples, which confirms our arguments of Sect. \[result\]. However, our results about the evolution of the ejected particles are limited by our approximations, which will be detailed in the next section. On the other hand, we can see in Fig. \[fig9\] for the three samples, that with the temporal evolution the successive stellar passages decrease the initial density of the Oort Cloud. Hence, the quantity of material to be ejected decrease too, which explain why the blue region around the tidal radius increase with the time. This result completes our explanation of Sect. \[result\] about the presence of a minimum in density at $\sim$ 3.6 $r_J$.
The unbound Oort Cloud
----------------------
The surviving Oort Cloud has been analyzed in other works (e.g., Fouchard et al. 2017) and it is not the objective of our work. Instead, in this section, we made a theoretical analysis of the dynamic of unbound and ejected particles. Figure \[figesc2\] shows the final distribution of the ejected particles in the Cartesian reference system, where we can see that such particles are moving around the Galaxy following the Sun with a small relative velocity. We can see a large structure which extends by 4 kpc (the half-path of the distance to the Galactic center) along the direction of Galactic rotation ($y-axis$) in a quasi-symmetric extension.
However, the effect of the Galactic environment in our simulations is oversimplified for these large structures. We do not include perturbations from passing stars and molecular clouds, whose effect will lead to a dispersion of the particles in $x$- and $z$-direction. Moreover, we have considered a non-migrating Sun in the solar neighborhood while a most realistic scenario, with a not fixed Sun and taking into account the influence of spiral arms, will be able to produce an important scattering of particles(Brasser et al. 2010; Kaib et al. 2011; Martinez-Barbosa et al. 2016, 2017). So, this population of ejected particles must be more extended and maybe it could not exist at all.
The other interesting group of objects is that of unbound but still not ejected particles. This group is conformed mainly by the particles in the region $U_1$ with distances between 10$^4$ au and $r_J$, see the black histograms in Fig. \[fig3\]. Fig. \[fig19\] shows the evolution of particles with $C_J > C_{crit}$ in the range between 10$^4$ and 10$^6$ au. We can see a constant escape of particles, but close to a half of the Jacobi radius is interesting to find a high density of particles. This region is permanently replenished by the successive stellar passages, and even in the case of a more disturbing sequence as Sample 1, the region is staying present. This result is very interesting because indicates a dynamical structure around the Sun, where the flux of particles being ejected define a non-permanent population of unbound particles, which we call in this article: the *unbound Oort cloud* (UOC, hereafter).
The presence of the dynamical structure of the UOC is the consequence of the dynamical times involved in the problem. In absence of stellar passages, the particles evolve under the influence of the Keplerian and Galactic potentials. In this case, the unbound particles at $r \sim r_J$ can evolve in two directions: i) towards the Solar System with a Keplerian period of about 10 Myr, or ii) toward the interstellar space with a secular evolution governed by the Oort constant $A_G$ (see eq. \[eq8\]), which indicates a constant secular increase of $r$ with a rate proportional to 0.01 Myr$^{-1}$. However, the average time between passages with our frequency of encounters is $\sim$ 0.1 Myr, or $\sim$ 0.05 Myr with the rate of encounters of the Gaia DR2 data (Bailer-Jones et al. 2018). This difference of at least two orders of magnitude between the times of the two effects involves implies that the UOC can be considered as a frozen cloud of particles, which is continuously disturbed by the kick of stellar passages. The same is true for the most external particles of the Oort Cloud with $C_J \sim C_{crit}$. Then, every stellar passage moves some particles from the Oort Cloud toward the UOC, and at the same time, it moves some particles of the UOC towards the interstellar space. In this way, the UOC win and loose particles with every stellar passage, with a similar rate of gain and loss according to our results. In the next section we show that the UOC defines a natural boundary for the Oort Cloud, which is consistent with the escape radius formula for wide binary stars given by Feng & Jones (2017).
\
\
The outer limit of the Oort Cloud
---------------------------------
In this section, we perform a dynamical analysis to find an external limit for the Oort Cloud. In the outer Oort Cloud the Galactic tide become important and we can not use the keplerian criteria of the eccentricity to define an unbound particle. So, following the criteria of Jiang & Tremaine (2010) for a bound object (i.e., $C_J < C_{crit}$ and $r < r_J$), we can define that a massless particle is said to be stable only when it remains bounded to the Sun until the end of the simulation. Then, we define as unstable the unbound particles that remain close to the Sun, in the region $U_1$, because eventually they will increase their heliocentric distance (see Sect. \[evol\]).
We perform a numerically study about the stability of particles disturbed by the Galaxy around the Sun, following the numerical studies about the stability of orbits in a restricted three-body problem (e.g., Wiegert & Holman 1997; Holman & Wiegert 1999; Ramos et al. 2015), but these results indicate that are necessary at least 300 binary periods to define the stability limit (e.g., Rabl & Dvroak 1988; Holman & Wiegert 1999; Ramos et al. 2015; Calandra et al. 2018). Instead, for a period similar to the age of the Solar System the Sun has completed less than 30 revolutions around the Galaxy, which is less than a 10 % of the necessary time to define a limit. Therefore, the limit that we could find is not stable and it will be reduced in the future, so we can only define a temporary limit for 5 Gyr.
Fig. \[figlim2\] shows the fraction of bound particles that survive all the integration time, as function of i) the initial semimajor axis ($a_0$, top panel), and ii) the cosine of the initial inclination about the Galactic plane ($\cos I_0$, bottom panel). We have not include an analysis in function of the initial eccentricity because we do not find a dependence. The three samples are indicated by green (Sample 1), black (Sample 2) and grey (Sample 3) lines.
Our results indicate that the stability of the particles has a strong dependence with the initial heliocentric distance, and a slight dependence with the initial orientation of the orbit. Both quantities are dynamically important because their relation with the Jacobi constant regulates the stability of the particles (see eq. \[eq4\]). So, from the set of particles with an initial value of Jacobi constant close to $C_{crit}$, those with larger initial inclinations can be ejected more easily due to the last term of the effective potential (eq. \[eq4\]). Therefore, the Galactic potential reduces the bond energy of particles with large values of $I_0$, which is in agreement with the theoretical model (eq. \[eq3\]). Finally, from our results we do not find a dependence with the initial eccentricity of the particles, which seems to indicate that for the stability of the external Oort Cloud the orientation of the orbits is more important than its form.
However, although we find a dependence with the initial configuration, the Sample 1 shows a different dependence, which indicate that the stability of the particles is defined by the set of stellar passages and specially by the possibility of a “special event”. The effectiveness of this mechanism to eject particles is seen in Fig. \[figlim2\] where at the initial border of the external Oort Cloud (2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au) both Samples 2 and 3 have a 80 % of bound particles, which quickly decrease to 50 % at 3 $\times$ 10$^4$ au. Instead, Sample 1 has 40 % and 15 % of bound particles at 2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au and 3 $\times$ 10$^4$ au, respectively. Moreover, the dependence with the inclination is most evident for Samples 2 and 3, while the Sample 1 is almost independent of the orientation of the orbit. These differences indicate that when the disturbing effect of the stellar passages increase (e.g., Sample 1), the Oort Cloud is more affected, and hence the dependence with the initial inclination of the survival particles decrease.
Therefore, our results shown that the stability or the survival time of particles is defined by a interaction between the Galactic potential and the stellar passages in a synergy effect of ejection similar to that described by Rickman et al. (2008) for the injection of objects. The stellar passages are the perturbative effect, and the increase in the number of passages will increase the quantity of particles that can be ejected. However, to define when a particle is unbound from the Sun we need to consider the Galactic potential. In the model considered in this work the particle is unbound when its Jacobi constant is larger than the critical value (see Sect. \[model\]). Therefore, the stellar passages have to increase the value of $C_J$ to be able to eject the particles.
Moreover, it is important to define how the stability limit is calculated. As our results shown, there is not a defined limit between bound and unbound orbits, but there is a *transition region* that separates the stable from the unstable domains, like in the restricted three-body problem (Ramos et al. 2015). Then, we can define as “stability limit” the initial semimajor axis in the transition region where the bound fraction is 0.5, and considering the three samples we can calculate an average value. So, we obtain a mean stability limit for the transition region in $\sim$ 2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au ($log_{10}\,(a_0) \sim$ 4.3), which is in agreement with the limit that we can derive from previous works. For example, for the new encounter rate of 19.7 Myr$^{-1}$ derived from Gaia DR2 data, the analitical formula of Feng & Jones (2017) estimate the escape radius or stability limit in $log_{10}\,(a_0) \sim 4.2$.
On the other hand, we are interested in finding an outer limit for the extension of the Cloud. In this case, we have to considered a region where the percentage of particles is very low. It is worth to note that the fraction of bound particles beyond 6.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au is less than 0.05 and it decrease to 0 at 10$^5$ au. Moreover, unlike the stability limit, the unbound fraction is less than 0.05 at the same distance for the three Samples. Then, regardless the occurrence of a “special event” during the age of the Solar System the percentage of survival particles is less than 5 % for the objects with initial semimajor axis larger than 6.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au. Therefore, the stability for those particles is very low and we can qualitatively define $a_{crit} \sim$ 6.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au as the outer limit for the Oort Cloud. Although, this boundary may be scaled if we take into account the approximations assumed in our simulations (see Sect. \[model\]).
Finally, we show the importance of the Galactic potential for the stability of the particles using as illustrative example some real objects. From the JPL database of the NASA (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov) we found 14 comets with $a>$ 2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au, which correspond to objects in the outer Oort Cloud. Table \[table2\] shows the name, perihelion distance ($d$) and approximated semimajor axis of each one. Even though these are quasi-parabolic comets (i.e., $e >$ 0.999), they have $e \neq$ 1 and in the context of the Keplerian problem we can not assure that they are unbound from the Sun and that they will be ejected from the Solar System, but using the proposed outer limit, which consider the Galactic potential, we can identify in Table \[table2\] those comets that are in fact unbound from the Sun, and will be ejected.
Comet name $d$ (au) $a$ ($\times$ 10$^4$ au)
---------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------------
C/2014 R3 (PANSTARRS) 7.27 2.26
C/1958 D1 (Burnham) 1.32 2.32
C/2017 T2 (PANSTARRS) 1.61 2.35
C/1910 A1 (Great January comet) 0.12 2.58
C/2002 J4 (NEAT) 3.63 2.89
C/2001 C1 (LINEAR) 5.10 3.81
C/1972 X1 (Araya) 4.86 5.40
C/1937 N1 (Finsler) 0.86 5.75
$- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ $- - - -$ $- - - - - $
C/2007 N3 (Lulin) 1.21 7.24
C/1992 J1 (Spacewatch) 3.00 7.71
C/2008 C1 (Chen-Gao) 1.26 10.16
C/2012 CH17 (MOSS) 1.29 14.00
C/2012 S4 (PANSTARRS) 4.34 25.22
C/2015 O1 (PANSTARRS) 3.73 44.65
: Orbital parameters of the known comets with $a>$ 2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au, which are been taken from the JPL database of the NASA (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov). Second and third columns indicate the perihelion distance and the semimajor axis, respectively. The dashed line separate those objects with $a>$ 6.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au, which are unbound according to our limit ($a_{crit}$).[]{data-label="table2"}
Discussion and Conclusions {#conclu}
==========================
In this paper we developed a dynamical study about the stability of the objects of the outer Oort Cloud. We considered the particles of the Oort Cloud in three different samples, each one was affected by a different sequence of stellar passages during 5 Gyr. We also took into account the perturbative effect of the Milky Way’s tidal field.
From our results, we find that in absence of a “special event” there are a percentage of the initial material which is lost by ejection and a similar percentage lost by injection to the planetary region. However, as we do not include planets, we can not make predictions for the injected material. Thus a failure to include planetary perturbations may bias the results of the Oort Cloud evolution as well as the ejected comet population, and we can only say that the Cloud has lost at least $\sim$ 17 % of the initial objects during the Sun lifetime. Moreover, because of the linear increase in the rate of ejection of particles, we can predict that for the end of its life the Sun will lost at least one third of the initial Cloud.
Another important result is the final distribution of the heliocentric distances of the particles of our Samples. We found a minimum in the density at a few times $r_J$, independent of the sequence of stellar passages. Interior to this minimum there is a peak in the density due to the initial distribution of the particles in the Cloud, and exterior to it there is another peak due to particles that are slowly drifting away. This result is similar to that found for wide binary stars, which allow us to arrive to the conclusion that perturbations from the Galactic tide in a binary system is independent of the mass of the pair, with similar results for a two-body problem and a restricted two-body problem.
We have found a mechanism for the ejection of particles which we called “continuous process”, which allow us to conclude that the leak of particles from the Oort Cloud is by a consequence of a synergy effect of ejection due to the combined effects of the successive stellar passages and the Galactic potential similar to the observed for the synergy effect of injection. We also found that the most important orbital characteristic of the particles of the Cloud that regulates the ejection is the initial semimajor axis. Moreover, the simulations shown that the usual treatment of ejection of particles from the Oort Cloud is oversimplified. The particles are not ejected isotropically when $C_J > C_{crit}$ and the separation exceeds the Jacobi radius $r_J$; instead they have a defined distribution modulated by the Galactic potential. Although, as the heliocentric distance increases ($r \gg r_J$) the Galactic perturbations disperse the distribution of the ejected particles.
Therefore, we can define the Oort Cloud as a dynamically complex region where a population of bound particles live together with a group of unbound particles, which we identify as the unbound Oort Cloud. The UOC is not a population, instead it is a group of particles in a dynamically unstable region, which is permanently replenished by the permanent flow of stellar passages. Then, all the Oort Cloud is a transition region where the fraction of bound particles falls from 1 to 0 as the heliocentric distance increases, and allows to define the stability limit as the distance from which the unbound particles become dominant. We have found that the heliocentric distance with a similar quantity of bound and unbound particles is $\sim$ 2 $\times$ 10$^4$ au ($log_{10}\,(a_0) \sim 4.3$), which is in agreement with the estimated limit in previous works. It is worth to note that this result is in agreement with the limit between inner and outer Oort Cloud, and allow us to define the external Cloud as an unstable region.
Moreover, we have defined $a_{crit} \sim $ 6.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ au ($log_{10}\,(a_{crit}) \sim 4.81$) as the outer or external limit for the outer Oort Cloud, because beyond this limit the probability of survival for the particles is very low ($<$ 5 %) for the three sequences of stellar passages considered in this work. However, this boundary may be scaled because the approximations assumed in our simulations for example the frequency of encounters and a non-migrating Sun (see Sect. \[model\]).
Finally, the results of our simulations could be improved in several ways. Our simulations consider an analytical model for the Galactic tide, and a more realistic treatment of the potential and a different Galactic environment could affect the definition of a unbound particle. Moreover, we do not include perturbations from planets and passing molecular clouds , and our rate of encounter for stellar passages is less than that considered in other works, which could affect the position of the limits found in this work. Even so, we think that our most important contributions are not the exact position of a region or a limit, but instead we have been able to determine the existence of a transition region and the UOC, which define a phase transition between the Solar System and the interstellar space. Both dynamic structures are independent of our approximations, because there will always be a fraction of unbound particles that will not be ejected in the time between one stellar passage and the next, and the existence of such transitory population makes impossible to define an exact stability limit. The main modulator of these structures and the external limit of the Oort Cloud is the frequency of the stellar passages.
REFERENCES
==========
Bacci P., et al. 2017, MPEC Circ.. MPEC 2017-U181
Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Andrae R., Fouesneau M., 2018, A&A,616, 37
Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition. Princeton University Press
Brasser R., Morbidelli A., 2013, Icarus, 225, 40
Brasser R., Duncan M. J., Levison H. F., 2006, Icarus, 184, 59
Brasser R., Higuchi A., Kaib N., 2010, A&A, 516, 72
Brunini A., Fernandez J., 1996, A&A, 308, 988
Byl J., 1983, Earth, Moon and the Planets, 29, 121
Calandra M. F., Correa-Otto J., Gil-Hutton R., 2018, A&A, 611, 73
Correa-Otto J., Gil-Hutton R., 2017, A&A, 608, 116
Correa-Otto J., Calandra M. F., Gil-Hutton R., 2017, A&A, 600, 59
Dones L., Weissman P. R., Levison H. F., Duncan M. J., 2004, in Johnstone D., Adams F. C., Lin D. N. C., Neufeeld D. A., Ostriker E. C., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 323, Star Formation in the Interstellar Medium: In Honor of David Hollenbach. p. 371
Dones L., Brasser R., Kaib N., Rickman H., 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 197, 191
Duncan M., Quinn T., Tremaine S., 1987, AJ, 94, 1330
Dybczynski P. A., 2002, A&A, 396, 283
Feng F., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3653
Feng F., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3267
Feng F., Jones H. R. A., 2017, MNRAS, 474, 4412
Fernandez J. A., 1980, Icarus, 42, 406
Fernandez J. A., Brunini A., 2000, Icarus, 145, 580
Fouchard M., Froeschlé C., Rickman H., Valsecchi G. B., 2011a, Icarus, 214, 334
Fouchard M., Rickman H., Froeschle C., Valsecchi G. B., 2011b, A&A, 535, 13
Fouchard M., Rickman H., Froeschle C., Valsecchi G. B., 2014, Icarus, 231, 110
Fouchard M., Rickman H., Froeschle C., Valsecchi G. B., 2017, Icarus, 292, 218
Francis P. J., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1348
Garcia-Sánchez J., Weissman P., Preston R., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 634
Hanse J., Jilkova L., Portegies Zwart S. F., Pelupessy F. I., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5432
Heggie D. C., 2001, in Steves B. A., Maciejewski A. J., eds, The Restless Universe. pp 109–128 (arXiv:astro-ph/0011294)
Heisler J., Tremaine S., 1986, Icarus, 65, 13
Hills J. G., 1981, AJ, 86, 1730
Holman M. J., Wiegert P. A., 1999, AJ, 117, 621
Hut P., Tremaine S., 1985, AJ, 90, 1548
Jakubík M., Neslusan L., 2009, CASP, 39, 85
Jiang Y. F., Tremaine S., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 977–994
Kaib N., Quinn T., 2008, Icarus, 197, 221
Kaib N. A., Quinn T., 2009, Science, 325, 1234
Kaib N., Roskar R., Quinn T., 2011, Icarus, 215, 491
Martínez-Barbosa C. A., Brown A. G. A., Boekholt T., Portegies Zwart S. F., Antiche E., Antoja T., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1062
Martinez-Barbosa C. A., Jikova L., Portegies Zwart S. F., Brown A. G. A., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2290
Meech K., et al. 2017a, MPEC Circ.. MPEC 2017-U183
Meech K., Weryk R., Micheli M., et al. 2017b, Nature, 552, 378
Ninkovic S., Trajkovska V., 2006, Serb. Astron. J., 172, 17
Oort J. H., 1950, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 11, 91
Rabl G., Dvroak R., 1988, A&A, 191, 385
Ramos X. S., Correa-Otto J. A., Beauge C., 2015, CeMDA, 123, 453
Reid I. N., Gizis J. E., Hawley S. L., 2002, AJ, 124, 2721
Rickman H., 1976, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 27, 92
Rickman H., Fouchard M., Froeschly C., Valsecchi G. B., 2008, CeMDA, 102, 111
Tsiganis K., Gomes R., Morbidelli A., Levison H. F., 2005, Nature, 435, 459
Vokrouhlicky D., Nesvorny D., Dones L., 2019, AJ, 157, 181–208
Weissman P. R., 1996, Completing the Inventory of the Solar System, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings, vol. 107. Rettig T. W., Hahn J. M., eds., pp. 265-288
Wiegert P. A., Holman M. J., 1997, AJ, 113, 1445
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Ricardo Gil-Hutton for numerous suggestions/correction on this paper. We thank the referee Fabo Feng for valuable suggestions/correction which help to improve the manuscript. The authors gratefully acknowledges partial financial support by CONICET through PIP 112-201501-00525, and by CICITCA UNSJ, through the projects 21/E1079 (2018-2019) and PROJOVI (2018-2019).
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent advances in experimental techniques allow one to create a quantum point contact between two Fermi superfluids in cold atomic gases with a tunable transmission coefficient. In this Letter we propose that three distinct behaviors of charge transports between two Fermi superfluids can be realized in this single setup, which are the multiple Andreev reflection, the self-trapping and the Josephson oscillation. We investigate the dynamics of atom number difference between two reservoirs for different initial conditions and different transmission coefficients, and present a coherent picture of how the crossover between different regimes takes place. Our results can now be directly verified in current experimental system.'
author:
- Juan Yao
- Boyang Liu
- Mingyuan Sun
- Hui Zhai
title: Controlled Transport between Fermi Superfluids Through a Quantum Point Contact
---
Transport measurements are powerful tools not only for revealing fundamental properties of quantum materials in condensed matter physics, but also for constructing solid-state devices. In the past few years, transport has also become one of the frontiers in cold atom physics. Various experiments have been conducted, including particle transport [@Stadler; @Krinner1; @Valtolina; @Husmann; @Krinner2; @Hausler], heat transport [@Brantut], and spin transport [@Sommer; @Bardon; @Koschorreck; @Luciuk]. Of particular interests is the realization of the two-terminal transport measurements in cold atom setup [@Stadler; @Krinner1; @Valtolina; @Husmann; @Krinner2; @Brantut; @Hausler]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:model\](A), a cigar-shaped cloud is split into two reservoirs and connected by a quantum point contact (QPC) generated by high-resolution lithography [@Krinner1; @Husmann; @Krinner2]. With this setup, in the weakly interacting regime, quantized conductance of neutral matter has been first observed [@Krinner1]. In the strongly interacting regime, both multiple Andreev reflections between two Fermi superfluids and anomalous transport between two normal gases have been observed [@Husmann; @Krinner2], the later of which has attracted considerable attentions for the lack of theoretical consensus on its origin [@Liu2014; @Glazman; @Liu2017; @Uchino].
![(Color online) (A) The geometry of the experimental setup. Two reservoirs are connected by a QPC. A gate beam applied on the central regime tunes the relative energy $V_\text{g}$ between the QPC and the reservoirs. A tightly focused DMD beam tunes the tunneling amplitude. (B) The transmission coefficient $\mathcal{T}$ as a function of $\omega$ is plotted for different $V_\text{D}$. For later convenience, we have taken the bulk pairing gap $\Delta$ as the energy unit and we choose $\hbar\omega^0_x/\Delta=18$ and $\hbar\omega^0_z/\Delta=6$. []{data-label="fig:model"}](model.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
One great advantage of studying transport with cold atoms is to utilize the tunability of this system to cover different physics in different parameter regimes in a single setting, and therefore to reveal how the transition between them takes place. Here we focus on the case of the Fermi superfluid. One well known transport effect is the Josephson effect, which is a non-dissipative coherent oscillation. It has also been observed in cold atom experiments for both Bose and Fermi superfluids [@Albiez; @Valtolina] when two superfluids are separated by a potential barrier. In contrast, dissipative transport can also take place between two fermionic superfluids. In the experiment of Ref. [@Husmann], when two Fermi superfluids are connected by a QPC, the time evolution of the particle number difference between two reservoirs exhibits a non-exponential decay, which can be well explained by the multiple Andreev reflections.
Then, a question is raised naturally. For transport between two Fermi superfluids, under what condition it exhibits the Josephson effect and under what condition it exhibits the multiple Andreev reflections. In fact, the single particle transmission coefficient plays a crucial role in answering this question. A small transmission coefficient favors the Josephson effect and a large transmission coefficient favors the multiply Andreev reflections. Fortunately, recently a new technique allows one to continuously tune the transmission coefficient in the cold atom QPC setup by imprinting a mesoscopic potential or a lattice into the tunneling channel with a digital micromirror device (DMD) [@Hausler; @DMD]. The key point of this Letter is to propose that one can use this new technology to tune the transport between two Fermi superfluids, with which one can observe and understand the crossover from the multiple Andreev reflection type transport to the self-trapping and the Josephson type transport. This will provide a unified view of these seemingly disparate transport phenomena.
*Setup.* The setup of a QPC for cold atom system is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:model\](A). First of all, two beams provide transverse harmonic confinements along $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{z}$ directions, respectively, whose confinement frequencies vary smoothly along the longitudinal transport direction $\hat{y}$. That is to say, in a first quantized form, the Hamiltonian for the QPC regime can be written as $$\hat{H}=\frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2m}\omega^2_x(y)x^2+\frac{1}{2m}\omega^2_z(y)z^2+V_\text{DMD}(y),$$ where $\omega_i(y)=\omega^0_i e^{-y^2/d^2_i}$ ($i=x,z$). Here typical values for experiment are $\hbar\omega^0_x\sim12E_F$, $\hbar\omega^0_z\sim 4E_F$, $d_x\sim3.6/k_F$ and $d_z\sim18.2/k_F$ with total number of particles $N\sim2\times10^5$. Because $d_x>d_z$, it first squeezes the system into a quasi-two-dimensional plane and then to a quasi-one-dimensional tunnel. Secondly, another beam provides a gate potential that generates a uniform energy shift $V_\text{g}$ between the regime of QPC and the reservoir. That is to say, when we consider an incoming state whose asymptotic behavior is a plane wave with momentum $k_y$, the energy conservation gives $\omega-V_\text{g}=\hbar^2 k^2_y/(2m)$. Finally, a DMD beam can generate one or a sequence of delta-function potentials inside the quasi-one-dimensional tunneling channel. For the simplest case, we first consider $V_\text{DMD}(y)=V_\text{D}\delta(y)$.
In practice, $V_\text{g}$ and $V_\text{D}$ are two parameters that can be easily tuned. By solving this QPC Hamiltonian, one can obtain the transmission coefficient $\mathcal{T}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:model\](B). Without $V_\text{DMD}(y)$, the potential varies sufficiently smoothly in space such that $\mathcal{T}$ sharply jumps from zero to unity, when the incoming energy $E$ increases beyond the threshold $\hbar(\omega^0_x+\omega^0_z)/2$ and one of the tunneling channels becomes open, as shown by the $V_\text{D}=0$ curve in Fig. \[fig:model\](B). For finite $V_\text{D}$, $\mathcal{T}$ varies much more smoothly as $\omega$ varies. Consequently, for a fixed energy $\omega$ above the threshold, $\mathcal{T}$ continuously decreases as $V_\text{D}$ increases. In this way, we can tune the transmission coefficient in this system.
*Model and Method.* First of all, we take a mean-field Hamiltonian to describe the Fermi superfluids in the left and the right reservoirs, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_j=\sum_{\bf k \sigma}\xi_{j {\bf k}}\hat{\psi}_{j\sigma}^\dagger({\bf k})\hat{\psi}_{j\sigma}({\bf k})
-\Delta_j\hat{\psi}_{j\uparrow}({\bf k})\hat{\psi}_{j\downarrow}(-{\bf k})+\text{h.c.} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $j=\text{L}, \text{R}$ is the reservoir index, $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$ labels spin index, and $\xi_{j{\bf k}}={\bf k}^2/(2m)-\mu_j$. The parameters $\mu_j$ and $\Delta_j$ are the chemical potential and the order parameter of the $j$-th reservoir, respectively. Here, as an example, we will take $\mu/E_\text{F}=0.59$ and $\Delta/E_\text{F}=0.68$ as typical values for unitary Fermi gas.
Secondly, to study the transport behavior, we employ the non-equilibrium Keldysh formalism, for which we introduce the forward and backward branches of the time contours and denote them by $\alpha=1,2$ after the Keldysh rotation [@Kamenev]. Since later we will model the QPC as a local tunneling from the left to the right reservoirs, we introduce $$\hat{\psi}_{j\alpha\sigma}(\omega-\mu_j)=\int dt \hat{\psi}_{j\alpha\sigma}({\bf r}=0,t)e^{i(\omega-\mu_j) t},$$ where $\omega$ is defined as the absolute energy of the particles, and thus $\omega-\mu_j$ is the energy measured with respect to the Fermi surface of the $j$-th reservoir. Here we define a spinor as $\hat{\Psi}(\omega)=(\hat{\Psi}_L(\omega-\mu_L), \hat{\Psi}_R(\omega-\mu_R))^T$ with $$\hat{\Psi}_j(\omega-\mu_j)=\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{\psi}_{j1\uparrow}(\omega-\mu_j) \\ \hat{\psi}^\dag_{j2\downarrow}(\overline{{\omega}-\mu_j}) \\ \hat{\psi}_{j2\uparrow}(\omega-\mu_j) \\\hat{\psi}^\dag_{j1\downarrow}(\overline{\omega-\mu_j})
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\overline{{\omega}-\mu_j}=-({\omega}-\mu_j)$ and “$T$" denotes the transposition. The Green’s function $\mathcal{G}_0=\langle \hat{\Psi}(\omega)\hat{\Psi}^\dag(\omega)\rangle$ is therefore an $8\times 8$ matrix for a given $\omega$. The left and right reservoirs are decoupled without tunneling, then $\mathcal{G}_0(\omega)$ is $$\mathcal{G}_0(\omega)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathcal{G}_{0L}(\omega) & 0 \\0 & \mathcal{G}_{0R}(\omega)\end{array}\right).$$ Each $\mathcal G_{0j=\text{L},\text{R}}$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix of the form [@Cuevas; @Bolech2004; @Bolech2005] $$\mathcal G_{0j}(\omega)=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathcal{G}^{R}_j(\omega) & \mathcal{G}^{K}_j(\omega) \\
0 & \mathcal{G}^{A}_j(\omega)
\end{bmatrix}, \label{eq:Greenfunction}$$ where $\mathcal{G}^{R}_j(\omega)$, $\mathcal{G}^{A}_j(\omega)$ and $\mathcal{G}^{K}_j(\omega)$ are the retarded, advanced and Keldysh Green’s functions, respectively. Considering that each reservoir is in the thermal equilibrium, the Keldysh component of the Green’s function can be obtained as $\mathcal{G}^{K}_j(\omega)=\tanh\left(\frac{\omega-\mu_j}{2T}\right)\left[\mathcal{G}_j^R(\omega)-\mathcal{G}_j^A(\omega)\right]$ at temperature $T$. The mean-field Hamiltonian gives the retarded and the advanced Green’s functions as [@Cuevas; @Bolech2004; @Bolech2005] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}^{R(A)}(\omega)=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta_j^2-(\omega-\mu_j\pm i0^+)^2}}\times \\ &
\begin{bmatrix}
-(\omega-\mu_j\pm i0^+) & \Delta_j \\ \Delta_j & -(\omega-\mu_j\pm i0^+)
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ It is straight-forward to calculate the inverse of the Green’s function as $$\mathcal G^{-1}_{0j}=
\begin{bmatrix}
(\mathcal{G}^{R}_j )^{-1} & ({\mathcal{G}^{-1}_j})^{K} \\
0 & (\mathcal{G}^{A}_j)^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}, \label{eq:Greenfunction}$$ where $({\mathcal{G}_j^{-1}})^{K}=-(\mathcal{G}^{R}_j )^{-1}\mathcal{G}_j^{K}(\mathcal{G}_j^{A})^{-1}$.
Thirdly, the tunneling between two reservoirs is modeled by local tunnelings as [@Cuevas; @Bolech2004; @Bolech2005] $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{V}= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \sum_{\sigma,\alpha=1,2} \\
&\left\{\mathcal{T}(\omega-V_g, V_D)\hat{\psi}^\dag_{L\alpha\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{L})\hat{\psi}_{R\alpha\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{R}) +\text{h.c.}\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the transmission amplitude $\mathcal{T}(\omega-V_g, V_D)$ is a function of $V_g$ and $V_D$ as discussed above. Thus, the full Green’s function can be obtained by $$\mathcal{G}=\left(\mathcal{G}^{-1}_0-\mathcal{V}\right)^{-1}.$$ Although $\mathcal{G}^{-1}_0$ is diagnoal in the frequency bases, $\mathcal{V}$ introduces coupling between different frequencies. Hence, in practice, we discretize the frequency space and numerically calculate the inversion of the matrix.
Finally, it’s convenient to calculate the current $I(t)=\frac{1}{2}\partial (N_R-N_L)/\partial t$ in the frequency space by introducing $$I(t)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\Omega}{2\pi}I(\Omega)e^{-i\Omega t},$$ and in the Keldysh formalism the current $I(\Omega)$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
{I}(\Omega)=&\nonumber
-\frac{i}{2}\sum_{\sigma}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \times\\
\Big\{\mathcal{T}&(\omega-V_g, V_D)
\langle\hat{\psi}_{R1\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{R}+\Omega)\hat{\psi}^\dag_{L2\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{L})\rangle\\
-\mathcal{T}&(\omega-V_g, V_D)\langle\hat{\psi}_{L1\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{L}+\Omega)\hat{\psi}^\dag_{R2\sigma}(\omega-\mu_\text{R})\rangle\Big\}.
\label{eq:current1}\end{aligned}$$ With the Green’s function calculated above, it is straightforward to obtain $I(\Omega)$. Here the frequency $\Omega$ can only take a series of discrete values as $\Omega_m=2m\delta\mu$ with $m=0,\pm1,\pm2,...$ [@Cuevas], where $\delta\mu=\mu_\text{L}-\mu_\text{R}$ is the bias voltage. Denoting $I(\Omega_m)\equiv I_m$, the total current for a fixed bias voltage can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
I(t)=I_0+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty \big[{\rm Re}(I_m)\cos(\Omega_mt)+{\rm Im}(I_m)\sin(\Omega_mt)\big].\label{eq:current2}
\end{aligned}$$
![(Color online) $|I_0|$, and the real and imaginary part of $I_1$ as a function of $V_\text{D}/\Delta$ for fixed $\delta\mu=0.2\Delta$ (A), and as a function of $\delta\mu/\Delta$ for fixed $V_\text{D}=\Delta$ (B). Here we have fixed $V_\text{g}=-14\Delta$. []{data-label="fig:current"}](current.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
*Controlled Transport.* In Fig. \[fig:current\], we first show the current $I_0$ and $I_1$ as functions of $V_\text{D}/\Delta$ and $\delta\mu/\Delta$. We have verified that the higher component currents are much smaller than these two and can be safely ignored. The $I_0$ part is the dc component, which is resulted from the quasi-particle transport by the multiple Andreev reflections. The components of ${\rm Re}(I_1)\cos(\Omega_1t)$ and ${\rm Im}(I_1)\sin(\Omega_1t)$ are the ac parts and usually referred as the “cosine" term and “sine" terms. They describe the phase coherent transport of the Cooper pairs [@Barone]. The sine term ${\rm Im}(I_1)\sin(\Omega_1t)$ is related to the usual Josephson current. The cosine term was also predicted by Josephson [@Josephson] originally. It was first observed in the experiment by Pederson, Finnegan, and Langenberg [@Pederson]. In the usual weak link discussion, the cosine term vanishes in the first order of perturbation theory, and presents at the second order calculation.
Because the dc current is generated by the multiple Andreev reflection, if $n$ is the smallest integer such that $n\delta \mu>2\Delta$, it takes at least $(2n-1)$-step of tunnelings in order to generate the dc current, and therefore the current is proportional to $\mathcal{T}^{2n}$ [@Cuevas; @Bolech2005]. Thus, the dc current is dominative either when $V_\text{D}$ is small and $\mathcal{T}$ is close to unity, as shown in Fig. \[fig:current\](A), or when $\delta\mu$ is larger comparing to $\Delta$ and $n$ is small, as shown in Fig. \[fig:current\](B). In another word, either when $V_\text{D}$ increases and $\mathcal{T}$ decreases, or when $\delta\mu$ becomes small, the dc current gradually decreases until vanishing. In these two regimes, the Josephson current will become dominative, as one can also see from Fig. \[fig:current\].
![(Color online) Schematic of different transport regimes with different initial atom number difference $\delta n$ and different $V_\text{D}$. The two arrows on the axes of $V_D$ indicate the values we take for graph A-D, which correspond to the values labeled by arrows in Fig. \[fig:current\] (A). (A-D) represent four typical dynamical behaviors for $\delta n$ and $\phi$. For (A), $\delta n(0)=0.5$, $V_\text{D}=\Delta$ and corresponding $\mathcal{T}\sim 0.9$. (B) has the same $V_\text{D}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ as (A), but smaller initial $\delta n(0)=0.02$. For (C), $\delta n(0)=0.02$, $V_\text{D}=3\Delta$ and corresponding $\mathcal{T}\sim 0.5$. (D) has the same $V_\text{D}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ as (C), but different initial $\delta n(0)=0.005$. []{data-label="fig:flow"}](flow.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In realistic cold atom experiments, instead of studying transport with a fixed bias voltage as in condensed matter system, one starts with an initial atom number imbalance and monitors how this imbalance evolves as a function of time. To investigate this dynamics, we employ a coupled dynamical equations as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\delta n}{dt}&=-I_0-2{\rm Re}(I_1)\cos\phi-2{\rm Im}(I_1)\sin\phi\\
\frac{d\phi}{dt}&=2\delta\mu(t),
\label{EqNt}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the phase difference between the two reservoirs, and $\delta\mu$ is related to the atom imbalance by $$\frac{\mu_L}{\mu_R}=\left(\frac{1+\delta n}{1-\delta n}\right)^{2/3}$$ and $\delta n=(N_L-N_R)/(N_L+N_R)$. Here the major assumption is that the tunneling time is much longer than the local equilibrium time of the reservoir (characterized by $t_\text{F}=2\pi\hbar/E_\text{F}$), such that we can apply above results with fixed $\delta\mu$ to any instantaneous time. From the results we obtained (as shown in Fig. \[fig:flow\]), this assumption is indeed well obeyed.
The different regimes of tunneling dynamics is summarized in Fig. \[fig:flow\] with two tunable parameters $\delta n$ and $V_\text{D}$. Let us analyze the evolution between different regimes as follows:
**A $\rightarrow$ B**: In case (A), $I_0$ is the most dominative component and $\delta n$ quickly drops to zero. From case (A) to case (B), the initial $\delta n$ decreases. Because $I_0$ is less dominative in the small $\delta \mu$ regime, as shown in Fig. \[fig:flow\](B), one can see that a small oscillation of $\delta n$ becomes visible, and at mean time the long time saturation value of $\delta n$ is a finite value instead of dropping to zero.
**B $\rightarrow$ C**: From case (B) to case (C), the initial $\delta n$ is about the same, but $V_\text{D}$ increases and $\mathcal{T}$ decreases. The Josephson effect gradually becomes dominant over the multiple Andreev reflection. This crossover happens in the way that on one hand, the saturation value of $\delta n$ increases until eventually the drop of $\delta n$ becomes insignificant, and on the other hand, the oscillation becomes more profound. As a result, $\delta n$ oscillates around a finite value. This is known as the “self-trapping" regime in the previous study of the Josephson oscillations in a Bose-Einstein condensate of bosons [@Smerzi].
**C $\rightarrow$ D**: In both cases of (C) and (D), $V_\text{D}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ are fixed in the regime where $\text{Im}(I_1)$ is the most dominative component. The only difference is that the initial $\delta n$ in case (D) is much smaller than that of case (C). Only keeping the $\sin\phi$ term in the first equation of Eq. \[EqNt\], it is known that Eq. \[EqNt\] can be mapped to the dynamical equation of a classical pendulum, where two different solutions can be found depending on the initial conditions. The first is an oscillation around the global minimum when $\delta n$ is small, corresponding to the conventional Josephson effect, and the other is a continuous clockwise (or anti-clockwise) rotation when $\delta n$ is large, corresponding to the self-trapping [@Smerzi]. Similar crossover from Josephson to self-trapping regime has also been observed previously in Bose condensate of bosons [@Albiez].
![(Color online)(A) The transmission amplitude $\mathcal T(\omega-V_g, V_D)$ for the case of two delta-function potentials with $V_D=8\Delta$. (B) The currents $I_0$ and ${\rm Im}(I_1)$ as functions of the gate potential for a fixed chemical potential bias $\delta\mu=0.6\Delta$.[]{data-label="fig:twoDMD"}](twoDMD.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
*Tuning Transport with Gate Potential.* For a single delta-function potential barrier, $\mathcal{T}$ is a monotonic function of $\omega-V_\text{g}$. And for multiple delta-function potentials, due to the interference effect, $\mathcal{T}$ as a function of $\omega-V_\text{g}$ exhibits much richer structure, as shown in Fig. \[fig:twoDMD\](A). Therefore, by varying $V_\text{g}$, $\mathcal{T}$ at the fixed Fermi surface can vary significantly, and consequently, it leads to a large variation of the relative strengthes between $I_0$ and ${\rm Im}(I_1)$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:twoDMD\](B). Thus, in this case, the different regimes of transport behaviors discussed above can also be controlled by $V_\text{g}$ instead of $V_\text{D}$.
*Outlook.* In summary, we have presented a system that three distinct behaviors of transport between two Fermi superfluids can all be realized, and the crossover between them can be tuned by both the initial atom number imbalance and the transmission coefficient. Given that the experimental technique required has been reported, our prediction can now be directly applied to current experimental setup. Further generalization of this study can also study spin and heat transport with tunable transmission coefficient through a quantum point contact.
*Acknowledgements.* We would like to thank Shizhong Zhang and Shun Uchino for discussions. This work is supported by MOST under Grant No. 2016YFA0301600 and NSFC Grant No. 11734010.
[SFQPC]{} D. Stadler, S. Krinner, J. Meineke, J.-P. Brantut, and T, Esslinger, Nature **491**, 736 (2012). S. Krinner, D. Stadler, D Husmann, J. -P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger, Nature **517**, 64 (2015). G. Valtolina, A. Burchianti, A. Amico, E. Neri, K. Xhani, J. A. Seman, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, M. Zaccanti, M. Inguscio, and and G. Roati, Science **350**, 1505 (2015). D. Husmann, S. Uchino, S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, T. Giamarchi, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut, Science **350**, 1498 (2015). S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, D. Husmann, C. Grenier, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **113**, 8144 (2016). S. Häusler, S. Nakajima, M. Lebrat, D. Husmann, S. Krinner, T. Esslinger, J.-P. Brantut, Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 030403 (2017). J.-P. Brantut, C. Grenier, J. Meineke, D. Stadler, S. Krinner, C. Kollath, T. Esslinger, A. Georges, Science **342**, 713 (2013). A. Sommer, M. Ku, G. Roati, and M.W. Zwierlein, Nature **472**, 201 (2011). A. B. Bardon, S. Beattie, C. Luciuk, W. Cairncross, D. Fine, N. S. Cheng, G. J. A. Edge, E. Taylor, S. Zhang, S. Trotzky, and J. H. Thywissen, Science **344**, 722 (2014). M. Koschorreck, D. Pertot, E. Vogt, M. Kohl, Nat. Phys. **9**, 405 (2013). C. Luciuk, S. Smale, F. Bottcher, H. Sharum, B. A. Olsen, S. Trotzky, T. Enss, and J. H. Thywissen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 130405 (2017). B. Liu, H. Zhai, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A **90**, 051602(R) (2014). M. Kanász-Nagy, L. Glazman, T. Esslinger, E. A. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **117**, 255302 (2016). B. Liu, H. Zhai, S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 013623 (2017). S. Uchino, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 105303 (2017). M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler. Phys. Rev. Lett. **95** 010402, (2005). M. Lebrat, P. Grišins, D. Husmann, S. Häusler, L. Corman, T. Giamarchi, J.-P. Brantut, T. Esslinger, arXiv:1708.01250 (2017). C. J. Pethick, and H. Smith, *Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases*, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008. J. C. Cuevas, A. Martín-Rodero, A. L. Yeyati, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 7366 (1996). C. J. Bolech, T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 127001 (2004). C. J. Bolech, T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 024517 (2005). A. Kamenev, *Field theory of non-equilibrium systems*, Cambridge University Press, 2011. A. Barone, and G. Paterno, *Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect*, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1982. B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. **1**, 251 (1962). N. F. Pederson, T. F. Finnegan, and D. N. Langenberg, Phys. Rev. B **6**, 4151 (1972). A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 4950 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Theoretical predictions for the core helium burning phase of stellar evolution are highly sensitive to the uncertain treatment of mixing at convective boundaries. In the last few years, interest in constraining the uncertain structure of their deep interiors has been renewed by insights from asteroseismology. Recently, Spruit (2015) proposed a limit for the rate of growth of helium-burning convective cores based on the higher buoyancy of material ingested from outside the convective core. In this paper we test the implications of such a limit for stellar models with a range of initial mass and metallicity. We find that the constraint on mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary has a significant effect on the evolution late in core helium burning, when core breathing pulses occur and the ingestion rate of helium is fastest. Ordinarily, core breathing pulses prolong the core helium burning lifetime to such an extent that models are at odds with observations of globular cluster populations. Across a wide range of initial stellar masses ($0.83 \leq M/\text{M}_\odot \leq 5$), applying the Spruit constraint reduces the core helium burning lifetime because core breathing pulses are either avoided or their number and severity reduced. The constraint suggested by Spruit therefore helps to resolve significant discrepancies between observations and theoretical predictions. Specifically, we find improved agreement for $R_2$, the observed ratio of asymptotic giant branch to horizontal branch stars in globular clusters; the luminosity difference between these two groups; and in asteroseismology, the mixed-mode period spacing detected in red clump stars in the *Kepler* field.'
author:
- |
Thomas Constantino$^{1,2}$[^1], Simon W. Campbell$^{3,2}$ and John C. Lattanzio$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Physics and Astronomy, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QL, United Kingdom\
$^{2}$Monash Centre for Astrophysics (MoCA), School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia\
$^{3}$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Stra[ß]{}e 1, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany
title: 'The treatment of mixing in core helium burning models – III. Suppressing core breathing pulses with a new constraint on overshoot'
---
stars: evolution — stars: horizontal-branch — stars: interiors
[fleqntruemathmargin0pt]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In the evolution of low-mass stars, core helium burning (CHeB) is the third stage of nuclear burning, following core- and shell-hydrogen burning, which occur during the main sequence and RGB phases, respectively. Depending principally on the stellar mass, and therefore their effective temperature, observed CHeB stars may be described as subdwarf B, horizontal branch, RR-Lyrae, red clump, or secondary clump [@1999MNRAS.308..818G] stars. Despite the contrasting surface conditions, the cores of each of these types of stars are similar: they have a central helium-burning convection zone beneath a helium-rich shell where energy transport is dominated by radiation. Detailed modelling of the evolution of the structure of the cores of these stars poses significant challenges. Historically, progress in refining models of the mixing in the deep interior of CHeB stars has been impeded by the lack of direct observational constraints or a sufficient physical model.
The importance of the convective boundaries
-------------------------------------------
The dominant cause of the uncertainty in our understanding of the evolution of CHeB stars is the strong dependence on the treatment of mixing at convective boundaries. In low-mass (around 1M$_\odot$) models, the mass of the convective core does not grow if there is no mixing beyond the Schwarzschild or Ledoux boundary. However, if there is some mixing beyond the boundary of the convective core and into the radiative region, from e.g. convective overshoot or numerical diffusion, the resulting changes in composition alter the convective stability. In general, feedback from polluting the radiative zone with the higher opacity products of helium burning, specifically carbon and oxygen, leads to growth in the mass enclosed by the convective core. Consequently, the CHeB phase lifetime increases substantially – by around a factor of two [see e.g. @2015MNRAS.452..123C; @2016MNRAS.456.3866C].
Depending on the mixing prescription, a partially-mixed, or ‘semiconvection’, zone can develop between the convective core and the convectively stable shell above. This semiconvection region tends to be marginally stable according to the Schwarzschild criterion and stable according to the Ledoux criterion, because the mass fraction of carbon (or oxygen), and therefore mean molecular weight, decreases outwards. This configuration can develop either through an explicit numerical scheme or simply by allowing overshoot at convective boundaries . In CHeB models, the presence (or not) of semiconvection is important because the semiconvection zone can grow to enclose an amount of mass comparable to the convective core itself, and affect subsequent evolution.
The composition discontinuity that arises at the convective boundary means it is inappropriate to use an extrapolation scheme (e.g. ) to determine the position of the convective boundary. Moreover, as burning progresses the magnitude of the discontinuity increases, and the position of the formal convective boundary becomes increasingly unstable to episodes of mixing. This culminates in core breathing pulses (CBP), the rapid growth in the size of the convective core and ingestion of helium late in CHeB [@1973ASSL...36..221S; @1985ApJ...296..204C]. @1973ASSL...36..221S showed that the convective boundary is unstable to perturbations in the helium abundance because the energy generation rate becomes sensitive to small amounts of mixing when the composition contrast between convective core and its surroundings increases. Late in CHeB, when the helium abundance is low, even the small absolute changes in helium abundance from overshoot have a large effect on the rates of helium-burning reactions because of the large relative change in the helium abundance.
CBP extend the CHeB lifetime and shorten the subsequent early-asymptotic giant branch phase. The number, and extent, of CBP that develop is sensitive to numerical treatment and overshooting prescription [e.g. @2016MNRAS.456.3866C]. A number of methods have been employed to suppress CBP, such as omitting the gravitational energy term [@1993ApJ...409..387D], artificially preventing core growth if it would increase the central helium abundance , and using a non-local scheme for mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary [e.g. @1986MmSAI..57..411B; @2016MNRAS.456.3866C].
Recent progress in modelling
----------------------------
In this paper we rely primarily on the observational constraints used in the first two papers in this series. We will not restate these in detail here; instead readers are directed to those papers for background and a summary of the literature.
In @2015MNRAS.452..123C, hereinafter Paper I, we compared a suite of stellar models with asteroseismic analysis of core helium burning stars observed during the initial four-year mission of the *Kepler* spacecraft . The quantity of particular interest was the inferred asymptotic g-mode period spacing of $\ell = 1$ modes, $\Delta\Pi_1$, because theoretical calculations show its sensitivity to the conditions in and around the convective core. Crucially, asteroseismology provides the most direct information about the interior structure of CHeB stars.
In @2016MNRAS.456.3866C, hereinafter Paper II, we used two constraints derived from the colour-magnitude diagrams of globular clusters: $R_2$, the observed ratio of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) to horizontal branch (HB) stars; and $\Delta \log{L}^\text{AGB}_\text{HB}$, the luminosity difference between the AGB “clump” and the horizontal branch.
In both of those studies, the treatment of mixing was the most important uncertainty in the models. We computed (i) models with a strict Schwarzschild criterion convective boundary, i.e. with neither numerical nor explicit overshooting, and therefore no growth in the mass of the convective core, (ii) models with a region of partial mixing outside the convective core, resulting from either the “semiconvection” or “standard overshoot” scheme, and (iii) a test case “maximal overshoot”, which produces the largest possible convective cores. The “semiconvection” sequences were computed by allowing slow mixing in regions formally stable according to the Schwarzschild criterion (i.e. where $\nabla_\text{rad}<\nabla_\text{ad}$). In those models, the diffusion coefficient $D$ depended on the stability: $\log{D/D_0} \propto \nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ where $D_0$ is a constant, and mixing was only appreciable where $\nabla_\text{rad}$ was close to $\nabla_\text{ad}$. The standard overshoot models were computed by applying the scheme proposed by where there is an exponentially decaying diffusion coefficient $D_\text{OS}$ beyond each convective boundary: $$D_\text{OS}(z) = D_0 e^{-2z/f_\text{OS}H_\text{p}},
\label{eq_herwig}$$ where $D_0$ is the diffusion coefficient inside the convective boundary derived from MLT, $z$ is the distance from the boundary, $H_\text{p}$ is the local pressure scale height, and $f_\text{OS}$ is a free parameter. In the maximal overshoot scheme, the application of convective overshoot was controlled to ensure that the mass of the convective core was as large as possible (i.e. such that $\nabla_\text{rad} > \nabla_\text{ad}$ throughout) and there was no partially mixed region.
Both studies showed that evidence is conclusively against models without mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary. Models with “standard overshoot”, i.e. overshoot across all convective boundaries, were consistent with both sets of observations, depending on the interpretation of the asteroseismic observations, but only if large CBP late in CHeB are somehow avoided. Models with maximal overshoot provided a good match to the seismic constraints but were only consistent with the globular cluster observations if the overshooting in the subsequent ‘gravonuclear’ loop phase [@1997ApJ...479..279B; @1997ApJ...489..822B; @2000LIACo..35..529S] was explicitly tuned for the purpose.
Elsewhere, models with a larger overshoot region of $0.5\,H_\text{p}$ have also been tested against asteroseismology. Regardless of whether the radiative or adiabatic temperature gradient is used in the overshooting region, these models can provide good matches for $\Delta\Pi_1$ in the open clusters in the *Kepler* field [@2017arXiv170503077B]. In that implementation, however, the overshooting is moderated by extending the mixed region $0.5\,H_\text{p}$ from the minimum of $\nabla_\text{rad}$ in the convection zone, which is not necessarily at the boundary [@etheses7090]. Interestingly, this approach, in particular for models with ‘penetrative convection’ where the adiabatic temperature gradient is imposed in the overshooting region, tends to generate a structure very similar to the maximal overshoot models in Papers I and II [see e.g. Figure 2 and 4 in @2015MNRAS.453.2290B].
Structures comparable to the maximal overshoot models may also be formed by different means. @2015ApJ...806..178S applied atomic diffusion without overshoot to yield monotonic growth in the mass of the convective core (which similarly occurs due to numerical diffusion in [monstar]{} models without explicit overshoot and an insufficiently resolved mesh; see e.g. the upper panel of Figure 1 in @2016AN....337..788C). @2016ApJ...827....2V and @2017arXiv170605454D produce a similar structure by choosing appropriate parameters for the mixing scheme described by Equation \[eq\_herwig\]: they use a small value for the parameter $f_\text{OS}$, which is then reduced further late in CHeB; they also measure $D_0$ from close to the convective boundary and replace it with a fraction of the thermal diffusivity $K$ when $D_0 < K$.
Recently, deduced a limit on the growth of helium-burning convective cores. This constraint exists because where there is a difference between the mean molecular weight of the material on either side of a convective boundary, the growth of the convection zone from “overshooting” should not exceed a rate that would imply that ascending fluid elements are less buoyant than descending fluid elements. In the case of a helium-burning convective core expanding in mass, the cooler fluid elements descending from the outer boundary of the convection zone are made less dense, and more buoyant, by the entrainment of higher-helium material from beyond the boundary.
In preliminary calculations, found that the maximum rate of growth predicted from the structure of CHeB stellar models is of the same order of magnitude as the core growth rate inferred from observations of (approximately solar mass) CHeB stars. This finding strongly suggests that this new limit may be an important consideration for theoretical predictions of the evolution of the CHeB phase. In this paper we test the implications of applying this core growth constraint throughout the evolution of full stellar models.
Implementation of the mixing scheme {#sec:method}
===================================
We determine the maximum entrainment rate using the same approximation as , namely that the core is a fully ionized helium-carbon mixture. We therefore arrive at an expression, equivalent to Equations 12 and 16 in , for the maximum rate at which helium may be ingested: $$\dot{m}_{i}=\alpha_{i} \frac{12}{5} \frac{L}{RT} \left ( 1- \frac{\nabla_\text{ad}}{\nabla_\text{rad}} \right),
\label{eq_mmix}$$ where $\alpha_{i}$ is the ingestion efficiency, $R$ is the gas constant, and $L$, $T$, $\nabla_\text{rad}$, and $\nabla_\text{ad}$ are the luminosity, temperature, radiative temperature gradient, and adiabatic temperature gradient, respectively, at the inside boundary of the convection zone. We shall hereinafter refer to this scheme as “Spruit overshoot” (SOS).
We apply SOS after the ignition of helium and only for convective boundaries in the hydrogen-free core. After each time step $\Delta t$, Equation \[eq\_mmix\] is used to determine the extent of mixing, i.e. $\Delta m = \dot{m}_i \Delta t$. At outer convective boundaries (where the helium abundance is typically higher outside the boundary than it is inside the convection zone) the procedure is as follows:
1. Loop outward over the mesh beginning at the first radiative zone $j_1$.
2. At each step in the loop, zone $j_n$ say, calculate the mass of helium $\Delta m$ that would be transported into the convective region if the convection zone were to be fully mixed with the material in zones $j_1$ to $j_n$. This is calculated from $$\label{eq:loop}
\Delta m = \dot{m}_i \Delta t = \sum_{j=j_1}^{j_n} (Y_j-Y_{j_0}) \Delta m_j,$$ where $\Delta m_j$ is the mass in each shell, $Y_j$ is the helium mass fraction, and $Y_{j_0}$ is the helium mass fraction in the convection zone.
3. Continue in the loop until the largest $j_n$ is found for which the rate of helium ingestion $\dot{m}_i$ is still less than the limit from Equation \[eq\_mmix\].
4. Homogenize the chemical species in the region that includes the convection zone and the radiative zone up to $j_n$.
At inner convective boundaries (which arise when $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ reduces and a radiative zone appears inside a convective region) we also calculate the maximum rate helium can be mixed across the new Schwarzschild boundary. In that case the radiative region is likely to be less helium-rich than the convective region, i.e. $Y_j-Y_{j_0} < 0$, so the same procedure is applied except the loop proceeds in the opposite direction and $Y_{j_0} - Y_j$ is used instead of $Y_j-Y_{j_0}$ in Equation \[eq:loop\]. We use a very fine mesh near convective boundaries, typically of the order $\Delta m_j \approx 10^{-8}\,\text{M}_\odot$, to ensure that the rate at which helium actually mixes, $\dot{m}_i$ in Equation \[eq:loop\], closely matches the calculated limit $\dot{m}_i$ in Equation \[eq\_mmix\], i.e. $\Delta m_j \ll \Delta m$.
In our models, mixing proceeds precisely as far as specified by the algorithm, i.e. we always apply the *maximum* rate of ingestion indicated by Equation \[eq\_mmix\] (after including the efficiency factor). In the evolution sequences computed for this paper, the maximum time step ($\Delta t = 2.5 \times 10^3\,\text{yr}$ for the models with $M \leq 1\,\text{M}_\odot$ for example) is short enough for $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ at the boundary to not change significantly between time steps. We also reduce the time step when necessary in order to limit the distance over which overshoot mixing can occur to at most 1.0$H_\text{p}$. This is generally not important, however, because the limit is most likely to be reached if the composition is nearly uniform, and in that case, with a well resolved mesh, $1- \nabla_\text{ad}/\nabla_\text{rad}$ vanishes near the convective boundary (and so too, therefore, does the rate of ingestion).
In our implementation, the extent of overshoot is determined only by the conditions at the convective boundary. Apart from the mesh point immediately adjacent to the boundary, the conditions inside convection zones are not used to limit the rate of mixing. This is the case even if $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ is smaller inside the convection zone than at the boundary, and which if used in Equation \[eq\_mmix\] would imply a lower ingestion rate. Although we do not investigate it in this paper, there is an interesting similarity between the SOS scheme where the minimum $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ anywhere in the convection zone in Equation \[eq\_mmix\], and the models with maximal overshoot in Paper I and Paper II. In both cases, the rate that helium is mixed into the core decreases to zero as the minimum $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ approaches unity (usually at a coordinate deep inside the convective core).
It is also worth pointing out the similarities and differences between SOS and other prescriptions in the literature. In a number of other schemes, the extent of overshooting also depends on the value of $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ at the convective boundary. arrived at a “velocity” of convective core growth: $$v = 10^{-5} \frac{1-\nabla_\text{ad}/\nabla_\text{rad}}{1-\mu^e / \mu^i},
\label{eq_castellani_ingestion}$$ where $\mu^i$ and $\mu^e$ denote the mean molecular weight on the interior and exterior sides of the convective core boundary, respectively. Similarly, @1991ASPC...13..299S used $$v = F_\text{ov} \frac{\nabla_\text{rad}-\nabla_\text{ad}}{\mu^i - \mu^e},$$ where $F_\text{ov}$ is an uncertain parameter (and was set to $10^{-5}$ in tests by @1991ASPC...13..299S, nearly identical to Equation \[eq\_castellani\_ingestion\]). Dependence on $\nabla_\text{rad} / \nabla_\text{ad}$ is also indirectly present in the scheme (Equation \[eq\_herwig\]), where there is an exponential decay in the diffusion coefficient, and which is used for the standard overshoot models in this paper. In that formulation, the extent of overshoot diminishes as $\nabla_\text{rad}$ approaches $\nabla_\text{ad}$ near the edge of the convection zone, via the MLT prediction for convective velocity.
In the SOS scheme and the three other examples, the rate of ingestion across the convective boundary is (theoretically at least) time-step independent. This contrasts with, e.g., mixing a fixed distance, such as a fraction of a pressure-scale-height, at each time step. In the CHeB case, the importance of this distinction for the evolution is amplified by the fact that the position of the convective boundary moves in response to mixing episodes.
Stellar models {#sec:stellar_models}
==============
In this study we compute stellar models with the Monash University stellar structure code [monstar]{}, which has been described previously . We choose some representative stellar models: a 1M$_\odot$ solar-metallicity model that corresponds to those in Paper I, a $M = 0.83\,\text{M}_\odot$ and $\text{[Fe/H]}=-1$ model that corresponds to the globular cluster models in Paper II, and some higher-mass solar-metallicity models ($2$, $5$, and $10\,\text{M}_\odot$). The globular cluster model has initial helium content $Y=0.245$, red giant branch mass loss rate given by @1975MSRSL...8..369R [with $\eta = 0.4$], and the mass at the beginning of CHeB is 0.67M$_\odot$. The other models have $Y = 0.278$ and no mass loss. Both sets of models have a solar calibrated MLT parameter $\alpha_\text{MLT} = 1.60$.
The low-mass ($M \leq 2\,\text{M}_\odot$) solar-metallicity and globular cluster models are suitable for comparisons with the key constraints from asteroseismology and observations of globular cluster stars, respectively. Such a modest range of model parameters is sufficient to explore the effects of SOS because compared with the uncertainties regarding mixing, CHeB evolution is relatively insensitive to the initial composition and other uncertainties (Paper II).
We analyse models with a wide range of ‘ingestion efficiency’, $\alpha_i$ in Equation \[eq\_mmix\]. This includes the models within the physically consistent range, $0.0 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$, and a handful of models with $\alpha_i > 1.0$ as an extreme test of the sensitivity. The models with ‘standard overshoot’ use the mixing scheme given in Equation \[eq\_herwig\], with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$, consistent with Papers I and II.
Evolution with Spruit overshoot
===============================
Figure \[figure\_internal\_helium\_evolution\] shows the evolution of the internal helium abundance for a model with standard overshoot and another with SOS and $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$, half the ‘reasonable upper limit’ suggested by . The evolution of the central helium abundance and total mass of the convective core for these two cases is nearly identical for the first half of CHeB, until $Y_\text{cent} \approx 0.4$. After this, small differences occur, but the structures are again almost identical when $Y_\text{cent} \approx 0.18$. A lasting divergence between the two sequences only emerges very late in CHeB. The scale of this difference is not unexpected given the extent of the contrast between standard overshoot sequences computed with different parameters (see e.g. Figure 12 in Paper II).
Figure \[figure\_central\_helium\_evolution\] shows the evolution of the surface luminosity and central helium mass fraction for 1M$_\odot$ SOS models with a range of ingestion efficiency $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$ and for a standard overshoot model. The evolution of the models is similar for most of the CHeB phase: substantial differences in the luminosity and the central helium abundance are only apparent after more than about 100Myr. During the earlier quiescent period, the position of the convective core boundary is relatively stable and the models typically experience only small increases in the central helium abundance of $\Delta Y_\text{cent} \lesssim 0.02$ and the overall central helium depletion is consistent between all of the models. Similarly, differences in the helium burning luminosity are small: typically we find $\Delta \log{L_\text{Heb}/\text{L}_\odot} \lesssim 0.02$ until about 100Myr, when $Y_\text{cent} \approx 0.1$.
Despite this similarity, and the essentially identical surface luminosity, a difference is evident: the sequences with lower $\alpha_i$ experience slower episodes of helium ingestion into the core. In the models with $\alpha_i \leq 0.1$ these generally take at least 1Myr, compared with around 0.1Myr in standard overshoot sequences. In contrast, in the models with higher ingestion efficiency ($\alpha_i$ = 0.5, 1.0) helium is ingested at a rate comparable with that of the standard overshoot sequences. Models with standard overshoot and SOS with $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$ can have matching helium abundance profiles until fairly late into the CHeB phase (such as the two models with $Y_\text{cent} \approx 0.18$ in Figure \[figure\_internal\_helium\_evolution\]). This is possible because the *average* rates of both helium ingestion and burning are generally consistent between these models until near the end of CHeB, when CBP occur.
The most obvious divergence appears late in CHeB when $ Y_\text{cent} \lesssim 0.1$. The SOS models experience fewer, and smaller, increases in $Y_\text{cent}$. The standard overshoot sequence includes several CBP where the central helium is replenished whereas the SOS sequences experience no more than two CBP with $\Delta Y_\text{cent} > 0.04$ and consequently have a significantly curtailed CHeB lifetime. In Section \[sec\_cbp\] we examine the mechanism by which the SOS models can avoid CBP. The extent to which SOS reduces the CHeB lifetime does not show a straightforward dependence on $\alpha_i$ (in the range of $\alpha_i$ tested here; see Section \[section\_gc\] for tests of the effect of a wider range of $\alpha_i$). There is a spread in CHeB lifetime of more than 10Myr which is comparable to that seen for standard overshoot models computed with different parameters (see Paper II).
When SOS is used, the significantly moderated ingestion towards the end of CHeB reduces the availability of helium for the $^{12}\text{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\text{O}$ reaction. Consequently, the evolution sequences with SOS finish CHeB with a slightly higher C/O ratio in the degenerate core. The final difference in carbon mass fraction is around generally $\Delta X_\text{C} = 0.01$, but up to $\Delta X_\text{C} = 0.08$ for the $\alpha_i = 0.1$ model, which is the shortest-lived.
![Evolution of internal helium mass fraction during core helium burning for 1M$_\odot$ solar-metallicity models with standard overshoot with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ (blue dash-dot lines) and SOS with $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ (solid red lines). Lines are plotted at 12.5Myr intervals.[]{data-label="figure_internal_helium_evolution"}](figure_solar_Y_ev.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Evolution of the surface luminosity (upper panel) and central helium mass fraction (lower panel) for 1M$_\odot$ solar-metallicity models near the conclusion of CHeB. The models are calculated using standard overshoot with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ (blue dash-dot line) and SOS with $\alpha_{i} = 0.05$, $0.10$, $0.25$, $0.50$, and $1.0$ (denoted by solid red lines of increasing brightness).[]{data-label="figure_central_helium_evolution"}](figure_solar_Ycent_ev.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Comparison with asteroseismology
--------------------------------
In the new field of red clump asteroseismology, the key constraint for models is the period spacing between $\ell = 1$ g-modes. Observed oscillations of mixed g-mode and p-mode character [e.g, @2010ApJ...713L.176B] may be analysed to infer the asymptotic limit of the $\ell = 1$ g-mode period spacing , which is known theoretically: $$\Delta\Pi_1 = \frac{2\pi^2}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \int\limits_\text{}^{}{\frac{N}{r}\text{d}r} \right]^{-1},$$ where $N$ is the Brunt–V[ä]{}is[ä]{}l[ä]{} frequency, and the integral is over the region with $N^2 > 0$ [@1977AcA....27...95D]. However, here we shall generically refer to this observationally derived period spacing as $\Delta P_1$ to account for the possibility that it differs from the theoretical asymptotic value. In Paper I we showed that standard overshoot models can match the asteroseismology, but only if, as suggested by our pulsation calculations, mode trapping at the outer boundary of the partially mixed zone increases the period spacing between the most observable modes, and therefore $\Delta P_1$. Whereas $\Delta\Pi_1$ depends on the radial extent of the convective core [@2013ApJ...766..118M], if the mode-trapping scenario proposed in Paper I is correct then $\Delta P_1$ is actually dependent on the radial extent of the partially mixed zone. This is because certain modes are trapped by the sharp composition profile at the outer boundary of the partially-mixed region, while the remainder are insensitive to the partially mixed region and behave as though it is not part of the g-mode cavity. We adopt this assumption in order to compute $\Delta P_1$, which we then compare with observations. Supporting this assumption, pulsation calculations for main sequence models have shown this effect [@2008MNRAS.386.1487M], and more recently @2017MNRAS.465.1518G have reported in depth the effects of mode-trapping in CHeB models using independent stellar evolution and pulsation codes.
The similarity between models with Spruit and standard overshoot in both convective core size and the partially mixed region size is shown in Figure \[figure\_internal\_helium\_evolution\]. Irrespective of mode trapping, predictions for $\Delta P_1$ for most of the evolution are therefore unaffected by adopting the constraint from . The differences are only substantial later in the evolution, coinciding with the occurrence of CBP when the evolution is most susceptible to small differences in the extent of overshoot and the numerical treatment (see Figures 14 and 15 in Paper II).
Within the mode-trapping scenario, we would expect the reduction in the maximum extent of the partially mixed region to reduce the peak $\Delta P_1$. In Figure \[figure\_DP1\] we present a comparison between observations and predictions for $\Delta P_1$ (accounting for mode trapping in the same way as in Paper I) for 1M$_\odot$ models with SOS ($\alpha_i = 0.05$, $0.10$, $0.25$, $0.5$, and $1.0$) and with standard overshoot (with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$). These are plotted in the $\Delta\nu-\Delta P_1$ plane, where $\Delta\nu$ is the mean large frequency separation (which is a measure of the sound crossing time of the star). In this space, models evolve from low to high $\Delta P_1$ at nearly constant $\Delta \nu$ for the bulk of the CHeB phase, then to lower $\Delta\nu$ very late in CHeB. The observations are *Kepler* field stars with asteroseismic-determined mass $0.8 < M/\text{M}_\odot < 1.25$ from Figure 1 in .
In Table \[table\_partially\_mixed\_extent\] we show the maximum mass enclosed by the partially mixed region outside the convective core (which invariably happens at the end of CHeB). This is strongly dependent on the late-CHeB evolution and as a proxy for radius gives an indication of the peak $\Delta P_1$ expected within the mode-trapping scenario. SOS models with lower $\alpha_i$ tend to have a less massive partially mixed region (although the dependence upon $\alpha_i$ is not monotonic) and consequently the sequences with lower $\alpha_i$ generally do not predict more stars with high $\Delta P_1$ than are observed (Figure \[figure\_DP1\]). Increasing $\alpha_i$ only has a small effect on the mass enclosed by the partially mixed region because if $\alpha_i$ is sufficiently large ($\alpha_i \gtrsim 0.05$ in our tests) the outermost convection zone in the core will advance until it is only marginally unstable ($\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad} \approx 1$), when the ingestion rate vanishes (Equation \[eq\_mmix\]). An example of this can be seen at $m = 0.28\,\text{M}_\odot$ in the model with SOS and $\alpha_i = 0.25$ shown in Figure \[figure\_CBP\_ratgrads\] (which is discussed in Section \[sec\_cbp\]).
In all of the Spruit overshoot models shown in Figure \[figure\_DP1\] the mixing during the bulk of CHeB is relatively slow compared with other schemes such as the $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ sequence, or those with instantaneous overshoot, e.g., those from @2013ApJ...766..118M. The choice of $\alpha_i$ in that range ($0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$) has only a small effect on the radius of the edge of the partially mixed zone, and therefore $\Delta P_1$. More substantial differences occur later in CHeB but this does not have a large effect on the typical $\Delta P_1$ for a number of reasons: i) most of the $\Delta P_1$ evolution has already been determined by this time; and ii) the convective core and partially mixed zone are more C- and O-rich, and therefore more dense, reducing the radial extent of the partially mixed zone. When $\alpha_i$ is small, the ingestion rate, and therefore the growth of the partially mixed core, is always limited by the condition from , so the extent of overshoot is typically much less than is the case with instantaneous overshoot, for example.
The standard overshoot result is consistent with the two equivalent example sequences in Paper I that predict a maximum $\Delta P_1$ slightly higher than is observed. The highest $\Delta P_1$ during the evolution is attained following CBP, when the partially mixed region extends furthest. The speed of CBP is responsible for the isolated sequences at high-$\Delta P_1$ in the left-hand panel of Figure \[figure\_DP1\], which are most pronounced with standard overshoot. In contrast, the models with SOS undergo fewer CBP and therefore the peak values of $\Delta P_1$ and the predicted number of stars with high $\Delta P_1$ (larger than $340\,\text{s}$) are both reduced, better conforming with observations. The difference in predictions for $\Delta P_1$ among these models is almost entirely due to the extent of CBP: sequences with more CBP tend to have a longer lifetime and finish the CHeB phase with a larger partially mixed region, increasing $\Delta P_1$. Indeed, were another method employed to suppress CBP in the standard overshoot sequence, its $\Delta P_1$ evolution would closely match that for SOS models, and similarly better match the observations.
Each of the distributions for SOS sequences in Figure \[figure\_DP1\] show peaks at low- and high-$\Delta P_1$ corresponding to the beginning and later part of CHeB, respectively. The absence of such peaks in the observed data could be explained by the diversity in the *Kepler* field: a variation of helium and metallicity of $\Delta Y = 0.1$ and $\Delta \text{[Fe/H]} = 0.05$ could each explain a spread of $\Delta P_1$ of greater than 10s [see e.g. @2017arXiv170503077B] and this would be exacerbated after accounting for the stochastic evolution of the models in this paper. Additionally, observational and fitting errors would tend to smooth the peaks in the $\Delta P_1$ distribution. We note that taking advantage of the homogeneous populations in the open clusters in the *Kepler* field can significantly reduce the uncertainty from the stellar properties, however, this also introduces a new challenge resulting from their relatively small CHeB populations [@2017arXiv170503077B].
Our models with a solar-calibrated MLT parameter $\alpha_\text{MLT} = 1.60$ automatically match $\Delta\nu$ during the CHeB phase. However, prior to the cessation of core convection they rapidly cross the $\Delta\nu-\Delta P_1$ diagram (which is also seen for the various CHeB models in Figure 3 in @2015MNRAS.453.2290B) and therefore predict the existence of more stars around $\Delta\nu \approx 3\,\mu\text{Hz}$ and $\Delta P_1 \approx 300\,\text{s}$ than are observed. It is possible that a selection effect is responsible for the absence of observed stars in this part of the diagram. Alternatively, if $\alpha_\text{MLT}$ were increased by around $0.5$, the models would have higher $\Delta\nu$ near the end of CHeB and they would match the stars with $\Delta\nu \approx 3.4\,\mu\text{Hz}$. Stellar properties from the APOKASC catalogue [@2014ApJS..215...19P], $T_\text{eff}$ and $\log{g}$, suggest these are indeed CHeB stars. If $\alpha_\text{MLT}$ is assumed to be constant throughout the evolution, however, the agreement for the bulk of CHeB stars (with $\Delta\nu \approx 4\,\mu\text{Hz}$) would be worsened.
![Comparison of g-mode period spacing between models and observations. **Left panel:** The evolution of 1M$_\odot$ models computed using standard overshoot (blue dash-dot squares) and SOS with $\alpha_i = 0.05$, $0.10$, $0.25$, $0.50$, and $1.0$ (red squares of increasing brightness) in $\Delta\nu - \Delta P_1$ space plotted at 1Myr intervals. The inferred asymptotic g-mode period spacings $\Delta\Pi_1$ for stars in the *Kepler* field with asteroseismic masses $0.8 < M/\text{M}_\odot < 1.25$ from are denoted by dotted grey triangles. **Right panel:** Histogram of the frequency distribution of $\Delta P_1$ for observations (grey hatched bars) and predictions from models (same colours as left panel) when $\Delta \nu > 2.5\,\mu$Hz. Here $\Delta P_1$ is the predicted $\ell = 1$ g-mode period spacing for the most observable modes, which is calculated in the same way as $\Delta\Pi_1$ except the region inside the outermost composition discontinuity in the partially mixed region is excluded, in accordance with the mode-trapping scenario proposed in Paper I.[]{data-label="figure_DP1"}](figure_DnuDP1.eps){width="\linewidth"}
----------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------- --
‘Globular cluster’ ‘Solar-like’
$M=0.67\,\text{M}_\odot$ $M=1\,\text{M}_\odot$
$\alpha_i$ $\text{[Fe/H]} = -1.0$ $\text{[Fe/H]} = 0.0$
0.05 0.293 0.278
0.10 0.309 0.280
0.25 0.308 0.290
0.50 0.338 0.312
1.00 0.321 0.306
$f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ 0.346 0.360
----------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------- --
: Maximum mass (in units of M$_\odot$) enclosed by the partially mixed region (i.e. the combined mass of the convective core and the partially mixed region surrounding it) during the CHeB evolution for low-mass models with different SOS ingestion efficiency and with standard overshoot.[]{data-label="table_partially_mixed_extent"}
Comparison with globular cluster star counts {#section_gc}
--------------------------------------------
In Paper II we determined empirically $R_2$, the observed ratio of asymptotic giant branch to horizontal branch stars in globular clusters, and $\Delta\log L_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$, the luminosity difference between these two groups. We found that $R_2 = 0.117 \pm 0.005$ and $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.455 \pm 0.012$ for Galactic globular clusters without a blue extension to the horizontal branch. The evolution of models with standard overshoot, while chaotically dependent on numerical treatment and the overshooting formulation, generally predicts $R_2$ significantly lower than is observed (around $R_2 \lesssim 0.10$). While the predictions for $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$ are consistent on average, the stochastic occurrence of CBP produces a wider AGB clump in the luminosity probability density function compared with globular cluster populations and this discrepancy is further worsened when a population of models is considered.
In Table \[table\_gc\] we summarize the evolution of our suite of ‘globular cluster’ models with different mixing prescriptions. We compare SOS sequences computed for a range of $\alpha_{i}$ with a standard-overshoot sequence. We choose reasonable estimates of the ingestion efficiency, $\alpha_i \leq 1.0$, as well as some higher values, $\alpha_i > 1.0$ (and higher than is consistent with the theory). In the sequences with $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$ the CHeB lifetime is reduced compared with the standard overshoot by an average of 6Myr (where the average is computed from a suite of models with increments of $\Delta \alpha_i = 0.05$). The evolution of the surface luminosity and central helium abundance for a sample of these models is shown in Figure \[figure\_gc\_L\_ev\].
The SOS models with $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$ predict $R_2 = 0.101 \pm 0.007$ (where the uncertainty is one standard deviation), which is closer to observed value of $R_2 = 0.117 \pm 0.005$ than implied from standard overshoot models ($R_2 = 0.090$ in this example and typically $R_2< 0.10$; see Paper II). Similarly, the luminosity difference between the HB and the AGB $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.449 \pm 0.025$ is consistent with observed value of $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.455 \pm 0.012$. Moreover, excluding the sequences with $\alpha_i > 0.50$ (the ‘reasonable upper limit’ suggested by ) improves the agreement with observations: for these we find $R_2 = 0.105 \pm 0.005$ and $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.449 \pm 0.015$. We do not find a monotonic dependence of $R_2$, $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$, and the CHeB lifetime on $\alpha_i$ when $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$. Instead, we observe a slight trend of increasing CHeB lifetime and decreasing $R_2$ with an increase in $\alpha_i$ beneath a significant scatter, which is driven by the chaotic evolution late in CHeB, when CBP occur.
Throughout the part of the evolution shown in Figure \[figure\_gc\_L\_ev\] the position of the convective core boundary is most unstable for the standard overshoot model, and consequently the central helium abundance is more variable (similar to the solar-mass and solar-metallicity models in Figure \[figure\_central\_helium\_evolution\]). In this particular example, much of the longer lifetime for the standard overshoot model results from the breathing pulse that occurs after 110Myr. Prior to about 5Myr before that event, the luminosity and central helium abundance evolution is similar to most of the SOS models. The difference between $R_2$ for the standard overshoot sequence and the SOS models with $\alpha \leq 1.0$ would be minimized if CBP were avoided after 100Myr.
In contrast with the evolution sequences with moderate ingestion efficiency, those with very low ingestion efficiency ($\alpha_i \leq 0.025$) provide a worse match to the observed $R_2$ than standard overshoot models. In the model with $\alpha_i = 0.01$, the CHeB lifetime is even longer than the standard overshoot sequence and the agreement with observations is poor: $R_2 = 0.060$, $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.641$. In that sequence, the slower expansion of the convection zone prevents it from dividing into two until after more than 70Myr. This split occurs only once. By the end of CHeB there is no partially mixed region and the mass enclosed by the convection zone is 0.30M$_\odot$, much larger than for the higher $\alpha_i$ models. Interestingly, the absence of a partially mixed region implies a better match to the high $\Delta\Pi_1$ inferred for stars in the *Kepler* field, without invoking mode trapping. However, this structure is ruled out by the inability to match $R_2$ and $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$. Lastly, we note that the overall evolution of the $\alpha_i = 0.01$ sequence is remarkably similar to those with ‘maximal overshoot’ explored in Papers I and II.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, when $\alpha_i$ is large, the CHeB lifetime is also increased (to an average of 121Myr for models with $\alpha_i > 1.0$ compared with 111Myr for models with $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$) and $R_2$ reduced relative to the sequence with standard overshoot ($0.085$ compared with $0.101$). In the SOS sequences with high $\alpha_i$, the mass enclosed by the convective core remains relatively stable once a partially mixed region is established (generally fluctuating by less than 0.02M$_\odot$). Late in CHeB, however, the faster ingestion rate is more conducive to CBP, and as a result more helium is mixed into the convection zone, extending the lifetime and reducing $R_2$. In the next section we analyse how the development of CBP depends on the helium ingestion rate.
[cccc]{} $\alpha_i$ & $R_2$ & $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$ & $t_\text{HB}$ (Myr)\
0.010 & 0.060 & 0.641 & 120.4\
0.025 & 0.089 & 0.497 & 112.2\
0.050 & 0.114 & 0.457 & 106.2\
0.075 & 0.104 & 0.465 & 109.3\
0.100 & 0.103 & 0.457 & 110.4\
0.125 & 0.109 & 0.461 & 107.8\
0.150 & 0.109 & 0.465 & 107.7\
0.175 & 0.108 & 0.465 & 108.4\
0.200 & 0.105 & 0.437 & 110.2\
0.225 & 0.108 & 0.457 & 108.1\
0.250 & 0.103 & 0.469 & 109.8\
0.275 & 0.107 & 0.461 & 108.4\
0.300 & 0.100 & 0.421 & 112.6\
0.325 & 0.101 & 0.433 & 112.2\
0.350 & 0.106 & 0.445 & 109.8\
0.375 & 0.095 & 0.445 & 113.8\
0.400 & 0.107 & 0.445 & 108.9\
0.425 & 0.108 & 0.437 & 108.5\
0.450 & 0.096 & 0.457 & 112.9\
0.475 & 0.100 & 0.449 & 112.2\
0.500 & 0.103 & 0.433 & 111.4\
0.525 & 0.103 & 0.445 & 110.7\
0.550 & 0.098 & 0.465 & 112.9\
0.600 & 0.100 & 0.473 & 111.3\
0.650 & 0.096 & 0.469 & 113.9\
0.700 & 0.111 & 0.433 & 107.9\
0.750 & 0.105 & 0.449 & 109.6\
0.800 & 0.096 & 0.481 & 112.4\
0.850 & 0.100 & 0.461 & 112.1\
0.900 & 0.095 & 0.369 & 115.4\
0.950 & 0.080 & 0.425 & 119.5\
1.00 & 0.102 & 0.453 & 110.6\
1.25 & 0.089 & 0.353 & 119.1\
1.50 & 0.075 & 0.381 & 126.3\
1.75 & 0.096 & 0.413 & 112.9\
2.00 & 0.102 & 0.457 & 111.1\
4.00 & 0.089 & 0.365 & 117.9\
5.00 & 0.092 & 0.469 & 114.2\
7.50 & 0.091 & 0.425 & 116.4\
10.0 & 0.076 & 0.397 & 125.7\
15.0 & 0.097 & 0.461 & 116.3\
20.0 & 0.082 & 0.477 & 138.3\
50.0 & 0.085 & 0.477 & 122.0\
100 & 0.077 & 0.469 & 116.7\
1000 & 0.054 & 0.473 & 130.1\
Average & & &\
\[0.9\][$0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1$]{} & 0.101$ \pm $0.007 & 0.449$ \pm $0.025 & 111.3$ \pm $3.0\
$f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ & 0.090 & 0.465 & 117.6\
\[0.75\][$\alpha_i=0.25 \rightarrow f_\text{OS} = 0.001$]{}$^a$ & 0.079 & 0.481 & 120.6\
\[0.75\][$f_\text{OS} = 0.001 \rightarrow \alpha_i=0.25$]{}$^b$ & 0.102 & 0.429 & 112.2\
Observations & 0.117$ \pm $0.005 & 0.455$ \pm $0.012 &\
\
\
\
\
Core breathing pulses {#sec_cbp}
---------------------
It is evident from our studies of globular cluster and solar-type stars in the previous sections that towards the end of CHeB the structures of the models with different overshooting prescriptions diverge. In order to investigate whether the reduced occurrence of CBP with SOS is due to differences in the structure during the prior evolution, we calculated an evolution sequence where we switched to SOS near the end of a run that began with standard overshoot, but before the first CBP. Changing the mixing scheme reduced the CHeB lifetime by 5Myr and increased $R_2$ from 0.090 to 0.102. We also tested the effect of doing the opposite: beginning the evolution with SOS and finishing it with standard overshoot. Switching to the standard overshoot scheme triggered a large breathing pulse that extended the CHeB lifetime by 11Myr and decreased $R_2$ from 0.103 to 0.079. Both of these tests indicate that the dominant factor controlling the evolution is the mixing scheme late in CHeB, rather than the structure that develops in the earlier more quiescent phase.
Now that we have established that the divergent evolution late in CHeB is driven by differences in the current mixing prescription rather than differences already imprinted onto the stellar structure, we analyse this in detail by computing two 1M$_\odot$ evolution sequences beginning from the same model: one with SOS and $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ and another with standard overshoot and $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$. The initial structure is taken from the evolution of a globular cluster model with SOS and $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ until the central helium mass fraction is $Y_\text{cent}=0.106$ and it begins to increase. The subsequent evolution of $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ and composition is shown in Figure \[figure\_CBP\_ratgrads\]. Additionally, Figure \[figure\_CBP\_kippenhahn\] shows 2Myr of the evolution of $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ for the SOS sequence.
In both the SOS and standard overshoot cases, mixing from overshoot initially increases the central helium abundance. The contrasting rate of increase, however, is critical. Although difficult to discern, the minimum in $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ monotonically decreases slowly near $m = 0.16\,\text{M}_\odot$ (the location in the convection zone where it is lowest) for the model with $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$: it takes $10^5$yr for $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ to decrease to unity, in which time the central helium abundance increases from $Y=0.106$ to $Y=0.121$. In contrast, in the standard overshoot model, $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ decreases to below unity and the convection zone splits nearly instantly. The new convective shell then advances outward (in mass), leaving behind material with helium abundance increasing outward such that it is marginally stable, creating the composition profile that characterizes models with semiconvection [e.g. @1972ApJ...171..309R]. After $2 \times 10^4$yr in the standard overshoot sequence, when the core convection zone rapidly expands, the new reservoir of helium-rich material created by the advance of this convective shell is ingested, increasing the central helium abundance to $Y_\text{cent}=0.136$.
Regardless of the mixing scheme, the way that CBP terminate in these tests is no different from the long established picture . The value of the minimum value of $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ inside the convection zone eventually decreases, which continues until $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad} < 1$, when the convection zone splits, halting the transport of helium into the convective core. The rate of helium ingestion, however, is critical. When it is fast, a strong feedback loop is initiated: the increased helium mass fraction temporarily boosts the helium-burning luminosity and increases $\nabla_\text{rad}$. When the rate of ingestion is restricted, the luminosity increase is outweighed by the lower opacity and $\nabla_\text{rad}$ decreases, reducing the amount of helium ingested. In order for the position of the convective boundary to be unstable, the rate of entrainment of helium into the core $\dot{m}_i$ must be faster than the rate it burns $\dot{m_b}$. If we require $ \dot{m}_i> \dot{m_b} $ then Equation 16 in implies that $$\frac{\nabla_\text{rad}}{\nabla_\text{ad}} > \frac{\alpha_i \epsilon_b}{\alpha_i \epsilon_b-\frac{5}{12}RT}$$ for the helium abundance in the convective core to increase, where $\epsilon_b$ is the specific energy released from helium burning. In the model undergoing a breathing pulse in Figure \[figure\_CBP\_ratgrads\], $\alpha_i \gtrsim 0.05$ is needed for the central helium abundance to increase. This coincides with the disparate behaviour for the models with $\alpha_i < 0.05$ shown in Table \[table\_gc\], which have reduced $R_2$ and larger $\Delta \log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$.
![Surface luminosity (upper panel) and central helium abundance (lower panel) evolution for the representative globular cluster models near the end of CHeB and during the early-AGB. The models are calculated using standard overshoot with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ (blue dash-dot line) and SOS with ingestion efficiency $\alpha_{i} = 0.05$, $0.10$, $0.25$, $0.50$, and $1.0$ (solid red lines of increasing brightness).[]{data-label="figure_gc_L_ev"}](figure_gc_L_ev.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Evolution of the internal profile of $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ during a core breathing pulse. The initial 1$\text{M}_\odot$ model (black dotted line) was calculated with SOS and $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ until the central helium mass fraction was $Y=0.106$ (and when the central helium abundance is increasing). The evolution sequences are computed with SOS with $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ (solid red lines) and standard overshoot with $f_\text{OS} = 0.001$ (blue dot-dash lines). Lines are plotted at $5 \times 10^4$year intervals for the $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ and at $10^4$year intervals for the standard overshoot model.[]{data-label="figure_CBP_ratgrads"}](figure_CBP_ratgrads.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Kippenhahn plot showing the ratio of the temperature gradients $\nabla_\text{rad}/\nabla_\text{ad}$ during the core breathing pulse in the SOS sequence with $\alpha_{i} = 0.25$ from Figure \[figure\_CBP\_ratgrads\].[]{data-label="figure_CBP_kippenhahn"}](figure_cbp_kippenhahn.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Higher-mass models
------------------
We also test the effect of SOS for models with higher initial stellar mass: 2M$_\odot$, 5M$_\odot$, and 10M$_\odot$. The CHeB lifetimes for the suite of models, including some without any mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary (i.e. $\alpha_i = 0$) are shown in Table \[table\_initialmass\].
Over the entire mass range, SOS significantly lengthens the CHeB lifetime compared with sequences without any convective overshoot (which is the case for any overshooting scheme). In models with $M \leq 5\,\text{M}_\odot$, the inclusion of SOS shortens the CHeB lifetime compared with models with standard overshoot. This effect, however, diminishes with increasing initial mass, and is not apparent for the 10$\,\text{M}_\odot$ model. It is not surprising that the consequence of the mixing prescription around the convective core decreases for higher stellar mass because this corresponds to a growing contribution from hydrogen burning.
The efficiency parameter is least important to the 10M$_\odot$ sequences because none of the SOS models have CBP. The standard overshoot sequence has only one small breathing pulse, which marginally increases the maximum mass enclosed by the convective core, to $m/\text{M}_\odot = 1.31$ compared with $m/\text{M}_\odot = 1.28$ for the $\alpha_i = 0.5$ model. In that case, the secular expansion of the mass enclosed by the convective core shows the effect of the SOS efficiency: the higher $\alpha_i$, the closer the convection zone is to converging to a size such that $\nabla_\text{rad} = \nabla_\text{ad}$ at its boundary. About three quarters of the way through CHeB, the boundary of the convective core is at $m/\text{M}_\odot = 1.000$, $1.042$, $1.068$, $1.076$, and $1.081$ for sequences with $\alpha_i = 0.05$, $0.10$, $0.25$, $0.5$, and $1.0$, respectively. This compares with $m/\text{M}_\odot = 1.100$ for the standard overshoot sequence.
None of the 5M$_\odot$ sequences with SOS have CBP, and as a result their lifetime is less than the standard overshoot model, which has one breathing pulse. Only two of the five 2M$_\odot$ models with SOS have a breathing pulse with $\Delta Y_\text{cent} > 0.05$. In contrast, the standard overshoot model has three such CBP, increasing the CHeB lifetime by more than 11Myr compared with the longest lived SOS sequence.
$\alpha_i$ 1$\text{M}_\odot$ 2$\text{M}_\odot$ 5$\text{M}_\odot$ 10$\text{M}_\odot$
----------------------- -- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------------
$0.00$ 83.31 61.30 11.21 2.34
$0.05$ 120.62 140.75 21.21 3.47
$0.10$ 116.26 138.88 21.51 3.58
$0.25$ 118.40 147.02 21.79 3.62
$0.50$ 121.17 139.82 21.32 3.62
$1.00$ 126.28 148.93 21.31 3.61
$f_\text{os}=10^{-3}$ 131.98 160.49 23.16 3.61
: Lifetime of CHeB phase (in Myr) for solar-metallicity models with different treatment of overshoot and initial mass.[]{data-label="table_initialmass"}
Applicability to other phases of evolution
------------------------------------------
The constraint on the growth of convection zones that is explored in this paper is only relevant when there is a composition discontinuity and the convective luminosity does not vanish at the convective boundary. Considering that $\nabla_\text{ad}$ only weakly depends on composition, this necessitates the radiative temperature gradient $$\nabla_\text{rad} = \frac{3 \kappa P L }{64 \pi a c r^2 T^4 g}$$ be discontinuous across the convective boundary. Given that $P(r)$, $L(r)$, $T(r)$, and $g(r)$ must be continuous, the discontinuity must be in the opacity $\kappa$, and such that the opacity is higher inside the convection zone than outside. This condition is satisfied in the CHeB case because carbon and oxygen are both more opaque than helium. If, for example, this ingestion limit were applied to the well-studied case of main sequence convective core overshooting, no additional mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary would be permitted, whereas it is needed to conform with various lines of observational evidence, including observations of open clusters , eclipsing binaries , and asteroseismology . This suggests that there are other physical processes determining the location of the convective boundary in different physical regimes .
Summary and conclusions
=======================
In this study we examined the importance of the limit on the ingestion of helium into convective helium-burning cores recently proposed by . This topic is of great interest because the evolution of core helium burning models is still subject to the uncertain mixing at the convective core boundary, and recently, novel asteroseismic observations have suggested there may be a fundamental problem with the models. Using the Monash University stellar evolution code, we computed a suite of “Spruit overshoot” evolution sequences with a range of initial mass $0.83 \leq M/\text{M}_\odot \leq 10.0$ and overshooting efficiency $\alpha_i$. We then assessed these models against the constraints from asteroseismology and globular cluster star counts that were outlined in the first two papers in this series.
The overall evolution of models with Spruit overshoot is relatively insensitive to the choice of $\alpha_i$ provided it is neither too low or too high, i.e. when $0.05 \lesssim \alpha_i \lesssim 1.0$. For the most part, the evolution with Spruit overshoot is similar to that resulting from applying an exponential decay of the diffusion coefficient at each convective boundary (“standard overshoot”). In the first half of CHeB, the growth of the convective core is consistent with sequences with standard overshoot. Later in the evolution, however, the position of the convective core boundary does not become as unstable as it does in standard overshoot models. Crucially, large episodes of helium ingestion, i.e. core breathing pulses, are suppressed, or in some cases, avoided entirely. In all low mass ($M \leq 5\,\text{M}_\odot$) cases, reasonable values of the efficiency, i.e. $0.05 \leq \alpha_i \leq 1.0$, reduce the CHeB lifetime compared with standard overshoot models.
The reduction in the extent of core breathing pulses in the Spruit overshoot sequences minimizes several discrepancies that exist between observations of field and Galactic globular cluster stars and standard overshoot models. Models with Spruit overshoot (and $\alpha_i \leq 1.0$) more closely match two constraints from star counts in globular clusters: $R_2$ and $\Delta\log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB}$. Additionally, because of the reduction of core breathing pulses, theoretical predictions for the luminosity probability density function resulting from models with Spruit overshoot have a sharper peak around the AGB clump, concordant with the observations. Lastly, in the mode-trapping scenario posited in Paper I to help reconcile models with asteroseismology, predictions from Spruit overshoot imply fewer stars with anomalously high g-mode period spacing near the end of core helium burning.
We conclude by stressing that we do not claim to present a complete theory: the constraint from involves a simplification that ignores non-local effects. Instead, we have shown that substantial core breathing pulses are disfavoured, and a range of observations of core helium burning stars better matched, when accommodating this straightforward and physically motivated limitation on mixing. In other phases, the situation appears more complex: an equivalent constraint is presumably violated during convective core hydrogen burning, when mixing beyond the Schwarzschild boundary is necessarily invoked to explain various observations. We recommend further investigation into whether equivalent ingestion limits are applicable and important to other phases of stellar evolution and also whether the formulation used in this paper is consistent with results from state-of-the-art 3-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations [e.g. @2016AN....337..788C].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Henk Spruit, who visited Monash University as part of the Monash Centre for Astrophysics Distinguished Visitor Program in 2014. This project was partly supported by the European Research Council through ERC AdG No. 320478-TOFU.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate how, for an arbitrary number of dimensions, the Galileon actions and their covariant generalizations can be obtained through a standard Kaluza-Klein compactification of higher-dimensional Lovelock gravity. In this setup, the dilaton takes on the role of the Galileon. In addition, such compactifications uncover other more general Galilean actions, producing purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit, now both for the Galileon and the metric perturbations.'
author:
- |
[**Karel Van Acoleyen and Jos Van Doorsselaere[^1]** ]{}\
$$ [Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University,]{}\
[Krijgslaan 281, S9, 9000 Gent, Belgium]{}.
title: '[**Galileons from Lovelock actions**]{}'
---
-19cm
Introduction
============
Inspired by the decoupling limit of the DGP model, Galileon models were introduced as scalar field models whose equations on flat space are purely second-order [@NRT] (but see also[@Fairlie]). This demand translates to a symmetry - the so called Galilean symmetry - which is quite restrictive: apart from the linear term and the standard quadratic kinetic term, there are only three more Galileon terms that are allowed in the action (for space-time dimension $D=4$). Together with the flat-space second-order equations, this makes these models nice from a phenomenological standpoint, both at the classical and quantum level [@NRT; @EFT]. And so far Galileon(-like) models have been studied in the context of early [@Inflation] and late [@Latetime; @VanAcoleyen:2009kb] time cosmology and as a possible origin for a fifth force [@fifthforce]. Due to the Galilean symmetry, such a fifth force would still largely respect the equivalence principle [@equivalence].
Of course, to consider for instance the cosmology of these models, one needs to couple the Galileon $\pi$ to the gravity field $g_{\mu\nu}$. As was shown in [@DEV], in general the minimally coupled terms lead to third-order equations. This is undesirable, as higher derivatives typically lead to instabilities. However, it was also shown how the higher derivatives can be eliminated through the inclusion of several precisely tuned non-minimal curvature coupling terms. Subsequently this construction was put in a remarkably elegant form and generalized to arbitrary dimension in [@DDE], by Deffayet, Deser and Esposito-Farese (DDE). As the authors noticed, the general form of the Galileon actions, was ’tantalizing’ reminiscent of that of Lovelock gravity. And indeed a connection was found. In [@dRT] it was shown how every 4D fully covariant Galileon term arises in the appropriate limit of the action of a probe brane, by considering all nonzero Lovelock invariants, both on the brane and in the 5D bulk. The Galileon is in this context identified with the position modulus of the brane.
In this paper we provide a different connection with Lovelock gravity, now for arbitrary dimension $D$. To see how the connection could emerge, let us recall that the Lovelock invariants are the unique scalars, constructed solely out of the metric, that generate Lagrangian equations which are [*at most*]{} of second order [@Lovelock:1971yv]. And for a given Lovelock invariant, at the lowest non-trivial order in the weak-field expansion in the metric perturbations $h_{\mu\nu}$ $(=g_{\mu\nu}\!-\!\eta_{\mu\nu})$, the equations are purely second-order. This is also precisely the case for the fully covariant Galileon actions, for which the equations are at most of second order, with purely second-order equations at lowest order (in this case zero) in the weak-field expansion. It is then evident to look for a connection with Lovelock gravity, by considering a $D+N$ higher-dimensional Lovelock theory, and singling out some $D$-dimensional scalar $\pi$ in the extra-dimensional components of the metric. The resulting equations that arise after compactification of the extra dimensions, will then be at most second-order, both in $\pi$ and in the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ of the uncompactified dimensions. Furthermore one would expect some of the terms in the equations to be [*Galilean*]{}, in the sense that they are purely second-order in the weak-field limit.[^2] This is indeed what we find. In section \[sec3\], we write down the decomposition of the action for the standard Kaluza-Klein ansatz for the metric, with $\pi$ identified as the dilaton that controls the size of the extra dimensions. We find that different terms in the action independently lead to second-order equations for $\pi$ and the $D$-metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. In section \[sec4\] we discuss the different terms at the level of the equations which we then classify in section \[sec5\]. Some of the obtained terms are indeed Galilean, and amongst these we find precisely the fully covariant Galileon actions of [@DDE], in two equivalent versions. But we also uncover other Galilean actions, that in the weak-field limit are of nonzero order in $h$, and that can be thought of as the interpolations between the original scalar field Galileon actions and the pure gravity Lovelock actions. In section \[D=4\] we specialize to the case $D=4$ and write down explicitly all possible Galilean terms that can be generated by Lovelock compactifications. But before delving into compactifications of Lovelock-gravity, let us first review the results of [@DDE].
Generalized Covariant Galileons {#sec2}
===============================
As we already mentioned, DDE were able to condense their findings in a remarkably elegant formalism. For arbitrary dimensions $D$ they found the following form for the fully covariant Galilean actions in arbitrary dimensions: \^n=\^\_[p=0]{}\^n\_p\^n\_p\^n\_p=\_[(2n)]{}\_1\_2(q)(p),for certain coefficients $\mathcal{C}_p^n$. We adopt their notation throughout the paper, except for the assignment of the upper-index in $\mathcal{L}$, where DDE used the degree in $\pi$ (in this case simply $n+1$) rather than $n$ to label the different actions. We have further \_[(2n)]{}=\^[\_1\_3\_[2n-1]{}]{}\_[\[\_2\_4\_[2n]{}\]]{}g\^[\_2\_2]{}g\^[\_4\_4]{}g\^[\_[2n]{}\_[2n]{}]{},\[A2n\]such that all other, contracted, indices are lower ones. We drop the ’covariant’ semicolons and identify $\mu_i \sim i$: \_i=\_[;\_i]{},\_[ij]{}=g\_[\_j\_j]{}\_[;\_i]{}\^[ \_ j]{},….Also we use the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}(q)&=&\prod_{i=a}^{q+a-1}\pi_{\mu_{2i-1}\mu_{2i}}\,,\\
\mathcal{R}(p)&=&(\pi_{\nu}\pi^{\ \nu})^{p}\prod_{k=b}^{p+b-1}R_{\mu_{4k-3}\mu_{4k-1}\mu_{4k-2}\mu_{4k}}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ for which the starting point of the index-counting is always appropriately chosen. Since $n$ is the total number of anti-symmetrized (odd or even) indices, we have $n=1+q+2p$.
As DDE notice, the appearance of $\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}$ seems to indicate a very close relation to Lovelock-gravity. It is this relation that we will make explicit in this paper.
Decomposing a Lovelock action {#sec3}
=============================
As we discussed in the introduction, to find a link between Galileon models and Lovelock gravity, it seems suitable to study Lovelock gravity in higher dimensions. Therefore we will study the equations that are generated by a certain Lovelock invariant in a $D+N$-dimensional space-time. For the metric we take a standard Kaluza-Klein anzats that factorizes the dimensions: $$g_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} g_{\alpha\beta}(x^{\mu})&0\\0&e^{\pi(x^\mu)}\gamma_{ab}(x^i)\end{array}\right)\label{metric}
\,,$$ with $g_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\pi$ depending on the first $D$ coordinates, while $\gamma_{ab}$ depends on the $N$ extra-dimensional coordinates. The use of greek and latin indices will consistently indicate the separation between the two, while capital indices will refer to both. We take an arbitrary background-metric $\gamma_{ab}$ for the auxiliary space and we will consider the equations for $\pi$ and $g_{\alpha\beta}$ that are generated by the $d$-th order Lovelock invariant:$$L^{N+D}_{(d)}=\delta_{[B_1\ldots B_{2d}]}^{A_1\ldots A_{2d}}R_{A_1A_2}^{\quad\,\,\, B_1B_2}\cdots R_{A_{2d-1}A_{2d}}^{\quad\,\,\,\quad\,\,\, B_{2d-1}B_{2d}}\,.\label{LL}$$ To this end we need its decomposition in the lower-dimensional components for the metric (\[metric\]). With some work, that we relegate entirely to appendix \[decomp\], we find: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{(d)}^{N+D}&=&\sum_r e^{-r\pi}L^N_{(r)}\sum_n\mathcal{\tilde C}^n\sum_p\left(\mathcal{D}^n_p\mathcal{K}^{n}_{p}+\mathcal{C}^n_p\mathcal{L}^{n}_{p}\right)\,,\nonumber\\&\equiv&\sum_r e^{-r\pi}L^N_{(r)}\sum_n\mathcal{\tilde C}^n(\mathcal{K}^{n}+\mathcal{L}^{n})\,,\label{ff}\eea
with $L^N_{(r)}$ the $r$-th order Lovelock from $\gamma_{ij}$ (with the convention that $L^N_{(0)}=1$) and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{K}^{n}_{p}&=&\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\mathcal{S}(q+1)(\pi_{\nu}\pi^{\ \nu})^{d-n-r}\mathcal{R}(p)\nonumber\,,\\
\mathcal{L}^{n}_{p}&=&\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\pi_{1}\pi_{2} \mathcal{S}(q)(\pi_{\nu}\pi^{\ \nu})^{d-n-r}\mathcal{R}(p)\,,\nonumber\\
\mathcal{C}^n_{p}=\frac{n-2p}{2}\mathcal{D}^n_p&=& \frac{(-2)^{-3p}}{p!(d-n+p-r)!(n-2p-1)!}\,,\nonumber\\
\mathcal{\tilde{C}}^n&=&\frac{(-2)^{2n+r-d}}{2}\frac{d!}{r!}\frac{(N-2r)!}{(N+n-2d)!}\,.\label{decompterms}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the power of $\pi$ for all terms in $\mathcal{K}^n$ and $\mathcal{L}^n$ is fixed, with $2(d-r)-n$ powers of $\pi$ for the former and $2(d-r)-n+1$ for the latter. Notice also that the number of extra dimensions $N$ only enters the overall factor $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}^n$ and that the Lovelock orders $d$ and $r$ only enter $\mathcal{K}^n$ and $\mathcal{L}^n$ in the combination $(d-r)$.
We still need to specify the summation bounds in (\[ff\]). The $r$-summation runs from 0 to $d$. The $n$ and $p$-summations run simply over all possible terms that are nonzero. This gives different bounds for the $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ terms, respectively: 0n([0,n-(d-r)]{})p;\
1n([0,n-(d-r)]{})p.\[bounds\]
By the Lovelock construction, the full equations that arise from (\[LL\]) are (at most) second-order. But for our purposes it is interesting that the equations that arise from each $\mathcal{K}^n$ and $\mathcal{L}^n$ term in (\[ff\]) separately, are actually by themselves also second-order. To demonstrate this, one could simply write down the explicit equations that derive from these terms. We will take a shorter path, that exploits the freedom for the extra-dimensional background-metric $\gamma_{ab}$ and the number of extra dimensions $N$.
Let us first notice that upon a rescaling of the background-metric $\gamma_{ab}$, the different coefficients $L^N_{(r)}$ in (\[ff\]) scale differently. This implies that there can not be any cancellation of higher derivatives between different terms in the $r$-summation, or, in other words, that these terms independently lead to second-order equations.
Secondly, we prove that the second-order nature of the action does not change by adding (or canceling) any pre-factor $f(\pi)$. Indeed, for a Lagrangian of the form $f(\pi)\times(\ref{ff})$, the only possible extra higher order terms could come from a second order derivative - that arises through variation with respect to $\pi$ in $\mathcal{S}(q)$ or with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ in $\mathcal{R}(p)$ - with one derivative working on the pre-factor, and the other working on the remaining factors in $\mathcal{S}(q)$ or $\mathcal{R}(p)$. Because of the anti-symmetry in $\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}$ and the Bianchi-identity for the Riemann-tensor, the latter terms are indeed only second-order.
So we can drop the exponential pre-factor to analyze the second-order nature of the different terms in (\[ff\]). Without this pre-factor, there is a one to one correspondence between terms with a fixed power of $\pi$ in the action and in the equations. And it is clear that the different powers of $\pi$ in the equations are all second-order - higher derivatives can not cancel out between terms with different powers. In the action, the terms with a certain power of $\pi$ have the form $\mathcal{\hat C}^n(N)\mathcal{K}^n+\mathcal{\hat C}^{n+1}(N)\mathcal{L}^{n+1}$. As the two coefficients vary differently with $N$, both terms indeed lead independently to second-order equations. This concludes the argument.
The different terms in the equations {#sec4}
====================================
A final subtlety in distinguishing the different independent types of terms at the level of the equations, is that the different $\mathcal{K}^n$ and $\mathcal{L}^{n+1}$ terms that we discussed above, are actually identical up to a total derivative. As we show in appendix \[divergence\]: $$\frac{2(d-r)-n}{2}\mathcal{K}^n=2\mathcal{L}^{n+1}+
\nabla_1\left(\pi_2\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\sum_p\mathcal{C}_p^n\,\mathcal{S}(q)\mathcal{R}(p)(\pi_\nu\pi^\nu)^{d-n-r}\right)\,,\label{KL}$$ with the $p$-summation again over all possible nonzero terms: ([0,n-(d-r)]{})p.We can use this relation to substitute the $\mathcal{K}$ terms with $\mathcal{L}$ terms in the full action, except for the case $n=2(d-r)$, with the $\mathcal{K}$ term the order $d-r$ Lovelock invariant, $\mathcal{K}^{2(d-r)}=L^D_{(d-r)}$, as can be seen from (\[decompterms\]). Up to surface terms, the full action that arises from the compactification of the $d$-th Lovelock invariant then finally becomes: $$S=\sqrt{-g}e^{\frac{N}{2}\pi}L^{N+D}_{(d)}=\sqrt{-g}\sum_r L^N_{(r)}e^{(\frac{N}{2}-r)\pi}\left(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}^{2(d-r)}L^D_{(d-r)}+
\sum_n\mathcal{\hat C}^n\mathcal{L}^n\right)\,,\label{action}$$ with now: \^n=\^n.
Classification of the different terms {#sec5}
=====================================
Equation (\[action\]) shows all the different terms in the action, that arise in a standard Kaluza-Klein compactification (\[metric\]) of the order $d$ Lovelock invariant. The Lovelock-invariant $L^D_{(d-r)}$ and the terms $\mathcal{L}^n$ each give rise to equations that are independently second-order, and as we argued above, this holds regardless of the pre-factor. Furthermore, it is clear now that the different terms do give different equations as they all have a different power of $\pi$.
Rather than looking at a particular compactification of a particular Lovelock invariant, we will now classify all possible different terms (modulo the pre-factor) for a certain dimension $D$, that can arise in arbitrary Lovelock compactifications. Recall that both $L^D_{d-r}$ and $\mathcal{L}^n$ in (\[action\]) are independent of the number of extra dimensions $N$ and that they only depend on $n$ and $d-r$. In further expressions we will take $r=0$, no expressions will be omitted in this way. Now, first of all we have of course all the non-zero Lovelock invariants $L^D_{(d)}$ that can appear. With the condition $2d\leq D$, this gives $D/2$ or $(D-1)/2$ different terms, for an even or odd number of dimensions $D$ respectively.[^3]
Secondly, we find the terms $\mathcal{L}^n$ that all involve two or more powers of the scalar $\pi$. We base the classification of these terms on their Galilean character. As we explained in the introduction, we qualify a term as Galilean, if it leads to purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit. We therefore count the number of fields and derivatives in the weak-field limit, for every term $\mathcal{L}^n_p$ in $\mathcal{L}^n=\sum_p\mathcal{C}^n_p\mathcal{L}^{n}_{p}$. The total number of fields for Galilean terms will be one more than half the number of derivatives, $n_f=n_d/2+1$, as this gives two derivatives per field in the equations. Putting $R_{\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3\mu_4}\sim \partial^2 h$, we find from (\[decompterms\]) for every $\mathcal{L}^n_p$ term: $2d-n+1$ factors of $\pi$, $p$ factors of metric-perturbations $h$, and a total number of $2d$ derivatives. This means that only the terms $\mathcal{L}^n_p$ with $p=n-d$ lead to purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit. Inspection of the summation bound (\[bounds\]) for $p$ leads us then to the conclusion that the $\mathcal{L}^n$ terms with $1\leq n<d$ are non-Galilean, with first-order derivatives in the equations already in the weak-field limit[^4]. From the bound (\[bounds\]) on $n$, one finds that there exist an infinite number of different terms of this type.
The more interesting Galilean terms are those with $n\geq d$. Indeed, for those terms, the $p$-summation starts at $p=n-d$, and as we just argued, $\mathcal{L}^n_{n-d}$ does give rise to purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit. Notice that for a given $n$, the other terms $\mathcal{L}^n_{p}$ in the $p$-summation come with more powers of curvature, and are therefore of higher order in the weak-field expansion.
We can further differentiate the Galilean terms that exist on flat space from those that do not. Since the degree in $h$ of $\mathcal{L}^n_{n-d}$ is $n-d$, the only terms belonging to the first category are the $\mathcal{L}^n$’s with $n=d$. From (\[bounds\]) we find the bound $1\leq n\leq D$ for such terms, leading to a total of $D$ different Galilean terms in $D$ dimensions, that are not-trivial on flat space. These are the terms that were studied by DDE in [@DDE], and we indeed recover the very same expressions. On flat space we have $\mathcal{L}^d\sim \mathcal{L}^d_0$, which is precisely the form of the general flat-space Galileon that was put forward by DDE. The other terms $\mathcal{L}^d_p$ in $\mathcal{L}^d$ are trivial on flat space, but as DDE found, they are required to maintain second-order equations for both the metric and $\pi$ equations on a general background. In our setup these terms follow automatically from the Lovelock construction, with, up to an overall factor $(d-1)! $, the same coefficients $\mathcal{C}^d_p$ that were found by DDE. Furthermore, the Lovelock construction uncovers an equally elegant, equivalent form for the fully covariant Galileons since by (\[KL\]) we have that $\mathcal{L}^{d}\cong\mathcal{K}^{d-1}$ at the level of the equations. The starting flat-space term in the summation $\mathcal{K}^{d-1}=\sum_p\mathcal{D}^{d-1}_p\mathcal{K}^{d-1}_{p}$ now reads: \^[d-1]{}\_[0]{}=\_[(2d-2)]{}(d-1)(\_\^), and one could actually construct the other terms $\mathcal{K}^{d-1}_p$ (with the proper coefficients) in a similar procedure as followed by DDE, by requiring the cancellation of all higher order derivatives.
The Lovelock setup also reveals flat-space trivial Galilean terms (for $n>d$). These have $n-d>0$ powers of curvature at the lowest order in the weak-field expansion $\mathcal{L}^n\sim \mathcal{L}^n_{n-d}$. This is a new class of scalar-tensor couplings, and we can think of them as interpolations between the original scalar field Galilean actions and the pure spin 2 Lovelock actions. From the bound (\[bounds\]) on $n$, one finds that there exist $D(D-2)/4$ or $(D-1)^2/4$ different terms of this type, for $D$ even or odd.
Galilean terms for D=4 {#D=4}
======================
We will now specialize to the case $D=4$, and explicitly write down all Galilean terms that can appear in Lovelock compactifications. Let us start with the original scalar field covariant Galileons of [@DEV; @DDE]. As we discussed above, we find them appearing in two equivalent forms: the $\mathcal{L}$-form that was found by DDE and a new $\mathcal{K}$-form. The explicit expressions are simpler in this new form, since they involve less anti-symmetrized indices. From eqs. (\[ff\],\[decompterms\]) we find (recall that we take $r=0$): \^0 (d=1) &=& 2()\^2,\[K0\]\
\^1 (d=2) &=& 2()\^2,\[K1\]\
\^2 (d=3) &=& ()\^2(()\^2-\_\^)-()\^4 R,\
\^3 (d=4) &=& ()\^2(()\^3-3\_\^+2\_\^\_\^\_\^) +()\^4\_G\^.\[K3\]Upon one partial integration of the last term in (\[K3\]), these are exactly the original $D=4$ covariant Galileons that were obtained in [@DEV].
The Lovelock-terms form another group of Galilean terms. For $D=4$, the two nonzero terms are the Ricciscalar and the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, that appear multiplied by some pre-factor $f(\pi)$. Focussing on Galilean terms, we can write three independent terms that come from the Lovelock’s: L\^4\_[(1)]{}&=&R,\[R\]\
L\^4\_[(1)]{}&=&R,\[piR\]\
L\^4\_[(2)]{}&=&(R\^2-4R\_R\^+R\_R\^).\[piGB\] Indeed, one can easily verify that any Lovelock-term leads to purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit, both by itself and multiplied by a single power of $\pi$.[^5] For the Gauss-Bonnet invariant only the latter case is non-trivial since the invariant by itself is a total derivative. The well known scalar-tensor couplings (\[piR\]) and (\[piGB\]), appear for instance in Brans-Dicke gravity (in the Jordan-frame), $f(R)$ gravity and Gauss-Bonnet gravity. The Galilean character of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling (\[piGB\]) was already exposed in [@VanAcoleyen:2009kb], in the context of the cosmological backreaction for Gauss-Bonnet gravity.
Now, it is often stated that (\[piR\]) and (\[piGB\]) form the only consistent non-minimal scalar-tensor couplings (modulo redefinitions $\pi\rightarrow f(\pi)$), in the sense that they do not generate higher derivative equations. But, as we discussed in the previous section, the Lovelock construction uncovers another class of scalar-tensor couplings, that lead to second-order equations, with purely second-order equations in the weak-field limit. These are the terms $\mathcal{L}^n$ (or $\mathcal{K}^{n-1}$), with $n>d$. For $D=4$ there are only two such terms. Explicitly, the $\mathcal{L}$-forms read: \^3 (d=2) &=&\_\_G\^,\[L3\]\
\^4(d=3)&=&(\_\_\^-()\^2)R- \_\_\_R\^\
&&+(\_\_+()\^2\_ -2\_\_\^\_)R\^.\[L4\]The first of these extra Galilean terms appeared already in several papers. In fact, in [@MuellerHoissen:1989yv; @Kobayashi:2004hq; @Amendola:2005cr] this term was obtained in a special case of our general procedure, through a toroidal compactification or an equivalent dimensional reduction of 5D Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Note that this specific compactification also generates the original Galileon (\[K1\]) and of course the non-minimal Gauss-Bonnet coupling (\[piGB\]). More recently, the term (\[L3\]) was constructed directly, by demanding second-order equations [@Sushkov:2009hk]. To our knowledge, the second extra Galilean term (\[L4\]) is new to the literature.
Conclusions
===========
The original motivation for this paper was to connect the general covariant Galileons of [@DDE] to the Lovelock invariants. In our case, the connection arises through standard Kaluza-Klein compactifications of the different pure gravity Lovelock terms. With the dilaton field $\pi$ playing the role of the Galileon, such compactifications reproduce exactly all the covariant Galileon actions of DDE. In addition, our Lovelock construction produce another equally elegant form, for which the equations are identical to those generated by the original Galileon actions. Taken together, Galileons have now been produced for general dimension $D$, either through explicit construction by DDE, or through Lovelock compactifications, and this in two forms (our $\mathcal{L}^d$ and $\mathcal{K}^{d-1}$). Moreover for $D=4$, they were obtained through a similar, but not identical, explicit construction in [@DEV] and through a brane setup in [@dRT]. The fact that all different constructions lead to identical expressions, clearly speaks in favor of their purported uniqueness.
Furthermore, our Lovelock setup does not only reproduce the covariant Galileons, it also generates a new class of scalar-tensor couplings that lead to second-order equations. And in the weak field limit, which in this case is of nonzero order in the metric perturbations, the equations are purely second-order. In that sense these terms are Galilean, and we can interpret them as interpolations between the scalar field Galileons and the pure gravity Lovelock invariants. Interestingly, for $D=4$ there exist only two of these scalar-tensor couplings (\[L3\],\[L4\]). They add to the well known and well explored Ricciscalar (\[piR\]) and Gauss-Bonnet (\[piGB\]) couplings. The phenomenology of the term (\[L3\]) is already explored to some extent [@Amendola:2005cr; @Sushkov:2009hk; @Amendola:2007ni; @Saridakis:2010mf; @Germani:2010gm]. It should be worthwhile to explore the new term (\[L4\]) as well.
Since their introduction, several variations on the Galileons have appeared. Multi-field Galileons for instance, generalize the Galilean character to an arbitrary number of scalar fields, possibly connected with an extra symmetry [@multi-field]. We expect our construction to carry through directly to these new models. Indeed, allowing more scalar degrees of freedom in the parameterization of the extra-dimensional metric $g_{ab}$ in (\[metric\]), should produce the different (covariant) multi-field Galileons. Another obvious extension of our construction would be to consider the vectors $A_{\mu a}=g_{\mu a}$, in the off-diagonal components of the metric. This should then produce Galilean actions that include several vector fields in addition to the scalars. Actions of this type were constructed in [@DDE2] as a special case of arbitrary $p$-form Galileons. However, we do not see an immediate generalization of our method to the general case $p>2$.
Finally, let us stress that in this paper we have merely used Lovelock compactifications as a tool to generate individually interesting terms. For generic compactifications of general combinations of different Lovelock invariants, the coefficients for all different terms in the action will be order one. This makes standard Lovelock compactifications rather unnatural as a physical mechanism for Galilean IR modified gravity, which only requires the original Galilean terms (\[K0\]-\[K3\]), together with the Ricciscalar (\[R\]) and Ricciscalar coupling (\[piR\]). To recover ordinary gravity at short distances, the coefficients of the other terms like (\[piGB\]-\[L4\]) would have to be heavily suppressed. This is possible in principle, but only at the cost of some fine-tuning of both the Lovelock combinations and the extra-dimensional curvature. On the other hand, there is no immediate objection against these extra scalar-tensor couplings in the context of Galilean inflation.
Appendix
========
Decomposition of $L_{(d)}^{D+N}$ {#decomp}
--------------------------------
We straigtforwardly calculate the Riemann curvature $R$ corresponding to the $D+N$ -dimensional metric ansatz (\[metric\]). Using $R$ also for the “ordinary” $D$-dimensional curvature and denoting $R^{(N)}$ for the one from the $N$-dimensional $\gamma_{ij}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\beta_1\beta_2}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}&=&
g^{\beta_1\gamma_1}g^{\beta_2\gamma_2}R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2\alpha_1\alpha_2}\sim R\nonumber\,,\\
R^{d\delta}_{c\gamma}=-R^{\delta d}_{c\gamma}=R^{\delta d}_{\gamma c}=-R^{d \delta}_{\gamma c}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\delta_c^d(\frac{1}{2}\pi_\gamma \pi^\delta+\pi_\gamma^\delta )\sim S\label{Theta}\,,\\
R^{b_1b_2}_{a_1a_2}&=&e^{-\pi}R^{(N)b_1b_2}_{a_1a_2}-\frac{1}{4}\delta^{b_1b_2}_{[a_1a_2]}(\partial\pi)^2\sim T\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the other components zero.
Our first aim will be to decompose the $d$-th Lovelock-invariant as a formal polynomial in the above $R$, $S$ and $T$: L\_[(d)]{}\^[D+N]{}\~R\^[p]{}S\^[q+1]{}T\^l.Notice that this is, keeping $d$ fixed, only a double sum as $d=l+p+q+1$. The “$+1$” owing to the conventions of [@DDE]. For later convenience we also introduce $n=2p+q+1$, the total number of (upper) greek indices, and $m=2l+q+1$, the total number of (upper)latin indices in the particular term of the Lovelock $\delta$-tensor, cfr. (\[LL\]). It takes some combinatorial effort to see how these terms can be rearranged: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{(d)}^{N+D}&=&\delta^{A_1\cdots A_{2d}}_{[B_1\cdots B_{2d}]}R_{A_1A_2}^{B_1B_2}\ldots\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{\sigma\in S_{2d}}sgn(\sigma)\delta^{A_1}_{B_{\sigma(1)}}\cdots\delta^{A_{2d}}_{B_{\sigma(2d)}}R_{A_1A_2}^{B_1B_2}\ldots\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{l,p} \frac{d!2^{q+1}}{p!(q+1)!l!}\sum_{\sigma\in S_{2d}}sgn(\sigma) \delta^{a_1\cdots c_1\cdots \gamma_1\cdots\alpha_{2p}}_{B_{\sigma(1)}\cdots \cdots\cdots B_{\sigma(2d)}}T^{l}S^{q+1}R^{p}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\sigma$ denoting a permutation of signature $sgn(\sigma)$ of the permutation group $S_{2d}$ and suitable boundaries for the $l,p$ summations implied. Notice the symmetry factor $2^{q+1}$ on the last line, that compensates for fixing the positions of $c_i$ and $\gamma_i$ in the $S$-tensors. As all terms containing a Kronecker-delta $\delta^{greek}_{latin}$ vanish, only a sum over $\sigma\in S_n\times S_m$ remains, and so the Lovelock $\delta$-tensor factors out in one for latin and one for greek indices: L\_[(d)]{}\^[N+D]{}=\_[l,p]{} \^[a\_1…c\_1…c\_[q+1]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1…d\_1…d\_[q+1]{}\]]{}\^[\_1…\_1…\_[2p]{}]{}\_[\[\_1…\_1…\_[2p]{}\]]{} \^[l]{}\_[i=1]{}T\_[a\_[2i1]{}a\_[2i]{}]{}\^[b\_[2i1]{}b\_[2i]{}]{} \_[j=1]{}\^[q+1]{}S\^[d\_j\_j]{}\_[c\_j\_j]{}\_[k=1]{}\^[p]{}R\_[\_[2k1]{}\_[2k]{}]{}\^[\_[2k1]{}\_[2k]{}]{} .Again, there is an extra symmetry factor $2^{q+1}$, that now compensates for fixing the positions of $d_i$ and $\delta_i$ in the $S$-tensors. Further simplification follows from the identity: \^[a\_1a\_[2l]{}c\_1c\_[m-2l]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1b\_[2l]{}c\_1c\_[m-2l]{}\]]{}=\^[a\_1c\_[m-2l]{}d\_1d\_[N-m]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1c\_[m-2l]{}d\_1d\_[N-m]{}\]]{} =\^[a\_1a\_[2l]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1b\_[2l]{}\]]{},\[iddelta\] and the fact that $S\sim\delta$ for the latin indices, so: L\_[(d)]{}\^[N+D]{}\~\_[l,p]{} 4\^[q+1]{} \^[a\_1…a\_[2l]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1…b\_[2l]{}\]]{}\^[\_1…\_[q+1]{}\_1…\_[2p]{}]{}\_[\[\_1…\_[q+1]{}\_1…\_[2p]{}\]]{} T\^[l]{}S\^[q+1]{}R\^[p]{}.In a similar way we can reduce the sum of the remaining latin indices, identifying the $N$-dimensional order $r$ Lovelockterms $L^N_{(r)}$ hidden in $T^l$: \^[a\_1…a\_[2l]{}]{}\_[\[b\_1…b\_[2l]{}\]]{}T\^l=\^l\_[r=0]{}e\^[-r]{}L\^N\_[(r)]{}(-\_\^)\^[l-r]{}.And thus finally, taking into account that antisymmetry in the indices will allow only the first two terms in the binomial expansion of $S^{q+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{(d)}^{N+D}&=\nonumber\\
&{}\sum_{l,p,r}\mathcal{C}e^{{\textrm{-}}r\pi}L^N_{(r)}(\pi_{\mu}\pi^{\mu})^{l{\textrm{-}}r}\delta^{\gamma_1\ldots\alpha_{2p}}_{[\delta_1\ldots\beta_{2p}]}\left(\pi_{\gamma_1}^{\delta_1}+\frac{q+1}{2}\pi_{\gamma_1}\pi^{\delta_1} \right)\prod_{i=2}^{q+1}\pi_{\gamma_i}^{\delta_i}\prod_{j=1}^pR^{\beta_{2j{\textrm{-}}1}\beta_{2j}}_{\alpha_{2j{\textrm{-}}1}\alpha_{2j}}\nonumber\\
={}&\sum_r e^{-r\pi}L^N_{(r)}\sum_{n}\mathcal{\tilde C}^n\sum_p\left(\mathcal{D}_p\mathcal{K}^{n}_{p}+\mathcal{C}_p\mathcal{L}^{n}_{p}\right)\label{FF}\\
\equiv{}&\sum_r e^{-r\pi}L^N_{(r)}\sum_{n}\mathcal{\tilde C}^n\left(\mathcal{K}^{n}+\mathcal{L}^{n}\right)\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}&=& \frac{d!}{p!(q+1)!l!}(-2)^{q+1}\frac{(N-2l)!}{(N-m)!}\frac{l!}{(l-r)!r!}\frac{(N-2r)!}{(N-2l)!}(-2)^{r-l}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2}{q+1}\left(\frac{(-2)^{2n+r-d}}{2}\frac{d!}{r!}\frac{(N-2r)!}{(N+n-2d)!}\right)\left(\frac{(-2)^{-3p}}{p!(d-n+p-r)!(n-2p-1)!}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2}{n-2p}\mathcal{\tilde C}^n\mathcal{C}^n_p=\mathcal{\tilde C}^n\mathcal{D}^n_p\,\label{coeff}.\end{aligned}$$
On the second line of (\[FF\]), we changed the summation index $l\rightarrow n$. One can easily verify that the final summation bounds are $0 \leq r \leq d$ for the $r$-summation, while the $n,p$- summation simply runs over all nonzero terms, given the coefficients (\[coeff\]).
Finally, naming all $2n$ indices in the remaining Lovelock-$\delta$ $\mu_i$, such that the $\alpha$’s and $\gamma$’s get odd $i$ and $\beta$’s and $\delta$’s even $i$, we get exactly the form (\[A2n\]) introduced in section \[sec2\], and can adopt the notation of [@DDE]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}^{n}_{p}&=&\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\mathcal{S}(q+1)(\pi_{\nu}\pi^{\ \nu})^{l-p-r}\mathcal{R}(p)\,,\\
\mathcal{L}^{n}_{p}&=&\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\pi_{1}\pi_{2}\mathcal{S}(q)(\pi_{\nu}\pi^{\ \nu})^{l-p-r}\mathcal{R}(p)\,.\end{aligned}$$
$\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{L}$ ambiguity {#divergence}
-----------------------------------
To verify relation (\[KL\]), we first of all introduce $c=d-r-n$ for notational simplicity. One can then rewrite the linear combination $\frac{n+2c}{2}\mathcal{K}^n-2\mathcal{L}^{n+1}$ by using the explicit form of the coefficients (\[coeff\]): $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\sum_{p}\left(\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n}+2\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n+1}\right)\mathcal{S}(q+1)(\partial\pi)^{2c}\mathcal{R}(p)\label{previous}\\
-2\mathcal{A}_{(2n+2)}\sum_p\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n+1}\left(\pi_{2n+1}\pi_{2n+2}\pi_{12}R_{3546}\right)\mathcal{S}(q)(\partial\pi)^{2c}\mathcal{R}(p-1)
\,.\end{gathered}$$ We now factor out all the terms $g^{\mu_{2n+1}\mu_{2i}}$ in $\mathcal{A}_{(2n+2)}$. The highly symmetrical form of the contracted expression reduces these $n+1$ contributions to 3 different forms, in which the index of $\pi_{2n+1}$, is contracted with an (even) index of either $\pi_{2n+2}$, $\pi_{12}$ or $R_{3546}$, respectively. The remaining cofactor is always, after rearranging indices, $\pm\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{(2n+2)}\left(\pi_{2n+1}\pi_{2n+2}\pi_{12}R_{3546}\right)\mathcal{S}(q)\mathcal{R}(p-1)=\\
\Bigl(\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\pi_\kappa\pi^\kappa\pi_{12}R_{3546}-(q+1)\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\pi_2\pi^\kappa\pi_{1\kappa}R_{3546}\\+2p\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\pi_2\pi^\kappa\pi_{14}R_{35\kappa6}\Bigr)\mathcal{S}(q)\mathcal{R}(p-1)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Putting all this in (\[previous\]), we find the first term here canceling the second term on the first line of (\[previous\]), while we will alter the dummy $p\mapsto p+1$ in the last term. This yields for $\frac{n+2c}{2}\mathcal{K}^n-2\mathcal{L}^{n+1}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\sum_{p}\Bigl\lbrack\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n}\mathcal{S}(q+1)(\partial\pi)^{2c}\mathcal{R}(p)+2\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n+1}(q+1)\pi_2\pi^\kappa\pi_{1\kappa}\mathcal{S}(q)\mathcal{R}(p)(\partial\pi)^{2c-2}
\\
-2\mathcal{C}_{p+1}^{n+1}2(p+1)\pi_2\pi^\kappa\pi_{14}R_{35\kappa6}
\mathcal{S}(q-2)\mathcal{R}(p)(\partial\pi)^{2c}\Bigr\rbrack
\,,\end{gathered}$$ which, using again the explicit form of the coefficients (\[coeff\]), becomes: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_p\mathcal{C}_{p}^{n}\left(\pi_{12}\pi_{34}(\partial\pi)^{2}+2(c+p)\pi_2\pi^\kappa\pi_{1\kappa}\pi_{34}+\frac{q}{2}\pi_2\pi^\kappa (\partial\pi)^{2}R_{31\kappa4}\right)\\
\mathcal{S}(q-1)\mathcal{R}(p)(\partial\pi)^{2c-2}\,.\end{gathered}$$ Finally, it is easily verified, using the anti-symmetry of $\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}$ in combination with the Bianchi identity, that this last expression is nothing but $\nabla_1\left(\pi_2\mathcal{A}_{(2n)}\sum_p\mathcal{C}_p^n\mathcal{S}(q)\mathcal{R}(p)(\partial\pi)^{2c}\right)$, proving the relation: \^n-2\^[n+1]{}=\_1(\_2\_[(2n)]{}\_p\_p\^n(q)(p)()\^[2c]{}).
[1]{}
A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini. arxiv:0811.2197. , 79:64036, 2008.
D. B. Fairlie, J. Govaerts, and A. Morozov, Nucl. Phys. [**B373**]{}, 214 (1992); D. B. Fairlie and J. Govaerts, J. Math. Phys. [**33**]{}, 3543 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9204074\].
A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0406**]{} (2004) 059 \[arXiv:hep-th/0404159\]; S. Endlich, K. Hinterbichler, L. Hui, A. Nicolis and J. Wang, arXiv:1002.4873 \[hep-th\]. T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{} (2010) 231302 \[arXiv:1008.0603 \[hep-th\]\]; S. Mizuno and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 103518 \[arXiv:1009.0677 \[hep-th\]\]; C. Burrage, C. de Rham, D. Seery and A. J. Tolley, JCAP [**1101**]{} (2011) 014 \[arXiv:1009.2497 \[hep-th\]\]; P. Creminelli, G. D’Amico, M. Musso, J. Norena and E. Trincherini, arXiv:1011.3004 \[hep-th\]; K. Kamada, T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, arXiv:1012.4238 \[astro-ph.CO\]. N. Chow, J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 024037. \[arXiv:0905.1325 \[hep-th\]\]; F. PSilva, K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 121301. \[arXiv:0909.4538 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; T. Kobayashi, H. Tashiro, D. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. [**D81** ]{} (2010) 063513. \[arXiv:0912.4641 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 103533 \[arXiv:1003.3281 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; R. Gannouji and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 024011 \[arXiv:1004.2808 \[gr-qc\]\]; A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP [**1007**]{} (2010) 024 \[arXiv:1005.0868 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{} (2010) 111301 \[arXiv:1007.2700 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; A. Ali, R. Gannouji and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 103015 \[arXiv:1008.1588 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, arXiv:1008.4236 \[hep-th\]; D. F. Mota, M. Sandstad and T. Zlosnik, arXiv:1009.6151 \[astro-ph.CO\]; S. Nesseris, A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, arXiv:1010.0407 \[astro-ph.CO\]; A. De Felice, R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, \[arXiv:1011.6132 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman, JCAP [**1010**]{} (2010) 026 \[arXiv:1008.0048 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Van Acoleyen, \[arXiv:0907.4116 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. Burrage and D. Seery, JCAP [**1008**]{} (2010) 011 \[arXiv:1005.1927 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Hui, A. Nicolis, C. Stubbs, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 104002. \[arXiv:0905.2966 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; L. Hui, A. Nicolis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105** ]{} (2010) 231101. \[arXiv:1009.2520 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. [**D79** ]{} (2009) 084003. \[arXiv:0901.1314 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Deffayet, S. Deser, G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 064015. \[arXiv:0906.1967 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley, JCAP [**1005**]{} (2010) 015 \[arXiv:1003.5917 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. [**12** ]{} (1971) 498-501.
F. Mueller-Hoissen, Nucl. Phys. B [**337**]{} (1990) 709; A. Dimakis and F. Mueller-Hoissen, Class. Quant. Grav. [**8**]{} (1991) 2093. T. Kobayashi and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 084005 \[arXiv:gr-qc/0412139\].
L. Amendola, C. Charmousis and S. C. Davis, JCAP [**0612**]{} (2006) 020 \[arXiv:hep-th/0506137\]. S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 103505 \[arXiv:0910.0980 \[gr-qc\]\]. L. Amendola, C. Charmousis, S. C. Davis, JCAP [**0710** ]{} (2007) 004. \[arXiv:0704.0175 \[astro-ph\]\].
E. N. Saridakis, S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. [**D81** ]{} (2010) 083510. \[arXiv:1002.3478 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. Germani and A. Kehagias, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{} (2010) 011302 \[arXiv:1003.2635 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. Germani and A. Kehagias, arXiv:1012.0853 \[hep-ph\].
A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin and S. Y. Zhou, JHEP [**1012**]{} (2010) 031 \[arXiv:1007.5424 \[hep-th\]\]; K. Hinterbichler, M. Trodden and D. Wesley, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 124018 \[arXiv:1008.1305 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Deffayet, S. Deser and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 061501 \[arXiv:1007.5278 \[gr-qc\]\].
[^1]: E-mail: [[email protected], [email protected] ]{}
[^2]: Such purely second order terms necessarily have the Galilean symmetry for all fields involved. Which in this case means: $\pi\rightarrow \pi+c+c_\mu x^\mu$ and $h_{\alpha\beta}\rightarrow h_{\alpha\beta}+d_{\alpha\beta}+d_{\alpha\beta\mu}x^\mu $.
[^3]: Omitting the cosmological constant $L^D_{(0)}$.
[^4]: These terms still have the ordinary shift-symmetry $\pi\rightarrow
\pi+c$.
[^5]: Note that all Lovelock-invariants are total derivatives at leading order in the weak-field expansion. It is only for the next-to-leading-order term that the equations are non-trivial. Counting the number of fields and derivatives as in the previous section, we indeed have $n_f=n_d/2+1$ for this term. Likewise, for the Lovelock invariant multiplied by $\pi$ we have the same relation, now at leading order in the weak-field expansion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Precise measurements of $b\to c\tau\bar\nu$ decays require large resource-intensive Monte Carlo (MC) samples, which incorporate detailed simulations of detector responses and physics backgrounds. Extracted parameters may be highly sensitive to the underlying theoretical models used in the MC generation. Because new physics (NP) can alter decay distributions and acceptances, the standard practice of fitting NP Wilson coefficients to SM-based measurements of the $R({D^{(*)}})$ ratios can be biased. The newly developed [`Hammer`]{}software tool enables efficient reweighting of MC samples to arbitrary NP scenarios or to any hadronic matrix elements. We demonstrate how [`Hammer`]{}allows avoidance of biases through self-consistent fits directly to the NP Wilson coefficients. We also present example analyses that demonstrate the sizeable biases that can otherwise occur from naive NP interpretations of SM-based measurements. The [`Hammer`]{}library is presently interfaced with several existing experimental analysis frameworks and we provide an overview of its structure.'
author:
- 'Florian U. Bernlochner'
- Stephan Duell
- Zoltan Ligeti
- '\[0pt\]\[0pt\][{width="1.2cm"}]{} Michele Papucci'
- 'Dean J. Robinson'
bibliography:
- 'hammerbib.bib'
date:
- 'Received: ... / Accepted: ...'
-
title: 'Das ist der HAMMER: Consistent new physics interpretations of semileptonic decays'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Precision analyses of semileptonic $b$-hadron decays typically rely on detailed numerical Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of detector responses and acceptances. Combined with the underlying theoretical models, these simulations provide MC *templates* that may be used in fits, to translate experimental yields into theoretically well-defined parameters. This translation though can become sensitive to the template and its underlying theoretical model, introducing biases whenever there is a mismatch between the theoretical assumptions used to measure a parameter and subsequent theoretical interpretations of the data.
Such biases are known to arise in the analyses of semileptonic decays of $b$ hadrons, in particular, for the measurements of the CKM element $|V_{cb}|$, and the ratio of semitauonic vs. semileptonic decays to light leptons, $$\label{RMdef}
R(H_c) = \frac{\Gamma(H_b\to H_c\tau\bar\nu)}{\Gamma(H_b\to H_c l\bar\nu)}\,,
\qquad l = \mu, \,e\,,$$ where $H_{b,c}$ denote $b$- and $c$-flavor hadrons. To avoid this, the size of these biases need to be either carefully controlled when experiments quote their results by reversing detector effects, or they can be avoided by using dedicated MC samples for each theoretical model the measurement is confronted with. In this paper we present the newly developed tool, [`Hammer`]{} (*Helicity Amplitude Module for Matrix Element Reweighting*), designed expressly for the latter purpose.
Semitauonic $b$ hadron decays have long been known to be sensitive to new physics [@Krawczyk:1987zj; @Heiliger:1989yp; @Kalinowski:1990ba; @Grzadkowski:1991kb; @Grossman:1994ax; @Tanaka:1994ay; @Goldberger:1999yh], and were first constrained at LEP [@Buskulic:1992um]. At present, the measurements of the $R({D^{(*)}})$ ratios show about a $3\sigma$ tension with SM predictions, when the $D$ and $D^*$ modes are combined [@Amhis:2019ckw]. In the future, much more precise measurements of semitauonic decays are expected, not only for the $B\to D^{(*)}\tau\bar\nu$ channels, but also for the not yet studied decay modes, $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda_c\tau\bar\nu$, $B_s\to D_s^{(*)}\tau\bar\nu$, as well as involving excited charm hadrons in the final state.
All existing measurements of $R({D^{(*)}})$ rely heavily on large MC simulations to optimize selections, provide fit templates in discriminating kinematic observables, and to model resolution effects and acceptances. Both the $\tau$ and the charm hadrons have short lifetimes and decay near the interaction point and measurements rely on reconstruction of the ensuing decay cascades. To reconstruct the decay products, often complex phase space cuts and detector efficiency dependencies come into play, and the measurement of the full decay kinematics is impossible due to the presence of multiple neutrinos. In addition, depending on the final state, a significant downfeed with similar experimental signatures from misreconstructed excited charm hadron states can be present. Isolation of semitauonic decays from other background processes and the light-lepton final states, then requires precise predictions for the kinematics of the signal semitauonic decay.[^1] Often the limited size of the available simulated samples, required to account for all these effects, constitutes a dominant uncertainty of the measurements, see e.g. [@Lees:2013uzd; @Aaij:2015yra; @Huschle:2015rga].
In the literature on the $R({D^{(*)}})$ anomaly, it has become standard practice to reinterpret the experimental values of $R({D^{(*)}})$ in terms of NP Wilson coefficients, even though all current ratio measurements were determined assuming the SM nature of semitauonic decays. However, NP couplings generically alter decay distributions and acceptances. Therefore, they modify the signal and possibly background MC templates used in the extraction, and thus affect the measured values of $R({D^{(*)}})$. This may introduce biases in NP interpretations: preferred regions and best-fit points for the Wilson coefficients can be incorrect; an instructive example of this is provided in Sec \[subsec:NP\_bias\].
Consistent interpretations of the data with NP incorporated requires dedicated MC samples, ideally for each NP coupling value considered, which would permit directly fitting for the NP Wilson coefficients. This approach is sometimes referred to as ‘forward-folding’, and is naively a computationally prohibitively expensive endeavour. Such a program is further complicated because none of the MC generators current used by the experiments incorporate generic NP effects, nor do they include state-of-the-art treatments of hadronic matrix elements.
In this paper we present a new software tool, [`Hammer`]{}, that provides a solution to these problems: A fast and efficient means to reweight large MC samples to any desired NP, or to any description of the hadronic matrix elements. [`Hammer`]{}makes use of efficient amplitude-level and tensorial calculation strategies, and is designed to interface with existing experimental analysis frameworks, providing detailed control over which NP or hadronic descriptions should be considered. The desired reweighting can be implemented either in the event weights or in histograms of experimentally reconstructed quantities (both further discussed in Sec. \[sec:code\]). The only required input are the event-level truth-four-momenta of existing MC samples. Either the event weights and/or histogram predictions may be used, e.g., to generate likelihood functions for experimental fits. Some of the main ideas of [`Hammer`]{}were previously outlined in Refs. [@Ligeti:2016npd; @Duell:2016maj].
In Sec. \[sec:NP\_ana\] we demonstrate the capabilities of [`Hammer`]{}by performing binned likelihood fits on mock measured and simulated data sets, that are created using the [`Hammer`]{} library, and corrected using an approximate detector response. In Sec. \[sec:code\] a brief overview of the [`Hammer`]{} library and its capabilities are given. Section \[sec:summary\] provides a summary of our findings. Finally, Appendix \[sec:API\] provides a detailed overview of the [`Hammer`]{} application programming interface.
New physics analyses {#sec:NP_ana}
====================
We consider two different analysis scenarios:
1. In order to explore what biases may arise in phenomenological studies if NP is present in Nature, we perform an illustrative $R({D^{(*)}})$ toy measurement. This involves carrying out SM fits to mockups of measured data sets, that are generated for several different NP models. The recovered $R({D^{(*)}})$ values are then compared to their actual NP values.
2. To demonstrate using a forward-folded analysis to assess NP effects without biases, we carry out fits to (combinations of) NP Wilson coefficients themselves, with either the SM or other NP present in the mock measured data sets.
The setting of these analyses is a $B$-factory-type environment. We focus on leptonic $\tau$ decays, but the procedures and results in this work are equally adaptable to the LHCb environment, and other $\tau$ decay modes or observables.
We emphasize that the derived sensitivities shown below are not intended to illustrate projections for actual experimental sensitivities *per se*. Such studies are better carried out by the experiments themselves.
MC sample
---------
The input Monte Carlo sample used for our demonstration comprises four distinct sets of $10^5$ events: one for each of the two signal cascades $B \to D (\tau \to e\nu\nu)\nu$, $B \to (D^* \to D\pi) (\tau \to e\nu\nu) \nu$ and for the two background processes, $B \to D e\nu$ and $B \to (D^* \to D\pi) e\nu$. These are generated with `EvtGen R01-07-00` [@Lange:2001uf], using the Belle II beam energies of $7$GeV and $4$GeV. The second $B$ meson decay, often used for identifying or ‘tagging’ the $B\bar B$ event and constraining its kinematic properties, are not included in the current analysis for simplicity, but can be incorporated in a [`Hammer`]{}analysis straightforwardly.
In each cascade, the $b \to c l \nu$ vertices are generated equidistributed in phase space (“pure phase space“) instead of using SM distributions. This reduces the statistical uncertainties that can otherwise arise from reweighting regions of phase space that are undersampled in the SM to NP scenarios in which they are not.[^2]
Reweighting and fitting analysis {#sec:rwgt}
--------------------------------
[`Hammer`]{}is used to reweight the MC samples into two-dimensional ‘NP generalized’ histograms (see Sec. \[sec:code\]), with respect to the reconstructed observables $| \vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$, the light lepton momentum in the $B$ rest frame and the total missing invariant mass of all neutrinos, respectively. Both variables are well-suited for separating signal from background decays involving only light leptons. In the cascade process of the leptonic $\tau$ decay in $B \to D^{(*)} \tau \nu$, the signal lepton carries less momentum than the lepton from prompt $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ decays. Similarly, the missing invariant mass of $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ decays peaks strongly near $m_\nu^2 \simeq 0$, in contrast to $B \to D^{(*)} \tau \nu$ in which the multiple neutrinos in the final state permit large values of $m^2_{\text{miss}}$.
The $B \to {D^{(*)}}$ processes are reweighted to the BLPR form factor parametrization [@Bernlochner:2017jka], which includes predictions for NP hadronic matrix elements using HQET [@Isgur:1989vq; @Isgur:1989ed; @Eichten:1989zv; @Georgi:1990um] at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_{c,b},\, \alpha_s)$.
Charged particles are required to fall in the Belle II angular acceptance of $20^\circ$ and $150^\circ$, and leptons are required to have a minimum kinetic energy of $300$MeV in the laboratory frame. An additional event weight is included to account for the slow pion reconstruction efficiencies from the $D^* \to D\pi$ decay, based on an approximate fit to the pion reconstruction efficiency curve from BaBar data [@Lees:2012xj; @Lees:2013uzd]. The analysis assumes that the second tagging $B$ meson decay was reconstructed in hadronic modes, such that its four-momentum, $p_{B_{\rm tag}}$, is accessible. In conjunction with the known beam four-momentum $p_{e^+ \, e^-}$, the missing invariant mass can then be reconstructed as $m^2_{\text{miss}} \equiv (p_{e^+ \, e^-} - p_{B_{\rm tag}} - p_{{D^{(*)}}} - p_\ell)^2$, and the four-momentum of the reconstructed lepton can be boosted into the signal $B$ rest frame. A Gaussian smearing is added to the truth level $m^2_{\text{miss}}$ with a width of $0.5$GeV$^2$ to account for detector resolution and tagging-$B$ reconstruction. No additional correction is applied to $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$. Higher dimensional histograms including the reconstructed $q^2$ and the $D^* \to D\pi$ helicity angle may also be incorporated, but are omitted here for simplicity.
[`Hammer`]{} can be used to efficiently compute histograms for any given NP choice. The basis of NP operators is defined in Table \[tab:NPc\], with respect to the Lagrangian $$\label{Ltimesi}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt 2}\, V_{cb}\, c_{XY}\big({\bar{c}}\, \Gamma_X\, b\big)\big(\bar\ell\, \Gamma_Y\, \nu\big)\,,$$ where $\Gamma_{X(Y)}$ is any Dirac matrix and $c_{XY}$ is a Wilson coefficient. We shall generally write explicit Wilson coefficients as $c_{XY} = S_{qXlY}$, $V_{qXlY}$, $T_{qXlY}$, where the $S$, $V$, $T$ denotes the Lorentz structure, and $X$, $Y$ = $L$, $R$ denotes the chirality. In this simplified analysis, we assume that NP only affects the $b \to c \tau \nu$ decays, and not the light-lepton modes.
In order to carry out Wilson coefficient fits, we wrap the [`Hammer`]{}application programming interface with a `gammaCombo` [@Aaij:2016kjh] compatible class. This allows one to use [`Hammer`]{}’s efficient reweighting of histogram bins to generate the relevant quantities required to calculate a likelihood function. We then carry out a fully two-dimensional binned likelihood fit in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$, assuming Gaussian uncertainties. The fit uses $12 \times 12$ bins with equidistant bin widths for $|\vec p^*_{\ell}| \in (0.2,\, 2.2)$GeV and $m^2_{\text{miss}} \in (-2,\, 10)$GeV${}^{2}$. The fits determine either $R({D^{(*)}})$, or the real and imaginary parts of Wilson coefficients. The preferred SM coupling is determined simultaneously, in order to remove explicit dependence on $|V_{cb}|$.
\#1\#2\#3
We construct an Asimov data set [@Cowan:2010js] assuming the fractions and total number of events in Table \[tab:asimov\], following from the number of events in Ref. [@Lees:2012xj; @Lees:2013uzd]. In the scans, the total number of events corresponds to an approximate integrated luminosity of $5 \, \text{ab}^{-1}$ of Belle II collisions. We assume events are reconstructed in two categories targeting $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$ and $B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$. A fit for the real and imaginary parts of a single Wilson coefficient plus the (real) SM coupling thus has $2 \times 12 \times 12 - 3 = 285$ degrees of freedom.
[D|E|F]{} $ B \to D \tau \bar \nu$ Category & Fractions & Events / $\text{ab}^{-1}$\
$ B \to D \tau \bar \nu$ & 5.6% & 800\
$ B \to D^{*} \tau \bar \nu$ & 2.3% & 325\
$ B \to D\ell \bar \nu$ & 49.4% & 7000\
$ B \to D^{*} \ell \bar \nu$ & 40.6% & 5750\
Irreducible background & 2.0% &288\
$ B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$ Category & Fractions & Events / $\text{ab}^{-1}$\
$ B \to D^{*} \tau \bar \nu$ & 5.4% & 950\
$ B \to D^{*} \ell \bar \nu$ & 93.0% & 16500\
Irreducible background & 1.6% &288\
A sizable downfeed background from $D^*$ mesons misreconstructed as a $D$ is expected in the $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$ channel via both the $B \to D^* \, \tau \bar \nu$ and $B \to D^* \, \ell \bar \nu$ decays. This is taken into account by partitioning the simulated $B \to D^*\tau\nu$ and $B \to D^*\ell\nu$ events into two samples: One with the correct $m^2_{\text{miss}} = (p_B - p_{D^*} - p_\ell)^2$ and the other with the misreconstructed $m^2_{\text{miss}} = (p_B - p_{D} - p_\ell)^2$, which omits the slow pion. This downfeed reduces the sensitivity for the case that NP couplings induce opposite effects on the $B \to D \tau \bar \nu$ versus $B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$ total rates or shapes. In addition to semileptonic processes, we assume the presence of an irreducible background from secondaries (i.e., leptons from semileptonic $D$ meson decays), fake leptons (i.e., hadrons that were misidentified as leptons) and semileptonic decays from higher charm resonances (i.e., $D^{**}$ states). The irreducible background is modeled in a simplified manner by assuming $10$ background events in each of the $12 \times 12$ bins, totaling overall $1440$ events per category.
Figure \[fig:NP\_D\_Ds\_ratio\] shows the impact on the fit variables of three benchmark models that we use to investigate the effects of new physics:
i) The $R_2$ leptoquark model, which sets $S_{qLlL} \simeq 8 \, T_{qLlL}$ (see, e.g., Refs. [@Dorsner:2016wpm; @Freytsis:2015qca]);
ii) A pure tensor model, via $T_{qLlL}$;
iii) A right-handed vector model, via $V_{qRlL}$.
For the ratio plots in Fig. \[fig:NP\_D\_Ds\_ratio\], we fix the NP Wilson coefficients to specific values to illustrate the shape changes they induce in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$. The $R_2$ leptoquark model and tensor model exhibit sizable shape changes. The right-handed vector model shows only an overall normalization change for $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$, with no change in shape compared to the SM, because the axial-vector $B \to D$ hadronic matrix element vanishes by parity and angular momentum conservation. For $B \to D^*$, both vector and axial vector matrix elements are nonzero, so that introducing a right-handed vector current leads to shape and normalization changes.
Figure \[fig:NP\_D\_Ds\] shows the projections of the constructed Asimov data set, as well as the distributions expected for the three NP models. The latter have the same couplings as those shown in Fig. \[fig:NP\_D\_Ds\_ratio\].
![The ratios of various Wilson coefficient working points to the SM in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$ are shown. The coupling strengths assumed are shown in the legend. For more details see text.[]{data-label="fig:NP_D_Ds_ratio"}](figures/LQ_T_ratios){width="\columnwidth"}
![ The $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$ (top) and $B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$ (bottom) distributions in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$ in the Asimov data set. The number of events correspond to an estimated number of reconstructed events at Belle II with $5 \, \text{ab}^{-1}$. []{data-label="fig:NP_D_Ds"}](figures/LQ_T_diff_D "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}\
![ The $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$ (top) and $B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$ (bottom) distributions in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$ in the Asimov data set. The number of events correspond to an estimated number of reconstructed events at Belle II with $5 \, \text{ab}^{-1}$. []{data-label="fig:NP_D_Ds"}](figures/LQ_T_diff_Ds "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}\
![ The $B \to D \, \tau \bar \nu$ (top) and $B \to D^* \tau \bar \nu$ (bottom) distributions in $|\vec p^*_{\ell}|$ and $m^2_{\text{miss}}$ in the Asimov data set. The number of events correspond to an estimated number of reconstructed events at Belle II with $5 \, \text{ab}^{-1}$. []{data-label="fig:NP_D_Ds"}](figures/LQ_T_axis "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
$R(D^{(*)})$ biases from new physics truth {#subsec:NP_bias}
------------------------------------------
Many NP analyses and global fits to the $R({D^{(*)}})$ measurements – together with other potentially template-sensitive observables, including $q^2$ spectra – have been carried out by a range of phenomenological studies (see, e.g., Refs. [@Dorsner:2016wpm; @Freytsis:2015qca; @Aebischer:2018iyb; @Asadi:2019xrc; @Bardhan:2019ljo; @Bhattacharya:2018kig; @Murgui:2019czp; @Azatov:2018knx; @Buttazzo:2017ixm]). As mentioned above, the standard practice has been to fit NP predictions to the world-average values of $R({D^{(*)}})$ (and other data) to determine confidence levels for allowed and excluded NP couplings. However, because the $R({D^{(*)}})$ measurements use SM-based templates, and because the presence of NP operators can strongly alter acceptances and kinematic distributions, such analyses can lead to incorrect best-fit values or exclusions of NP Wilson coefficients.
To illustrate such a bias, we fit SM MC templates to NP Asimov data sets, that are generated with [`Hammer`]{}for two different NP ‘truth’ benchmark points: the 2HDM Type II with $S_{qRlL} = -2$, corresponding to $\tan \beta / m_{H^+} \simeq 0.5$GeV$^{-1}$; and the $R_2$ leptoquark model with $S_{qLlL} = 8 \, T_{qLlL} = 0.25 + 0.25\, i$. (These models and couplings are for illustration and are arbitrary choices; our goal here is only to demonstrate the generic biases that can occur.) We replicate the fit of all existing measurements, allowing the normalizations of the $D$ and $D^*$ modes (and the light leptonic final states) to float independently, without imposing e.g. their predicted SM relationship. This fit leads to a best-fit ellipse in the $R(D)$–$R(D^*)$ plane.
In Fig. \[fig:NP\_bias\] we show the recovered values, $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{rec}}$, obtained from this procedure, and compare them to the actual predictions of the given NP truth benchmark point, $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{th}}$. For ease of comparison, we normalize the $R({D^{(*)}})$ values against the SM predictions for $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{SM}}$. For both NP models, the recovered ratios from fitting the Asimov data set exclude the truth $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{th}}$ values at $\gtrsim 4\sigma$. This illustrates the sizeable bias in the measured $R({D^{(*)}})$ values that ensues from carrying out fits with an SM template, if instead NP actually contributes to the measurements.
We also show in Fig. \[fig:NP\_bias\] the equivalent bias arising from a naïve fit of the $R({D^{(*)}})$ NP prediction that attempts to recover the complex Wilson coefficient. This is done by parametrizing $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{th}} = R({D^{(*)}})[c_{XY}]$, and fitting this expression to the recovered $R({D^{(*)}})_{\text{rec}}$ values. Explicitly, one calculates CLs in the Wilson coefficient space via the 2 degree of freedom chi-square $\chi^2 = \bm{v}^T \sigma_{R({D^{(*)}})}^{-1} \bm{v}$, with $ \bm{v} = \big(R(D)_{\text{th}} - R(D)_{\text{rec}}\,, R(D^*)_{\text{th}} - R(D^*)_{\text{rec}}\big)$. The resulting best fit Wilson coefficient regions similarly exclude the truth values.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Thus, the allowed or excluded regions of NP couplings determined from fits to the $R({D^{(*)}})$ measurements must be treated with caution, as these fits do not include effects of the NP distributions in the MC templates. Similarly, results of global fits should be interpreted carefully when assessing the level of compatibility with specific NP scenarios.
New physics Wilson coefficient fits
-----------------------------------
Instead of considering observables like $R({D^{(*)}})$, for phenomenological studies to be able to properly make interpretations and test NP models, experiments should provide direct constraints on NP Wilson coefficients themselves. For example, this could be done with simplified likelihood ratios that profile out all irrelevant nuisance parameters from, e.g., systematic uncertainties or information from sidebands or control channels, or by other means.
As an example, we now use [`Hammer`]{}to perform such a fit for the real and imaginary parts of the NP Wilson coefficients, using the set of three NP models in Sec. \[sec:rwgt\] as templates. These are fit to the same two truth benchmark scenarios as in Fig. \[fig:NP\_Scan\]: a truth SM Asimov data set; and a truth Asimov data set reweighted to the 2HDM Type II with $S_{qRlL} = -2$.
Figure \[fig:NP\_Scan\] shows in shades of red the 68%, 95% and 99% confidence levels (CLs) of the three NP model scans of SM Asimov data sets. For the SM truth benchmark, the corresponding best fit points are always at zero NP couplings. The derived CLs then correspond to the expected median exclusion of the fitted NP coupling under the assumption the SM is true.
![ The 68%, 95% and 99% CL allowed regions of three models under consideration, from fitting the SM (red) and 2HDM type II (yellow and with $S_{qRlL} = -2$) Asimov data sets. (Top) $R_2$ leptoquark model with $S_{qLlL} = 8 T_{qLlL}$; (middle) NP in the form of a left-handed tensor coupling; (bottom) NP in the form of a right-handed vector coupling. []{data-label="fig:NP_Scan"}](figures/Scan_LQ_S_qLlL_2HDM "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![ The 68%, 95% and 99% CL allowed regions of three models under consideration, from fitting the SM (red) and 2HDM type II (yellow and with $S_{qRlL} = -2$) Asimov data sets. (Top) $R_2$ leptoquark model with $S_{qLlL} = 8 T_{qLlL}$; (middle) NP in the form of a left-handed tensor coupling; (bottom) NP in the form of a right-handed vector coupling. []{data-label="fig:NP_Scan"}](figures/Scan_T_qLlL_2HDM "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![ The 68%, 95% and 99% CL allowed regions of three models under consideration, from fitting the SM (red) and 2HDM type II (yellow and with $S_{qRlL} = -2$) Asimov data sets. (Top) $R_2$ leptoquark model with $S_{qLlL} = 8 T_{qLlL}$; (middle) NP in the form of a left-handed tensor coupling; (bottom) NP in the form of a right-handed vector coupling. []{data-label="fig:NP_Scan"}](figures/Scan_V_qRlL_2HDM "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We further show in shades of yellow the same fit CLs for the 2HDM truth benchmark Asimov data set. These latter fits illustrate a scenario in which NP is present, but is analyzed with an incomplete or incorrect set of NP Wilson coefficients. Depending on the set of coefficients, we see from the $\Delta \chi^2$ of the best fit points that the new physics might be obfuscated or wrongly identified. This underlines the importance for LHCb and Belle II to eventually carry out an analysis with the full set of operators listed in Table \[tab:NPc\].
The [`Hammer`]{}library {#sec:code}
=======================
In this section we present core interface features and calculational strategies of the [`Hammer`]{}library. Details of the code structure, implementation, and use, can be found in the [`Hammer`]{}manual [@hammer_manual]; here we provide only an overview.
Reweighting
-----------
We consider an MC event sample, comprising a set of events indexed by $I$, with weights $w_I$ and truth-level kinematics $\{q\}_I$. Reweighting this sample from an ‘old’ to a ‘new’ theory requires the truth-level computation of the ratio of the differential rates $$\label{eqn:renorm}
r_I = \frac{ d \Gamma^{\text{new}}_I/d {\mathcal{PS}}}{d \Gamma^{\text{old}}_I/d {\mathcal{PS}}}\,,$$ applied event-by-event via the mapping $w_I \mapsto r_I w_I$. The ‘old’ or ‘input’ or ‘denominator’ theory is typically the SM plus (where relevant) a hadronic model — that is, a form factor (FF) parametrization. (It may also be composed of pure phase space (PS) elements, see App. \[app:spec\].) The ‘new’ or ‘output’ or ‘numerator’ theory may involve NP beyond the Standard Model, or a different hadronic model, or both.
Historically, the primary focus of the library is reweighting of $b \to c\ell\nu$ semileptonic processes, often in multistep cascades such as $B \to D^{(*,**)}(\to DY)\, \tau(\to X\nu) \bar\nu$. However, the library’s computational structure is designed to be generalized beyond these processes, and we therefore frame the following discussion in general terms, before returning to the specific case of semileptonic decays.
New Physics generalizations {#sec:NPgen}
---------------------------
The [`Hammer`]{}library is designed for the reweighting of processes via theories of the form $$\mathcal{L} = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha\, \mathcal{O}_\alpha\,.$$ where $\mathcal{O}_\alpha$ are a basis of operators, and $c_\alpha$, are SM or NP Wilson coefficients (defined at a fixed physical scale; mixing of the Wilson coefficients under RG evolution, if relevant, must be accounted for externally to the library). We specify in Table \[tab:NPc\] the conventions used for various $b \to c\ell\nu$ four-Fermi operators and other processes included in the library.
The corresponding process amplitudes may be expressed as linear combinations $c_\alpha \mathcal{A}_\alpha$. They may also be further expressed as a linear sum with respect to a basis of form factors, $F_i$, that encode the physics of hadronic transitions (if any).[^3] In general, then, an amplitude may be written in the form $$\mathcal{M}^{\{s\}}\big(\{q\}\big) = \sum_{\alpha, i} c_\alpha \, F_i\big(\{q\}\big) \, \mathcal{A}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha i}\big(\{q\}\big)\,,$$ in which $\{s\}$ are a set of external quantum numbers and $\{q\}$ the set of four-momenta.[^4] The object $\mathcal{A}_{\alpha i}$ is an NP- and FF-generalized *amplitude tensor*. In the case of cascades, relevant for $B \to D^{(*,**)}(\to DY)\, \tau(\to X\nu) \bar\nu$ decays, the amplitude tensor may itself be the product of several subamplitudes, summed over several sets of internal quantum numbers. The corresponding polarized differential rate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:WgtTen}
\frac{d\Gamma^{\{s\}}}{d{\mathcal{PS}}} & = \!\! \sum_{\alpha, i, \beta, j} \!\! c_\alpha c_\beta^\dagger \, F_i F_j^\dagger\!\big(\{q\}\big) \, \mathcal{A}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha i}\mathcal{A}^{\dagger\{s\}}_{\beta j}\!\big(\{q\}\big) \,, \notag \\
& = \!\! \sum_{\alpha, i, \beta, j} \!\! c_\alpha c_\beta^\dagger \, F_i F_j^\dagger\!\big(\{q\}\big) \,\mathcal{W}_{\alpha i \beta j}\,,\end{aligned}$$ in which the phase space differential form $d{\mathcal{PS}}$ includes on-shell $\delta$-functions and geometric or combinatoric factors, as appropriate.
The outer product of the amplitude tensor, defined as $\mathcal{W} \equiv \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A}^\dagger$, is a *weight tensor*. The object $\sum_{ij} F_i F_j^\dagger \mathcal{W}_{\alpha i \beta j}$ in Eq. is independent of the Wilson coefficients: Once this object is computed for a specific $\{q\}$ – an event – it can be contracted with any choice of NP to generate an event weight. Similarly, on a patch of phase space $\Omega$ — e.g., the acceptance of a detector or a bin of a histogram — the marginal rate can now be written as $$\Gamma^{\{s\}}_{\Omega} = \sum_{\alpha, \beta} c_\alpha c_\beta^\dagger \int_\Omega d{\mathcal{PS}}\, \sum_{ij} F_i F_j^\dagger\big(\{q\}\big) \mathcal{W}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha i \beta_j} \big(\{q\}\big)\,.$$ The Wilson coefficients factor out of the phase space integral, so that the integral itself generates a NP-generalized tensor. After it is computed once, it can be contracted with any choice of NP Wilson coefficients, $c_\alpha$, thereafter.
The core of [`Hammer`]{}’s computational philosophy is based on the observation that this contraction is computationally much more efficient than the initial computation (and integration). Hence efficient reweighting is achieved by
- Computing NP (and/or FF, see below) generalized objects, and storing them;
- Contracting them thereafter for any given NP (and/or FF) choice to quickly generate a desired NP (and/or FF) weight.
[D|E]{} Process &\
$B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, BGL$^{*}$, CLN$^{*\ddagger}$, BLPR$^{\ddagger}$\
$B \to (D^* \to D \pi) \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, BGL$^{*\ddagger}$, CLN$^{*\ddagger}$, BLPR$^{\ddagger}$\
$B \to (D^* \to D\gamma) \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, BGL$^{*\ddagger}$, CLN$^{*\ddagger}$, BLPR$^{\ddagger}$\
$\tau \to \pi \nu$ &\
$\tau \to \ell \nu \nu$ &\
$\tau \to 3\pi \nu$ & RCT$^*$\
$ B \to D^*_0 \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, LLSW$^*$, BLR$^{\ddagger}$\
$ B \to D^*_1 \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, LLSW$^*$, BLR$^{\ddagger}$\
$ B \to D_1 \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, LLSW$^*$, BLR$^{\ddagger}$\
$ B \to D^*_2 \ell \nu$ & ISGW2$^*$, LLSW$^*$, BLR$^{\ddagger}$\
$\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c \ell \nu$ & PCR$^*$, BLRS$^{\ddagger}$\
\
$ B_{(c)} \to \ell \nu$ & MSbar\
$ B \to (\rho \to \pi\pi)\ell \nu$ & BCL$^*$, BSZ\
$ B \to (\omega \to \pi\pi\pi)\ell \nu$ & BCL$^*$, BSZ\
$ B_c \to (J\!/\!\psi \to \ell\ell)\ell \nu$ &\
$ \Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c^* \ell \nu$ & PCR$^*$, BLRS\
$\tau \to 4\pi \nu$ & RCT$^*$\
$\tau \to (\rho \to \pi\pi)\nu$ &\
Form factor generalizations
---------------------------
Similarly to the NP Wilson coefficients, it is often desirable to be able to vary the FF parameterizations themselves. For instance, one might contemplate variations along the error eigenbasis of a fit to the FF parameters, or FF parametrizations that are linearized with respect to a basis of parameters, such as the BGL parametrization [@Grinstein:2017nlq; @Boyd:1995sq; @Boyd:1997kz] in $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$. To this end, an FF parametrization with a parameter set $\{\mu\}$ can be linearized around a (best-fit) point, $\{\mu^0\}$ so that $$\label{eqn:FFerr}
F_{i}\big(\{q\}; \{\mu\}\big) = F_i\big(\{q\}, \{\mu^0\}\big) + \sum_{a} F'_{i,a}\big(\{q\}, \{\mu^0\}\big)\,e_a\,,$$ where ‘$a$’ is one or more *variational indices* and $e_{a}$ is the variation. In the language of the error eigenbasis case, $F'_{i,a}$ is the perturbation of $F_i$ in the $a$th principal component $e_{a}$ of the parametric fit correlation matrix.
Defining $\xi_a \equiv (1, e_a)$ and $\Phi_{i,a+1} \equiv (F_{i}, F'_{i,a})$, so that Eq. becomes $$\sum_{a} \xi_a \Phi_{i,a} = F_{i} + \sum_{a'} F'_{i,a'}\,e_{a'}\,,$$ then the differential rate $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:GWgtTen}
\frac{d\Gamma^{\{s\}}}{d{\mathcal{PS}}} = \!\! \sum_{\alpha, a, \beta, b} \!\! c_\alpha c_\beta^\dagger \xi_a \xi^\dagger_b \mathcal{U}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha a \beta b}\,,\\
\mathcal{U}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha a \beta b} \equiv \sum_{ij} \Phi_{i,a} \Phi_{j,b}^\dagger\big(\{q\}\big) \mathcal{W}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha i \beta_j} \big(\{q\}\big)\,,\end{gathered}$$ with $\mathcal{U}$ an NP- and FF-generalized weight tensor. The $\xi_a$ are independent of $\{q\}$ and factor out of any phase space integral just as the Wilson coefficients do. That is, an integral on any phase space patch, $$\Gamma^{\{s\}}_{\Omega} = \sum_{\alpha, \beta, a, b} c_\alpha c_\beta^\dagger \xi_a \xi^\dagger_b \int_\Omega d{\mathcal{PS}}\,\, \mathcal{U}^{\{s\}}_{\alpha a \beta b}\,.$$ One may thus tensorialize the amplitude with respect to Wilson coefficients and/or FF linearized variations, to be contracted later with with NP or FF variation choices (the latter within the regime of validity of the FF linearization). Hereafter, the $\xi_a$ are referred to as ‘FF uncertainties’ or ‘FF eigenvectors’ following the nominal fit correlation matrix example.
Rates
-----
In certain cases, it is also useful to compute and fold in an overall ratio of rates $\Gamma^{\text{old}}/\Gamma^{\text{new}}$, or the rates themselves, $\Gamma^{\text{new}, \text{old}}$, may be required. For example, if the MC sample has been initially generated with a fixed overall branching ratio, $\BR_{\text{new}}$, one might wish to enforce this constraint via an additional multiplicative factor $\BR_{\text{old}}/\BR_{\text{new}}$.
The different components computed by [`Hammer`]{}are then:
(i) The NP- and/or FF-generalized tensor for $(d \Gamma^{\text{new}}_I/d {\mathcal{PS}}) / (d \Gamma^{\text{old}}_I/d {\mathcal{PS}})$, via Eq. , noting that the denominator carries no free NP or FF variational index. (The ratio $r_I$ is then itself generally at least a rank-2 tensor.);
(ii) The NP- and/or FF-generalized *rate tensors* $\Gamma^{\text{old, new}}$, which need be computed only once for an entire sample. (These rates require integration over the phase space, which is achieved by a dedicated multidimensional Gaussian quadrature integrator.)
Primary code functionalities
----------------------------
The calculational core of [`Hammer`]{}computes the NP or FF generalized tensors event-by-event for any process known to the library (see Table \[tab:knownampls\] for a list), and as specified by initialization choices (more detail is provided in Sec. \[sec:code\_flow\]) and specified form factor parametrizations. This core is supplemented by a wide array of functionalities to permit manipulation the resulting NP- and FF-generalized weight tensors as needed. This may include binning — equivalent to integrating on a phase space patch — the weight tensors into a histogram of any desired reconstructed observables, and/or it may include folding of detector simulation smearings, etc. Such histograms have NP- and FF-generalized tensors as bin entries, and we therefore call them *generalized* or *tensor* histograms. Once such NP- and FF-generalized tensor objects are computed and stored, contraction with NP or FF eigenvector choices permits the library to efficiently generate actual event weights or histogram bin weights for any theory of interest.
The architecture of [`Hammer`]{}is designed around several primary functionalities:
1. Provide an interface to determine which processes are to be reweighed, and which (possibly multiple) schemes for form factor parametrizations are to be used. This includes handling for (sub)processes that were generated as pure phase space.
2. Parse events into cascades of amplitudes known to the library, and compute their corresponding NP- and/or FF-generalized amplitude or weight tensor, as well as the respective rate tensors, as needed.
3. Provide an interface to generate histograms (of arbitrary dimension), and bin the event weight tensors — i.e., $r_I w_I$, as in Eq. — into these histograms, as instructed. This includes functionality for weight-squared statistical errors, functionality for generation of `ROOT` histograms, as well as extensive internal architecture for efficient memory usage.
4. Efficiently contract generalized weight tensors or bin entries against specific FF variational or NP choices, to generate an event or bin weight. This includes extensive internal architecture to balance speed versus memory requirements.
5. Provide interface to save and reload amplitude or weight tensors or generalized histograms, to permit quick reprocessing into weights from precomputed or ‘initialized’ tensor objects.
Examples of the implementation of these functionalities are shown in many examples provided with the source code.
Code flow {#sec:code_flow}
---------
A [`Hammer`]{}program may have two different types of structure: An *initialization* program, so called as it runs on MC as input, and may generate [`Hammer`]{}format files; or a *analysis* program, which may reprocess histograms or event weights that have already been saved in an initialization run. Pertinent details of the elements of the application programming interface mentioned below are provided in Appendix \[sec:API\], with more details in the [`Hammer`]{}manual.
An initialization program has the generic flow:
1. Create a [`Hammer`]{}object.
2. Declare included or forbidden processes, via [`includeDecay`]{} and [`forbidDecay`]{}.
3. Declare form factor schemes, via [`addFFScheme`]{} and [`setFFInputScheme`]{}.
4. (Optional) Add histograms, via [`addHistogram`]{}.
5. (Optional) Declare the MC units, via [`setUnits`]{}.
6. Initialize the [`Hammer`]{}class members with [`initRun`]{}.
7. (Optional) Change FF default settings with [`setOptions`]{}, or (if not SM) declare the Wilson coefficients for the input MC via [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{}.
8. (Optional) Fix Wilson coefficient (Wilson coefficient and/or FF uncertainty) choice to special choices in weight calculations (histogram binnings), via [`specializeWCInWeights`]{} ([`specializeWCInHistogram`]{} and/or [`specializeFInHistogram`]{}).
9. Each event may contain multiple processes, e.g., a signal and tag $B$ decay. Looping over the events:
1. Initialize event with [`initEvent`]{}. For each process in the event:
1. Create a [`Hammer`]{}[`Process`]{} object.
2. Add particles and decay vertices to create a process tree, via [`addParticle`]{} and [`addVertex`]{}.
3. Decide whether to include or exclude processes from an event via [`addProcess`]{} and/or [`removeProcess`]{}.
2. Compute or obtain event observables – specific particles can be extracted with [`getParticlesByVertex`]{} or other programmatic means – and specify the corresponding histogram bins to be filled via [`fillEventHistogram`]{}.
3. Initialize and compute the process amplitudes and weight tensors for included processes in the event, and fill histograms with event tensor weights – the direct product of include process tensor weights – via [`processEvent`]{}.
4. (Optional) Save the weight tensors for each event, with [`saveEventWeights`]{} to a buffer.
10. (Optional) Generate histograms with [`getHistogram(s)`]{} and/or save them with [`saveHistograms`]{}. NP choices are implemented with [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{}, FF variations are set with [`setFFEigenvectors`]{}.
11. (Optional) Save the rate tensors, with [`saveRates`]{} to a buffer.
12. (Optional) Save an autogenerated `bibTeX` list of references used in the run with [`saveReferences`]{}.
By contrast, an *analysis* program (from a previously initialized sample, stored in a buffer) has the generic flow:
1. Create a [`Hammer`]{}object and specify the input file.
2. Load or merge the run header — include or forbid specifications, FF schemes, or histograms — with [`loadRunHeader`]{} (after [`initRun`]{}). One may further declare additional histograms to be compiled (from saved event weight data) via [`addHistogram`]{}.
3. (Optional) Load or merge saved histograms with [`loadHistograms`]{}, and/or generate desired histograms with [`getHistogram(s)`]{}. NP choices are implemented with [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{}.
4. (Optional) Looping over the events:
1. Initialize event with [`initEvent`]{}.
2. If desired, remove processes from an event with [`removeProcess`]{}.
3. Reload event weights with [`loadEventWeights`]{}.
4. Specify histograms to be filled via [`fillEventHistogram`]{}.
5. Fill histograms with event weights via [`processEvent`]{}.
Conclusions {#sec:summary}
===========
Precision measurements of $b\to c \tau \bar \nu$ decays require large Monte Carlo samples, which incorporate detailed simulations of detector responses and physics backgrounds. The limited statistics due to the computational cost of these simulations are often a leading systematic uncertainty in the measurements, and it is prohibitively expensive to generate fully simulated MC samples for arbitrary NP models or descriptions of hadronic matrix elements.
In this paper we described the [`Hammer`]{}library, and illustrated its utility. [`Hammer`]{} allows the fast and efficient reweighting of existing SM (or phase-space based) MC samples to arbitrary NP models. In addition, [`Hammer`]{} can be used to change form factor parametrizations and/or incorporate uncertainties from form factors into experimental measurements. [`Hammer`]{} provides a computationally fast way for binned fits to generate predictions, and we implement a demonstrative forward-folding fit to constrain NP Wilson coefficients using this feature. Such a fit should be carried out by experimental collaborations in future measurements to provide reliable constraints on NP contributions in semileptonic $b\to c \tau \bar \nu$ decays. The results will allow people outside the collaborations to make correct interpretations of the data, which has not been possible to date without potentially sizeable biases. To demonstrate this latter point, we carried out toy NP analyses using SM fits to NP Asimov data sets, and showed that sizeable biases can indeed occur. [`Hammer`]{} is open source software and we are looking forward to the experimental results and interpretations it will enable.
[`Hammer`]{}has been developed with the active participation and testing by many colleagues. We especially thank from LHCb Julián García Pardiñas, Lucia Grillo, Donal Hill, Simone Meloni, Adam Morris, Patrick Owen, and Luke Scantlebury-Smead, for their extensive feedback, discussions, questions, and beta testing during development. We similarly thank from Belle II Kilian Lieret, Thomas Lueck, Felix Metzner, Markus Prim, and Maximilian Welsch. We thank David Shih for discussions and comments on the manuscript. Thanks are also due to all interested users on Belle, Belle II, BaBar, LHCb, and CMS, for many helpful discussions, questions, testing, and feedback. FB was supported by the DFG Emmy-Noether Grant No. BE 6075/1-1. SD was supported by the German Ministry of Research and Science (BMBF). ZL, MP and DR were supported in part by the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. We thank the Aspen Center of Physics, supported by the NSF grant PHY-1607611, where parts of this work were completed. This work also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. FB thanks Kim Scott, Bob Michaud and Julie Michaud-B for their hospitality, many good discussions and in general a great time in Houston, where part of this paper was written.
Core elements of the Application Programming Interface {#sec:API}
======================================================
The user interface of the [`Hammer`]{}library provides four main classes: the [`Hammer`]{} class itself; the [`Process`]{} and [`Particle`]{} classes, used to create events; and the [`IOBuffer`]{} class used for saving and loading precomputed objects. A schematic of the architecture of [`Hammer`]{}is shown in Fig. \[fig:Scheme\].
In the following we describe various core parts of the [`Hammer`]{}Application Programming Interface (API), with many more details available in the code manual. The library itself is implemented in `C++`, along with a `Python3` wrapper of the API; we will consider here the `C++` interface only. This discussion is ordered by scope, rather than the typical code flow. Further details can be found in the [`Hammer`]{}manual [@hammer_manual].
Building processes and events
-----------------------------
A typical decay cascade is contained in the library by the [`Process`]{} class; an event may contain multiple [`Process`]{} instances as e.g., is the case for a signal plus tag $B$-$\bar{B}$ pair. Each cascade may be simply represented in graphical terms as a ‘process tree’, as shown in Fig. \[fig:processtree\]: Each particle in the cascade is assigned an index, and each decay vertex is represented as a map from a parent index, to the indices of all its daughters. [`Hammer`]{}assembles the process tree through two methods [`Process::addParticle`]{} and [`Process::addVertex`]{}. The former adds a [`Particle`]{} class object – a momentum and a PDG code – to a container of particles; the latter fills the map of each parent index to its daughters for each decay vertex.
In the case of Fig. \[fig:processtree\], the first two vertices of the cascade may be built explicitly as follows:
Process proc; size\_t idx0 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_0, px\_0, py\_0, pz\_0]{}, pdg\_0]{}); size\_t idx1 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_1, px\_1, py\_1, pz\_1]{}, pdg\_1]{}); size\_t idx2 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_2, px\_2, py\_2, pz\_2]{}, pdg\_2]{}); size\_t idx3 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_3, px\_3, py\_3, pz\_3]{}, pdg\_3]{}); size\_t idx7 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_7, px\_7, py\_7, pz\_7]{}, pdg\_7]{}); size\_t idx8 = proc.addParticle(Particle[[E\_8, px\_8, py\_8, pz\_8]{}, pdg\_8]{});
proc.addVertex(idx0, [idx1,idx2,idx3]{}); proc.addVertex(idx2, [idx7,idx8]{});
and so on. Particles and vertices need not be added in order; helper functions are provided in the code examples for automatically parsing HepMC files.
=\[sibling angle=50\]; =\[sibling angle=50\]; =\[sibling angle=50\]; =\[draw=black!80,line width=1.5pt,fill=white,circle,inner sep=2pt,minimum size = 12pt,align=center\] =\[draw=none\] =\[draw=black!40, line width = 2pt\] (P) [0]{} \[grow cyclic,shape=circle,level distance=2cm,clockwise from=-65\] child [ \[grow cyclic,shape=circle,level distance=2cm,clockwise from=-15\] node [1]{} edge from parent \[draw = black!80, line width = 3pt\] child [node \[nil\] [4]{}]{} child [\[grow cyclic,shape=circle,level distance=2cm,clockwise from=-65\] node [5]{} edge from parent \[draw = black!80, line width = 3pt\] child [node \[nil\] [9]{}]{} child [node \[nil\] [10]{}]{} ]{} child [node \[nil\] [6]{}]{}; ]{} child [\[grow cyclic,shape=circle,level distance=2cm,clockwise from=-115\] node [2]{} edge from parent \[draw = black!80, line width = 3pt\] child [node \[nil\] [7]{}]{} child [node \[nil\] [8]{}]{}; ]{} child [node \[nil\] [3]{}]{};
Specifications {#app:spec}
--------------
The [`Hammer`]{}library contains an interpreter that maps a string representation of a vertex – a vertex string – to all possible charge conserving processes allowed by the specified particle names. The interpreter uses the syntax that particle names are parsed by a capital letter: the full list of names is provided in the manual. (For example the vertex string [`"D*DPi"`]{} is interpreted as all twelve possible $D^* \to D\pi$ vertices, while [`"D*+DPi"`]{} is interpreted as only the $D^{*+} \to D^+\pi^0$, $D^{*+} \to D^0\pi^+$, and (the heavily CKM suppressed) $D^{*+} \to \bar{D}^0\pi^+$ decay.)
The decay processes to be reweighed by [`Hammer`]{}are specified via [`Hammer::includeDecay`]{}, which takes a single vertex string or vector of vertex strings $\{V_1,V_2,\ldots, V_n\}$ as an argument, and may be invoked multiple times. Each [`includeDecay`]{} specification is *inclusive* and permits any process tree whose full set of vertices contains all of $\{V_1,V_2,\ldots, V_n\}$. The boolean logic applied by [`includeDecay`]{} is `AND` between each vertex string element, and `OR` between separate invocations of [`includeDecay`]{}. For example
Hammer ham; ham.includeDecay([“BD\*TauNu”, “D\*DGamma”]{}); ham.includeDecay([“BDMuNu”]{});
means ‘Reweight a process that either contains vertices ($B \to D^*\tau\nu$ **and** $D^* \to D\gamma$) **or** the vertex ($B \to D \mu \nu$)’. Hence, e.g., $\bar{B}^0 \to (D^{*+} \to (D^+ \to K^+ \pi^+ \pi^-)\gamma)(\tau^- \to \ell^-\nu\nu)$ would be included. Recombination of radiative photons (produced during MC generation by `PHOTOS`) is handled automatically by the library, and need not be specified in [`includeDecay`]{} specifications. Processes may instead forbidden with the [`Hammer::forbidDecay`]{} method, whose specifications are *exclusive* and forbids only process trees whose set of vertices $P$ *equals* $\{V_1,V_2,\ldots, V_n\}$.
The [`Hammer`]{}library allows the user to specify multiple form factor ‘schemes’ to be used in reweighting. A form factor scheme is a set of FF parameterization choices for each hadronic transition involving form factors, and is labelled by a ‘scheme name’. These schemes are set by the method [`Hammer::addFFScheme`]{}, which takes a scheme name plus a map from hadronic string representation to FF parametrization. The hadronic string follows the same syntax and uses the same particle symbols as for vertex strings. For example,
ham.addFFScheme(“Scheme1”, [[“BD”, “BLPR”]{}, [“BD\*”, “BLPR”]{}]{}; ham.addFFScheme(“Scheme2”, [[“BD”, “BGL”]{}, [“BD\*”, “CLN”]{}]{});
declares two different FF schemes, choosing BLPR for both $B \to D$ and $B \to D^*$ form factors in [`"Scheme1"`]{}, and a mixture of schemes for [`"Scheme2"`]{}. Separate histograms and event weights are generated for each scheme name. The list of available FF parametrizations are provided in Table \[tab:knownampls\]. The hadronic strings are charge sensitive, hence, e.g., [`\{"B+D", "BLPR"\}`]{} versus [`\{"B0D", "CLN"\}`]{} assigns two different FF parametrizations to charged and neutral $B \to D$ decays. Specification of the form factor schemes used to generate the MC sample, i.e., the denominator or input form factors, must be specified in order for [`Hammer`]{}to be able to generate the reweighting tensors. These schemes are specified by the method [`Hammer::setFFInputScheme`]{}.
Units of the input MC sample may/should be specified via [`Hammer::setUnits`]{}, for instance [`ham.setUnits("MeV")`]{}. The default is GeV.
The [`Hammer`]{}library permits the user to declare particular vertices, in either the denominator or numerator amplitude, to be evaluated as pure phase space. This is achieved by the method [`Hammer::addPurePSVertices`]{}, which takes a set of string vertices as an argument, and an optional enum [`WTerm`]{} taking values [`COMMON`]{} (default), [`NUMERATOR`]{}, or [`DENOMINATOR`]{}. As an example
ham.addPurePSVertices([“TauMuNuNu”, “D\*+DPi”]{}); ham.addPurePSVertices([“D\*DGamma”]{}, WTerm::DENOMINATOR);
requests all $\tau \to \mu \nu \nu$ and $D^{*+}\to D\pi$ vertices in the numerator and all $D^* \to D\gamma$ vertices in the denominator, to be evaluated as phase space. How these requests are enforced is subject to detailed rules explained in the manual. The library employs the pure phase space definition $$\label{eqn:PSdef}
\frac{1}{\prod_k |\{s_k\}|} \sum_{s_i, r_j} \big|\mathcal{M}_{s_1,\ldots, s_n; r_1,\ldots,r_m}\big|^2 = 1 \times (m^{6-2n})\,,$$ where $s_i$ ($r_i$) are incoming (outgoing) quantum numbers, $|\{s_k\}|$ is the number of states of $s_k$, $m$ is the mass of the parent particle in the vertex, and $n$ the number of daughters.
Once all specifications are declared (include histograms, as below), containers are initialized by [`Hammer::initRun()`]{}. After invocation of [`ham.initRun()`]{}, manipulation of the FF default settings may be achieved via [`setOptions`]{}, which takes YAML[^5] format arguments. For instance,
ham.setOptions(“BtoDBGL: [ChiTmB2: 0.01, ChiL: 0.002]{}”);
changes the two BGL outer function parameters from their default settings. (Note that the YAML key for the relevant FF class has a [`"to"`]{} inserted in the hadronic transition, e.g., [`"BtoDBGL"`]{}, rather than [`"BDBGL"`]{}, to make it clear we are identifying settings for a particular class – the $B \to D$ BGL class – and not a process.)
By default the library computes the total rate (or looks up a partial width) the first time each unique vertex is encountered in a run. This behavior may be disabled, e.g., if the required integration is multidimensional and time consuming, via [`ham.setOptions("ProcessCalc: \{Rates: false\}")`]{}.
To permit full flexibility in FF settings, duplication of the same FF class is permitted and may be invoked by adding a token to a FF parametrization name in [`addFFScheme`]{}, separated by an underscore. For instance, one may declare
ham.addFFScheme(“Scheme1”, [[“B+D”, “BGL\_1”]{}, [“B0D”, “BGL\_2”]{},...]{}); ham.addFFScheme(“Scheme2”, [[“BD”, “BGL\_3”]{},...]{});
This example allows independent manipulation of the BGL parameterization for each of the charged versus neutral modes in the same scheme, or between different schemes: After [`initRun`]{}, a succeeding [`ham.setOptions("BtoDBGL_2:...")`]{} would affect only the neutral $B$ parametrization in [`"Scheme1"`]{}.
Various other additional specification features are provided by the library, including e.g. specialization of Wilson coefficients to a particular global choice in the event tensor weight calculations. Specifications may also be declared through a card interface, as shown in `demo...card.cc` example programs provided with the source code.
Histogramming
-------------
Histograms of arbitrary dimensionality may be created by the [`Hammer`]{}library. In general, histogram bins contain event weight tensors (or direct products of them if there multiple processes in the event).
A histogram is declared by [`Hammer::addHistogram`]{}, which takes as arguments a name string and either: a vector of dimensions, a bool for under/overflow and a vector of ranges; or a vector of bin edges and a bool for under/overflow. The method [`addHistogram`]{} does not create a single histogram, but rather a *histogram set*: A separate histogram is created for each unique event cascade and in turn for each FF scheme name specified by [`addFFScheme`]{}. For instance
ham.addHistogram(“q2VsEmu”, [20, 15]{}, false,[[3.,12.]{},[0,2.5]{}]{}); ham.addHistogram(“q2VsEmu”, [[3.,5.,9.,12.]{},[0,1,2.5]{}]{}, true);
The first declaration creates a *histogram set* each with $20\times 15$ bins, no under/overflow, binned uniformly over the respective ranges $3$–$12$ and $0$–$2.5$ (in appropriate units). With reference to the above [`addFFScheme`]{} example, this histogram set contains one histogram for each combination of either [`"Scheme1"`]{} or [`"Scheme2"`]{} with each unique $B \to D$ decay cascade. The second declaration similarly creates a set of $3\times2$ histograms with non-uniform bins and additional under/overflow bins.
Filling of histograms for a specific event is performed by [`Hammer::fillEventHistogram`]{}, which takes the histogram name and the values of the observables corresponding to each histogram dimension. For example, [`ham.fillEventHistogram("q2VsEmu", \{4., 0.5\})`]{} fills the appropriate bin element for the [`"q2VsEmu"`]{} histograms belonging to the event being processed, and fills the relevant histograms for each declared FF scheme name. (Invocations of [`fillEventHistogram`]{} must occur before [`Hammer::processEvent`]{}, discussed in Sec. \[sec:proc\] below.) If [`fillEventHistogram`]{} is not invoked for a particular histogram for a particular event, the events tensor weight is not added to the histogram. When the under/overflow bool is set to [`false`]{}, events outside the bin ranges are ignored by [`fillEventHistogram`]{}.
Computation of the weight-squared uncertainties is off by default. This may be enabled globally via the options setting [`ham.setOptions("Histos: \{KeepErrors: true\}")`]{}. However, for computational speed and/or memory efficiency, it may be instead enabled or disabled for individual histograms via [`Hammer::keepErrorsInHistogram`]{}, which takes the name of the histogram as an argument, and a bool. For instance
ham.keepErrorsInHistogram(“q2VsEmu”, true);
enables weight-squared computation for this particular histogram. This method should be invoked before [`initRun`]{}.
Various additional histogramming methods are provided by the library, that enable histogram compression, projection, and Wilson coefficient or FF specialization. These permit reduction of memory requirements or speed enhancements, and are detailed in the manual.
Processing {#sec:proc}
----------
An event may contain multiple instances of [`Process`]{}, in order to account for the fact that a single event may feature, e.g., two $B$ decay processes. The [`Event`]{} class is initialized by [`Hammer::initEvent()`]{}, which may take an optional initial event weight (this can also be set by [`Hammer::setEventBaseWeight`]{}). [`Process`]{} instances are added by [`Hammer::addProcess(proc)`]{} which also returns a hash ID of the process. If the process is not allowed according to the [`includeDecay`]{} or [`forbidDecay`]{} specifications, the returned hash ID is zero, and the process is not added to the relevant [`Event`]{} containers.
Once a process is added, it is automatically initialized, which chiefly involves: calculating the signatures of each vertex in the decay cascade; identifying the various subamplitudes making up the cascade, as well as relevant form factor parametrizations and vertex decay rates, for both the numerator/output and denominator/input; and calculating the total rate for the vertex (this is done only the first time each unique vertex is encountered, i.e., only once per run per unique vertex and per FF scheme). The amplitude tensors and form factors are not computed, however, until the invocation of [`Hammer::processEvent`]{}.
Once all processes are added and relevant histograms (if any) have been denoted to be filled, the weights are actually computed and added to the histogram (if any) bins by invocation of [`processEvent`]{}. A pseudo-example on a single event with a set of processes might look like
ham.initEvent(); bool isAllowed = false; //Create a set of Process, via addParticle and addVertex for(Process& proc: processes)[ auto procID = ham.addProcess(proc) if(procID != 0)[ //Calculate observables, fill histograms isAllowed = true; ]{} ]{} if(isAllowed)[ ham.processEvent(); ]{}
which might be emplaced in a larger loop over a set of events.
Setting Wilson coefficients and form factors {#sec:retrieve}
--------------------------------------------
.
Once [`processEvent`]{} is completed, the event weight may be retrieved by [`Hammer::getWeight`]{}, that takes the FF scheme name. For instance [`ham.getWeight("Scheme1")`]{} computes the *currently loaded event weight* for the *currently specified WCs and FFs*. The latter may be set via [`Hammer::setWilsonCoefficients`]{} and [`setFFEigenvectors`]{}.
The method [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{} takes a string that identifies which operator WCs are being set, and either a vector of the WC values or a map. The default WC settings are the SM. A typical example of the usage of this method is
ham.setWilsonCoefficients(“BtoCTauNu”, [[“S\_qLlL”, 1.]{}, [“T\_qLlL”,0.25]{}]{});
where the first argument specifies $b \to c \tau \nu$ four-Fermi WCs are being set, and the second argument is a [`std::map<std::string, std::complex<double>>`]{} of each WC to its desired value. The full list of WCs and their definitions is supplied in the manual. An optional third argument is the [`WTerm`]{} enum, that declares whether the evaluation should be applied to the numerator and/or denominator (numerator by default). As an alternative, one may instead pass as second argument a [`std::vector<std::complex<double>>`]{}, corresponding to the ordered basis
[“SM”, “S\_qLlL”, “S\_qRlL”, “V\_qLlL”, “V\_qRlL”, “T\_qLlL”, “S\_qLlR”, “S\_qRlR”, “V\_qLlR”, “V\_qRlR”, “T\_qRlR”]{},
with the conventions for these WCs shown in Table \[tab:NPc\]. It is important to note that the [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{} method, when taking a [`std::map`]{}, produces *incremental* settings changes. A subsequent invocation [`ham.setWilsonCoefficients("BtoCTauNu", \{\{"S_qLlL", 0.5\}\})`]{} will result in [`S_qLlL`]{} $= 0.5$ and [`T_qLlL`]{} $= 0.25$. The method [`resetWilsonCoefficients`]{} resets the corresponding WCs to the default SM values.
The FF eigenvectors are (re)set via the method [`Hammer::setFFEigenvectors`]{} ([`resetWilsonCoefficients`]{}) in a similar way, identifying the FF eigenvectors to be set via the FF class prefix such as [`"BtoD"`]{} and the parametrization name. A typical example of the usage of this method is
ham.setFFEigenvectors(“BtoD\*”, “BGLVar”, [[“delta\_a1”, 0.1]{}, [“delta\_b1”,-0.05]{}]{});
See the manual for definitions of currently implemented FF variational classes (typically denoted with a suffix [`"Var"`]{}).
Retrieval
---------
Once all events or histograms have been processed (or reloaded from a file, see Sec. \[sec:load\]), the user may retrieve a specific histogram with the method [`Hammer::getHistogram`]{}, that takes a histogram name and a FF scheme name. NP choices must be specified first via [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{}, as must FF uncertainties via [`setFFEigenvectors`]{}. For example,
auto histo = ham.getHistogram(“q2VsEmu”,“Scheme2”);
would contract the bin weights with the specified NP Wilson coefficients (and FF eigenvectors, if any) for each histogram in the [`"q2VsEmu"`]{} histogram set with FF scheme [`"Scheme2"`]{}, and then combines them together into a single final histogram. This contracted histogram output [`histo`]{} is a (row-major) flattened vector of [`BinContents`]{} structs. This struct has members [`sumWi`]{}, [`sumWi2`]{} and [`n`]{} for sum of weights, sum of squared weights and number of events in the bin, respectively. (By contrast, the method [`getHistograms`]{} extracts all histograms of a specific name and scheme, producing a map of event hash IDs to histogram for all available [`"q2VsEmu"`]{} histograms with the FF scheme [`"Scheme2"`]{}.)
Integrated rates or partial widths for a specific vertex may be retrieved via [`Hammer::getRate`]{}. The vertex is specified via either a vertex string, or the parent and daughter PDG codes, plus an FF scheme. (Partial widths are returned in the units specified by [`Hammer::setUnits`]{}; the default is GeV.) For example
ham.getRate(511, [-413, -14, 13]{}, “Scheme2”); ham.getRate(“B0D\*-MuNu”, “Scheme2”);
both return the partial width for the $B^0 \to D^{*-}\mu^+\nu$ vertex, using the form factor parameterization specified in [`"Scheme2"`]{}, and whatever WCs or FF uncertainties have been specified. (The [`getRate`]{} method is charge conjugate sensitive, so the vertex string must specify sufficient charges to make the vertex charge unique. For example, writing just [`"B0D*MuNu"`]{} would correspond to not only $B^0 \to D^{*-}\mu^+\nu$, but also the very heavily suppressed $B^0 \to D^{+}\mu^-\bar{\nu}$.) The method [`getDenominatorRate`]{} similarly returns the partial width according to the specified denominator/input FF parametrization chosen in [`setFFInputScheme`]{}, and the denominator/input WCs or FF eigenvectors.
Multithreading
--------------
The library has the ability to perform lock-free parallelization of the [`getHistogram(s)`]{} and [`getWeight`]{} evaluations. This requires use of the thread local methods [`setWilsonCoefficientsLocal`]{} and [`setFFEigenvectorsLocal`]{} to set the desired WC or FF uncertainties. These [`...Local`]{} methods take the same syntax as [`setWilsonCoefficients`]{} and [`setFFEigenvectors`]{}, but with different behaviour: They do not set the values incrementally from the current settings, but always increment from the SM and zero FF uncertainties, respectively. Global values of the WCs or FF variations are unaffected by the [`...Local`]{} methods.
Saving
------
[`Hammer`]{}provides the ability to store header settings, generated event weights, histograms, and/or rates in binary buffers for later retrieval and reprocessing. These buffers are built on the cross-platform serialization library `flatbuffers`[^6]: The buffer structs [`Hammer::IOBuffer`]{} and [`Hammer::RootIOBuffer`]{} permit writing/reading of [`Hammer`]{}internal objects using C++ binary files and `ROOT` trees, respectively.
In order to save a buffer, an [`ofstream`]{} outfile must first be designated. For example, [`ofstream outFile("./DemoSave.dat",ios::binary)`]{}. The methods [`Hammer::saveRunHeader`]{}, [`saveEventWeights`]{}, [`saveRates`]{}, [`saveHistogram`]{} may be used to save: specification settings (like [`includeDecay`]{} etc; the process weight(s) of the event currently loaded in memory (this should be invoked inside an event loop, after [`processEvent`]{}); the computed rates; and histograms. Each of these methods returns a [`IOBuffer`]{}, which can be stored as sequential records in the buffer via an ostream operator. For example,
outFile << ham.saveRunHeader(); outFile << ham.saveHistogram(“q2VsEmu”);
writes the declared run header, with all its settings, into an [`IOBuffer`]{} and passes it as a record into the buffer, and then does the same for the histogram [`"q2VsEmu"`]{}. The record types are labelled by an [`char`]{} enum [`Hammer::RecordType`]{} with values [`UNDEFINED = 'u'`]{}, [`HEADER = 'b'`]{}, [`EVENT = 'e'`]{}, [`HISTOGRAM = 'h'`]{}, [`HISTOGRAM_DEFINITION = 'd'`]{}, and [`RATE = 'r'`]{}. A histogram is always saved sequentially as a definition record then the histogram data record. The [`saveHistogram`]{} method may optionally take additional arguments – such as an FF scheme name – in order to save only part of an entire histogram set; see the manual for further details.
Saving a buffer in `ROOT` format is achieved by passing the [`IOBuffer`]{} output of the [`save...`]{} methods into a [`RootIOBuffer`]{}, that may then be stored in a `ROOT` [`TTree`]{}. Explicit implementations of this functionality are provided in various `demo...root.cc` example programs.
Reloading and merging {#sec:load}
---------------------
Buffer records may be loaded from a declared [`ifstream`]{} infile into an [`IOBuffer`]{} via an [`istream`]{} operator. For example,
ifstream inFile(“./DemoSave.dat”, ios::binary); Hammer::IOBuffer buf[Hammer::RecordType::UNDEFINED, 0ul, nullptr]{}; inFile >> buf; ham.loadRunHeader(buf);
attempts to load the first buffer record as a run header (returning [`false`]{} if this record is of a different type).
It is the responsibility of the user to curate the logic and order under which a buffer is saved and then read. For example, if a block of histograms have been saved before a set of rate records, then
while(buf.kind != Hammer::RecordType::RATE) [ if(buf.kind == Hammer::RecordType::HISTOGRAM) [ ham.loadHistogram(buf); ]{} if(buf.kind == Hammer::RecordType::HISTOGRAM\_DEFINITION)[ ham.loadHistogramDefinition(buf); ]{} inFile >> buf; ]{}
would read through the buffer, with the method [`Hammer::loadHistogram`]{} loading all the histograms, and [`Hammer::loadHistogramDefinition`]{} all the histogram definitions, that are found before reaching the block of saved rates. The method [`loadRates`]{} behaves similarly to [`loadHistogram`]{}.
Once an object is loaded, it behaves just as the originally computed instance. So one may invoke [`getHistogram`]{} for a reloaded histogram as described in Sec. \[sec:retrieve\].
Event weights can be reloaded via [`loadEventWeights`]{}. This permits recreating the original event loop provided [`initEvent`]{} and [`processEvent`]{} are called appropriately. For example, on a block of saved event records
while(buf.kind == Hammer::RecordType::EVENT) [ ham.initEvent(); ham.loadEventWeights(buf); double q2 = ...; //Calculate q\^2 from known kinematic event information ham.fillEventHistogram(“Q2”, [q2]{}); ham.processEvent(); inFile >> buf; ]{}
would permit reprocessing of saved event weights into a newly created [`"Q2"`]{} histogram.
Loading a buffer in `ROOT` format is achieved by reading the [`RootIOBuffer`]{} stored in a [`TTree`]{} into an [`IOBuffer`]{} that can be passed to the [`load...`]{} methods. Explicit implementations of this functionality are provided in various `demo...root.cc` example programs.
In order to permit parallelization of initialization runs, the [`load...`]{} methods accept an additional bool, to specify whether to *merge* the buffer contents with existing objects in memory ([`true`]{}), or overwrite them ([`false`]{}, default). Merging of histograms occurs if two histograms are loaded with a matching name. This merging is *additive* for histograms in each histogram set with the same FF scheme and hash IDs, and otherwise results in the new unique histograms being *appended* to the existing histogram set. (If one wishes instead to overwrite a histogram one may instead first invoke [`removeHistogram`]{}, and then reload the desired components of the histogram set.)
The methods [`loadEventWeights`]{} and [`loadRates`]{} behave similarly. For weights (rates) with matching hash IDs, merging permits appending of process weights (rates) computed with new form factor schemes to the process weights (rates). Finally, [`loadRunHeader`]{} permits merging of two sets of header specifications into their union. More details are provided in the manual.
[^1]: Further complications arise from interference among the different spin states of the $\tau$ and among those of the charm hadron. Such effects have sometimes been neglected, treating the $\tau$ and charm hadron as stable particles, when simulations are corrected to account for more up-to-date hadronic models.
[^2]: For an actual experimental analysis one would instead use [`Hammer`]{}to reweight SM MC samples. The correct statistical uncertainty of the reweighting can be incorporated, using weight squared uncertainties computed by the library. This information could be used, e.g., to adaptively generate additional pure phase space MC in undersampled regions.
[^3]: In all $b \to c$ processes currently handled by [`Hammer`]{} (see Table \[tab:knownampls\] for a list) the form factors are functions of $q^2 = \big(p_{H_b} -p_{H_c}\big)^2$, or equivalently of the dimensionless kinematic variable, $$\label{eqn:wdef}
w = v\cdot v' = \frac{m_{H_b} ^2 + m_{H_c}^2 - q^2}{2m_{H_b} m_{H_c}}\,,$$ with four velocities $v = p_{H_b} / m_{H_b} $ and $v' = p_{H_c} / m_{H_c}$. For decays with multi-hadron final states, such as the $\tau \to n \pi$, $n\ge 3$, the form factors are also dependent on multiple invariant masses of the final state hadrons. Thus, $b \to c\tau\nu$ decays followed by with subsequent hadronic $\tau$ decays involve at least two separate sets of hadronic functions at the amplitude level.
[^4]: The momenta of an event passed to the library must all be specified in the same frame. The choice of frame is arbitrary.
[^5]: See [yaml.org](https://yaml.org).
[^6]: [google.github.io/flatbuffers](https://google.github.io/flatbuffers/).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@zheng2008categorification], Zheng studied the bounded derived categories of constructible $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}_l$-sheaves on some algebraic stacks consisting of the representations of a enlarged quiver and categorified the integrable highest weight modules of the corresponding quantum group by using these categories. In this paper, we shall generalize Zheng’s work to highest weight modules of a subalgebra of the double Ringel-Hall algebra associated to a quiver in a functional version.'
address: 'School of Science, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, P. R. China'
author:
- Minghui Zhao
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'Constructions of highest weight modules of double Ringel-Hall algebras via functions'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\mathbf{U}$ be a quantum group and $\mathbf{U}^-$ its negative part. In [@Lusztig_Canonical_bases_arising_from_quantized_enveloping_algebra; @Lusztig_Quivers_perverse_sheaves_and_the_quantized_enveloping_algebras], Lusztig gave a categorification of $\mathbf{U}^-$ by using the additive category of perverse sheaves on the varieties $E_{\nu,Q}$ consisting of representations of the quiver $Q$ corresponding to $\mathbf{U}$. The set of isomorphism classes of simple perverse sheaves gives the canonical basis of $\mathbf{U}^-$. Kashiwara gave a combinatorial construction of this basis (called global crystal basis) in [@Kashiwara1993Global].
Khovanov, Lauda ([@Khovanov_Lauda_A_diagrammatic_approach_to_categorification_of_quantum_groups_I]) and Rouquier ([@Rouquier_2-Kac-Moody_algebras]) introduced the KLR algebras respectively. The category of finitely generated projective modules of the corresponding KLR algebra gives a categorification of $\mathbf{U}^-$. Varagnolo, Vasserot ([@Varagnolo_Vasserot_Canonical_bases_and_KLR-algebras]) and Rouquier ([@Rouquier_Quiver_Hecke_algebras_and_2-Lie_algebras]) proved that the set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable projective modules of the KLR algebra can categorify the canonical basis.
Let $L(\omega)$ be an integrable highest weight module of $\mathbf{U}$ with highest weight $\omega$. The canonical basis of $\mathbf{U}^-$ induces the canonical basis of $L(\omega)$. In [@zheng2008categorification], Zheng gave categorifications of $L(\omega)$ and its canonical basis by using the additive category of perverse sheaves on the varieties $E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ consisting of representations of the enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$. In [@Kang2012Categorification], Kang and Kashiwara studied the category of finitely generated projective modules of the cyclotomic KLR algebra and gave categorifications of $L(\omega)$ and its canonical basis.
Associated to the category of representations of a quiver $Q$ over a finite field of $q$ elements, Ringel ([@Ringel_Hall_algebras_and_quantum_groups]) introduced the twisted Ringel-Hall algebra ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)$ and its composition subalgebra. He also proved that $\mathbf{U}^-|_{v=\sqrt{q}}$ is isomorphic to the composition subalgebra of ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)$. Green ([@green1995hall]) introduced the comultiplication and Xiao ([@xiao1997drinfeld]) introduced the antipode on ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)$. Under these operators, ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)$ becomes a Hopf algebra. In [@xiao1997drinfeld], Xiao also introduced the double Ringel-Hall algebra ${D}_q(Q)$ of $Q$ and showed that $\mathbf{U}|_{v=\sqrt{q}}$ is a Hopf subalgebra of ${D}_q(Q)$. The representation theory of ${D}_q(Q)$ is studied by Deng and Xiao in [@deng2002double]. Double Ringel-Hall algebra is also studied by Sevenhant and Van den Bergh in [@Sevenhant_Van_den_Bergh_On_the_double_of_the_Hall_algebra_of_a_quiver].
Compared with quantum groups, it is important to give categorifications of the Ringel-Hall algebra ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)$ and its highest weight modules. In [@XXZ_Ringel-Hall_algebras_beyond_their_quantum_groups], Xiao, Xu and Zhao generalized Lusztig’s categorifical constructions of a quantum group and its canonical basis to the generic form of the whole Ringel-Hall algebra.
Denoted by $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ the subalgebra of ${D}_q(Q)$ generated by $u^+_{i}$, $u^-_{\alpha}$ and $K_{\mu}$. In this paper, we shall generalize Zheng’s work to highest weight modules of $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ in a functional version.
We shall introduce a space $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ of functions and three maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}$, $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ and $\mathcal{K}^{\pm1}_{\hat{Q},i}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$. We will prove that the maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}$, $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ and $\mathcal{K}^{\pm1}_{\hat{Q},i}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ satisfy the defining relations of $u^+_{i}$, $u^-_{\alpha}$ and $K_{\pm i}$ in $\hat{D}_q(Q)$. Hence the space $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ becomes a left $\hat{{D}}(Q)$-module by defining $$K_{\pm i}.f=\mathcal{K}^{\pm1}_{\hat{Q},i}(f)\,\,,{u^+_{i}}.f=\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}(f)\textrm{ and }{u^-_{\alpha}}.f=\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f).$$ The key of the proof is checking the following relation $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i})$$ for any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $i\in I$.
In Section 2, we shall recall the definitions of double Ringel-Hall algebras and highest weight modules. In Section 3, we shall introduce the space $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ and the maps $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$, $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$ and $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$. The main theorem is also given in this section. The proof of the main theorem will be given in Section 4.
Double Ringel-Hall algebras
===========================
Ringel-Hall algebras
--------------------
In this section, we shall recall the definition of Ringel-Hall algebras ([@Ringel_Hall_algebras_and_quantum_groups]).
Let $Q=(I,H,s,t)$ be a quiver, where $I$ is the set of vertices, $H$ is the set of arrows and $s,t:H\rightarrow I$ are two maps sending an arrow $h\in H$ to the start $s(h)$ and terminal $t(h)$ respectively.
Let $k=\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements. A representation of the quiver $Q$ over $k$ is a pair $(\mathbf{V},x)$, where
1. $\mathbf{V}=\bigoplus_{i\in I}V_i$ is a finite dimensional $I$-graded vector space;
2. $x=(x_h)_{h\in H}\in\bigoplus_{h\in H}\Hom_k(V_{s(h)},V_{t(h)})$.
A morphism from $(\mathbf{V},x)$ to $(\mathbf{V}',x')$ is an $I$-graded linear map $f=(f_i)_{i\in I}:\mathbf{V}\rightarrow\mathbf{V}'$ such that $f_{t(h)}x_h=x'_hf_{s(h)}$ for any $h\in H$. Denote by $\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$ the abelian category of representations of $Q$ over $k$. For any representation $V=(\mathbf{V},x)\in\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$, the dimension vector is defined as $\underline{\dim}{V}=\dim V_ii\in\mathbb{N}I$.
The Euler form on $\mathbb{Z}I$ is defined as $$\langle\nu,\nu'\rangle=\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\nu'_i-\sum_{h\in H}\nu_{s(h)}\nu'_{t(h)}$$ and the symmetric Euler form is defined as $$(\nu,\nu')=\langle\nu,\nu'\rangle+\langle\nu',\nu\rangle$$ for any $\nu=\sum_{i\in I}\nu_ii$ and $\nu'=\sum_{i\in I}\nu'_ii$. It is well known that $$\langle\underline{\dim}{V},\underline{\dim}{V'}\rangle=\dim_{k}\textrm{Hom}_{\textrm{rep}_{k}Q}(V,V')
-\dim_{k}\textrm{Ext}_{\textrm{rep}_{k}Q}(V,V'),$$ for two representations $V=(\mathbf{V},x)$ and $V'=(\mathbf{V}',x')$ in $\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the set of isomorphism classes of objects in $\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$. For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$, choose an object $V_{\alpha}\in\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$ such that the isomorphism classes $[V_{\alpha}]$ is $\alpha$. Denote by $a_{\alpha}$ for the order of the automorphism group of $V_{\alpha}$. For convenience, the dimension vector of $V_{\alpha}$ is still denoted by $\alpha$.
Given three elements $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ and $\alpha$ in $\mathcal{P}$, denote by $g^{\alpha}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}$ the number of subrepresentations $W$ of $V_{\alpha}$ such that $W\simeq V_{\alpha_2}$ and $V/W\simeq V_{\alpha_1}$ in $\textrm{rep}_{k}Q$. Let $v=\sqrt{q}\in \mathbb{C}$. The Ringel-Hall algebra ${H}_q(Q)$ is the $\mathbb{Q}(v)$-space with basis $\{u_{\alpha}\,\,|\,\,\alpha\in\mathcal{P}\}$ whose multiplication is given by $$u_{\alpha_1}u_{\alpha_2}=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{P}}g^{\alpha}_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}u_{\alpha}.$$ Note that ${H}_q(Q)$ is an associative $\mathbb{Q}(v)$-algebra with unit $u_{0}$, where $0$ denotes the isomorphism class of zero representation.
Define a twisted multiplication on ${H}_q(Q)$ by $$u_{\alpha_1}\ast u_{\alpha_2}=v^{\langle\alpha_1,\alpha_2\rangle}\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{P}}g^{\alpha}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}u_{\alpha},$$ and ${H}^{\ast}_q(Q)=({H}_q(Q),\ast)$ is called the twisted Ringel-Hall algebra.
Constructions of Ringel-Hall algebras via functions {#subsection_function1}
---------------------------------------------------
In this section, we shall recall the constructions of Ringel-Hall algebras via functions introduced by Lusztig ([@Lusztig_Canonical_bases_and_Hall_algebras; @Lin_Xiao_Zhang_Representations_of_tame_quivers_and_affine_canonical_bases]).
For any $\nu\in\mathbb{N}I$, fix an $I$-graded vector space $\mathbf{V}=\bigoplus_{i\in I}V_i$ of dimension vector $\nu$. Consider the variety $$E_{\nu,Q}=\bigoplus_{h\in H}\Hom_k(V_{s(h)},V_{t(h)}).$$ The group $G_{\nu,I}=\prod_{i\in I}GL(V_i)$ acts on $E_{\nu,Q}$ by $g.x=gxg^{-1}$. Let $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,Q})$ be the space of $G_{\nu,I}$-invariant constructible functions on $E_{\nu,Q}$ and $$\mathcal{F}_{{Q}}=\bigoplus_{\nu\in\mathbb{N}{I}}\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,Q}).$$
Fix $I$-graded vector spaces $\mathbf{V}'$, $\mathbf{V}''$ and $\mathbf{V}$ of dimension vector $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma=\alpha+\beta$ respectively. Consider the following correspondence $$\xymatrix{E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\beta,Q}&E'\ar[r]^{p_2}\ar[l]_-{p_1}&E''\ar[r]^-{p_3}&E_{\gamma,Q}}.$$ Here
1. $E''$ is the variety of all pairs $(x,\mathbf{W})$, where $x\in E_{\gamma,{Q}}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ is a $x$-stable $I$-graded vector subspace of $\mathbf{V}$ with dimension vector $\beta$,
2. $E'$ is the variety of all quadruples $(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho', \rho'')$, where $(x, \mathbf{W})\in E''$ and $\rho': \mathbf{V}/\mathbf{W}\cong \mathbf{V}',$ $\rho'': \mathbf{W}\cong \mathbf{V}''$ are linear isomorphisms,
3. $p_2$ and $p_3$ are natural projections,
4. $p_1(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho', \rho'')=(x',x'')$ such that $$x'_h\rho'_{s(h)}=\rho'_{t(h)}x_h\,\textrm{ and }\,
x''_h\rho''_{s(h)}=\rho''_{t(h)}x_h$$ for any $h\in H.$
The group $G_{\gamma,I}$ acts on $E''$ by $g.(x, \mathbf{W})=(gxg^{-1}, g\mathbf{W})$ for any $g\in G_{\gamma,I}$. The groups $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}$ and $G_{\gamma,I}$ act on $E'$ by $(g_1, g_2).(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho', \rho'')=(x, \mathbf{W}, g_1\rho', g_2\rho'')$ and $g.(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho', \rho'')=(gxg^{-1}, g\mathbf{W}, \rho'g^{-1}, \rho''g^{-1})$ for any $(g_1, g_2)\in G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}$ and $g\in G_{\gamma,I}$. The map $p_1$ is $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}\times G_{\gamma,I}$-equivariant ($G_{\gamma,I}$ acts on $E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\beta,Q}$ trivially) and $p_2$ is a principal $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}$-bundle.
Consider the following map $$\textrm{Ind}: \mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\beta,Q}) \rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\gamma,I}}(E_{\gamma,Q}),$$ which is the composition of the following maps $$\xymatrix{\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\beta,Q})\ar[r]^-{p^*_1}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\beta,I}\times G_{\gamma,I}}(E')\ar[r]^-{(p^*_2)^{-1}}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\gamma,I}}(E'')\ar[r]^-{(p_3)_{!}}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\gamma,I}}(E_{\gamma,Q})}.$$ For two functions $f_1\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q})$ and $f_2\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\beta,I}}(E_{\beta,{Q}})$, let $g(x_1,x_2)=f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)$ for any $(x_1,x_2)\in E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\beta,{Q}}$ and set $$f_1\ast f_2=v^{-m_{\alpha,\beta}}\textrm{Ind}(g)$$ where $m_{\alpha,\beta}=\sum_{h\in H}\alpha_{s(h)}\beta_{t(h)}+\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_{i}\beta_{i}$. The algebra $(\mathcal{F}_{Q},\ast)$ is still denoted by $\mathcal{F}_{Q}$.
For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$, let $\mathcal{O}_{\alpha}$ be the $G_{\alpha,I}$-orbit of $V_{\alpha}$ in $E_{\alpha,Q}$ and $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}$ the constant function on $\mathcal{O}_{\alpha}$ with value $1$. It is directed that $$\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast \mathbf{1}_{\beta}(x)=v^{-m_{\alpha,\beta}}g_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}$$ for any $x\in\mathcal{O}_{\gamma}$.
There is an isomorphism of algebras $$\varphi:{H}^{\ast}_q(Q)\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{{Q}}$$ defined by sending $u_{\alpha}$ to $v^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\textrm{dim}G_{\alpha}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}$.
Denote by $$\Phi_{Q,Q'}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,{Q}'})$$ the Fourier transform, where $Q=(I,H)$ and $Q'=(I,H')$ are two quivers with the same underlying graph and different orientations ([@Sevenhant_Van_den_Bergh_On_the_double_of_the_Hall_algebra_of_a_quiver]).
On the relation between the Fourier transforms and the multiplication on $\mathcal{F}_{{Q}}$, we have the following proposition.
\[proposition\_fourier\_multi\] For two functions $f_1\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q})$ and $f_2\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\beta,I}}(E_{\beta,{Q}})$, $$\Phi_{Q,Q'}(f_1\ast f_2)=\Phi_{Q,Q'}(f_1)\ast\Phi_{Q,Q'}(f_2),$$ where $Q=(I,H)$ and $Q'=(I,H')$ are two quivers with the same underlying graph and different orientations.
Double Ringel-Hall algebras
---------------------------
In this section, we shall recall the definition of double Ringel-Hall algebra of $Q$ introduced by Xiao ([@xiao1997drinfeld]).
Let $\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q)$ be the free $\mathbb{Q}(v)$-module with basis $\{K_\mu u^+_\alpha\,\,|\,\,\mu\in\mathbb{Z}I, \alpha\in\mathcal{P}\}$. The multiplication is defined as:
1. $u^+_{\alpha}u^+_{\beta}=v^{\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle}\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{P}}g^{\lambda}_{\alpha\beta}u^+_{\lambda}$ for all $\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{P}$,
2. $K_{\mu}u^+_\alpha=v^{(\mu,\alpha)}u^+_\alpha K_{\mu}$ for all $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $\mu\in\mathbb{Z}I$,
3. $K_{\nu}K_{\mu}=K_{\nu+\mu}$ for all $\nu,\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
and the unit is $1=u^+_0=K_0$. The comultiplication $\Delta$ is defined as:
1. $\Delta(u^+_{\lambda})=\sum_{\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{P}}v^{\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle}\frac{a_{\alpha}a_{\beta}}{a_{\lambda}}
g^{\lambda}_{\alpha\beta}u^+_{\alpha}K_{\beta}\otimes u^+_{\beta}$ for all $\lambda\in\mathcal{P}$,
2. $\Delta(K_{\mu})=K_{\mu}\otimes K_{\mu}$ for all $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
and the counit $\epsilon$ is defined as:
1. $\epsilon(u^+_{\lambda})=0$ for all $\lambda\neq0\in\mathcal{P}$,
2. $\epsilon(K_{\mu})=1$ for all $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$.
The antipode $S$ is defined as:
1. $S(u^+_{\lambda})=\delta_{\lambda0}+\sum_{m\geq1}(-1)^m\sum v^{2\sum_{i<j}\langle\lambda_i,\lambda_j\rangle}
\frac{a_{\lambda_1}\dots a_{\lambda_m}}{a_\lambda}g^{\lambda}_{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_m}g^{\pi}_{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_m}K_{-\lambda}u^+_{\pi}$ for all $\lambda\in\mathcal{P}$, where $\pi\in\mathcal{P}$, $\lambda_i\in\mathcal{P}-\{0\}$ for any $1\leq i\leq m$,
2. $S(K_{\mu})=K_{-\mu}$ for all $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$.
With these operators, $\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q)$ becomes a Hopf algebra.
The Hopf algebra $\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q)$ is called the extended twisted Ringel-Hall algebra of $Q$. Let ${H}_{q}^+(Q)$ be the subalgebra of $\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q)$ with basis $\{u^+_\alpha\,\,|\,\,\alpha\in\mathcal{P}\}$.
Similarly, one can define the extended twisted Ringel-Hall algebra $\tilde{{H}}^-_q(Q)$ with an $\mathbb{Q}(v)$-basis $\{K_\mu u^-_\alpha\,\,|\,\,\mu\in\mathbb{Z}I, \alpha\in\mathcal{P}\}$. Let ${H}_{q}^-(Q)$ be the subalgebra of $\tilde{{H}}_q^-(Q)$ with basis $\{u^-_\alpha\,\,|\,\,\alpha\in\mathcal{P}\}$.
There is a bilinear form $\varphi:\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q)\times\tilde{{H}}_q^-(Q)\rightarrow \mathbb{Q}(v)$ such that $$\varphi(K_{\mu}u^+_\alpha,K_{\nu}u^-_\beta)=v^{-(\mu,\nu)-(\alpha,\nu)+(\mu,\beta)}\frac{|V_\alpha|}{a_{\alpha}}\delta_{\alpha\beta},$$ which is a skew-Hopf pairing. Denote by ${\tilde{D}}_q(Q)$ the Drinfeld double of $(\tilde{{H}}_q^+(Q),\tilde{{H}}_q^-(Q),\varphi)$. The ideal of ${\tilde{D}}_q(Q)$ generated by $\{K_{\mu}\otimes1-1\otimes K_{\mu}\,\,|\,\,\mu\in\mathbb{Z}I\}$ is a Hopf ideal. Denote by ${D}_q(Q)$ the quotient of ${\tilde{D}}_q(Q)$ module this Hopf ideal. Note that ${D}_q(Q)$ is a Hopf algebra, which is called the reduced Drinfeld double of Ringel-Hall algebra of $Q$ or double Ringel-Hall algebra of $Q$ for simplicity.
The double Ringel-Hall algebra admits the following triangular decomposition $${D}_q(Q)={H}_{q}^-(Q)\otimes{T}\otimes{H}_{q}^+(Q),$$ where ${T}$ is the torus subalgebra generated by $\{K_{\mu}\,\,|\,\,\mu\in\mathbb{Z}I\}$.
Note that there are two isomorphisms of algebras ${^+}:{H}_q^{\ast}(Q)\rightarrow{H}_{q}^+(Q)$ mapping $u_{\lambda}$ to $u^+_{\lambda}$ and ${^-}:{H}_q^{\ast}(Q)\rightarrow{H}_{q}^-(Q)$ mapping $u_{\lambda}$ to $u^-_{\lambda}$ for all $\lambda\in\mathcal{P}$.
In ${D}_q(Q)$, Xiao proved the following formulas.
\[proposition\_xiao-yang\] For any $i\in I$ and $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$, we have
1. $u^-_{i}u^+_{\alpha}-u^+_{\alpha}u^-_{i}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}u^+_{\beta}
(v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}K_{i}-v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}K_{-i})$,
2. $u^-_{\alpha}u^+_{i}-u^+_{i}u^-_{\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}u^-_{\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}K_{i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}K_{-i})$.
Denoted by $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ the subalgebra of ${D}_q(Q)$ generated by $u^+_{i}(i\in I)$, $u^-_{\alpha}(\alpha\in\mathcal{P})$ and $K_{\mu}(\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I)$.
The definition of ${D}_q(Q)$ and Proposition \[proposition\_xiao-yang\] imply the following proposition.
\[proposition\_definition-relation\] The algebra $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ is the associative algebra generated by $u^+_{i}(i\in I)$, $u^-_{\alpha}(\alpha\in\mathcal{P})$ and $K_{\mu}(\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I)$ subject to the following relations:
1. $K_0=u^+_0=u^-_0=\mathbf{1},\,\,K_{\mu}K_{\nu}=K_{\mu+\nu}$ for any $\mu,\nu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
2. $K_{\mu}u^+_{i}=v^{(\mu,i)}u^+_{i} K_{\mu}$ for any $i\in I$ and $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
3. $K_{\mu}u^-_{\beta}=v^{-(\beta,\mu)}u^-_{\beta} K_{\mu}$ for any $\beta\in\mathcal{P}$ and $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
4. $\sum_{m=0}^{1-(i,j)}(-1)^m(u^+_{i})^{(m)} u^+_{j} (u^+_{i})^{(1-(i,j)-m)}=0$ for any $i\neq j$,
5. $u^-_{\alpha}u^-_{\beta}
=v^{\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle}\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{P}}g_{\alpha\beta}^{\lambda}u^-_{\lambda}$ for any $\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{P}$,
6. $u^-_{\alpha}u^+_{i}-u^+_{i}u^-_{\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}u^-_{\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}K_{i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}K_{-i})$ for any $i\in I$ and $\alpha\in \mathcal{P}$,
where $(u^+_{i})^{(m)}=(u^+_{i})^{m}/[m]_{v}!$ and $[m]_{v}!=\prod_{h=1}^{m}\frac{v^h-v^{-h}}{v-v^{-1}}$.
Quantum groups and composition subalgebras
------------------------------------------
In this section, we shall recall the definition of quantum groups ([@Lusztig_Introduction_to_quantum_groups]).
Let $a_{ij}=(i,j)$ and $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j\in I}$ be the symmetric generalized Cartan matrix associated to the quiver $Q$. Let $v$ be an indeterminate.
The quantum group $\mathbf{U}$ associated to the quiver $Q$ is an associative algebra over $\mathbb{Q}(v)$ with unit element $1$, generated by the elements $E_i$, $F_i(i\in I)$ and $K_{\mu}(\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I)$ subject to the following relations
1. $K_{0}=1$ and $K_{\mu}K_{\nu}=K_{\mu+\nu}$ for all $\mu,\nu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
2. $K_{\mu}E_{i}=v^{(\mu,i)}E_iK_{\mu}$ for all $i\in I$, $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
3. $K_{\mu}F_{i}=v^{-(\mu,i)}F_iK_{\mu}$ for all $i\in I$, $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$,
4. $\sum_{k=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^{k}E_i^{(k)}E_jE_i^{(1-a_{ij}-k)}=0$ for all $i\neq j\in I$,
5. $\sum_{k=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^{k}F_i^{(k)}F_jF_i^{(1-a_{ij}-k)}=0$ for all $i\neq j\in I$,
6. $E_iF_j-F_jE_i=\delta_{ij}\frac{K_{i}-K_{-i}}{v-v^{-1}}$ for all $i,j\in I$,
where $E_i^{(n)}=E_i^n/[n]_{v}!$ and $F_i^{(n)}=F_i^n/[n]_{v}!$.
The quantum group $\mathbf{U}$ has the following triangular decomposition $$\mathbf{U}\cong {\mathbf{U}^-}\otimes{\mathbf{U}^{0}}\otimes{\mathbf{U}^{+}},$$ where $\mathbf{U}^-$, $\mathbf{U}^+$ and $\mathbf{U}^{0}$ are the subalgebras $\mathbf{U}$ generated by $F_i$, $E_i$ and $K_{\mu}$ for all $i\in I$ and $\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I$ respectively.
Denoted by ${D}_c(Q)$ the subalgebra of ${D}_q(Q)$ generated by $u^\pm_{i}(i\in I)$ and $K_{\mu}(\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I)$. The algebra ${D}_c(Q)$ is called the composition subalgebra of ${D}_q(Q)$. Note the ${D}_c(Q)$ is also the subalgebra of ${\hat{D}}_q(Q)$ generated by $u^\pm_{i}(i\in I)$ and $K_{\mu}(\mu\in \mathbb{Z}I)$.
On the relation between the composition subalgebra ${D}_c(Q)$ and quantum group $\mathbf{U}$ of the quiver $Q$, we have the following theorem.
There is an isomorphism of algebras $$\Phi_q:{D}_c(Q)\rightarrow\mathbf{U}|_{v=\sqrt{q}}$$ defined by sending $u^+_{i}$ to $E_i$, $u^-_{i}$ to $-vF_i$ and $K_{\mu}$ to $K_{\mu}$.
Highest weight modules
----------------------
Similarly to the representation theory of a double Ringel-Hall algebra introduced in [@deng2002double], we can consider the representation theory of its subalgebra ${\hat{D}}_q(Q)$.
Given $\omega=\sum_{i\in I}\omega_ii\in\mathbb{N}I$, denote by $M(\omega)$ the Verma module of $\hat{D}_q(Q)$, which is the quotient of $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ by the left ideal generated by ${u^+_{i}}$, $K_i-v^{\omega_i}$ for all $i\in I$. Denote by $\eta_{\omega}\in M(\omega)$ the coset of $K_0$ in $\hat{D}_q(Q)$.
Denote by $L(\omega)$ the quotient of $M(\omega)$ by the left ideal generated by ${(u^-_{i})}^{\omega_i+1}$ for all $i\in I$. The coset of $\eta_{\omega}$ is still denoted by $\eta_{\omega}$ in $L(\omega)$.
The modules $M(\omega)$ and $L(\omega)$ are highest weight modules of $\hat{D}_q(Q)$.
Constructions of highest weight modules via functions
=====================================================
The spaces $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$
----------------------------------
For a quiver $Q=(I,H,s,t)$, let $\hat{I}=I\cup\{\hat{i}\,\,|\,\,i\in I\}$ and $\hat{H}=H\cup\{h_i\,\,|\,\,i\in I\}$, where $h_i$ is an arrow that connects $i$ and $\hat{i}$. The quiver $\hat{Q}=(\hat{I},\hat{H},s,t)$ is called an enlarged quiver of $Q$.
For any $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$, fix an $\hat{I}$-graded vector space $\mathbf{V}=\bigoplus_{i\in\hat{I}}V_i$ of dimension vector $\nu$. Consider the variety $$E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}=\bigoplus_{h\in \hat{H}}\Hom_k(V_{s(h)},V_{t(h)}).$$ The group $G_{\nu,I}$ acts on $E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ by $g.x=gxg^{-1}$. Let $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ be the space of $G_{\nu,I}$-invariant constructible functions on $E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$.
Denote by $$\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}'})$$ the Fourier transform, where $\hat{Q}=(\hat{I},\hat{H})$ and $\hat{Q}'=(\hat{I},\hat{H}')$ are two enlarged quivers with the same underlying graph and different orientations ([@Sevenhant_Van_den_Bergh_On_the_double_of_the_Hall_algebra_of_a_quiver]).
For any $i\in I$, choose an enlarged quiver $^i\hat{Q}$ such that $i$ is a source. Let ${^i{E}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}$ be the subvariety of ${E}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}$ consisting of all $x=(x_h)_{h\in\hat{H}}$ such that $$\bigoplus_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}x_h:V_i\rightarrow\bigoplus_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}V_{t(h)}$$ is injective. Denote by ${\mathcal{N}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}},i}$ the subspace of $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}})$ consisting of the functions $f$ such that $\textrm{supp}{f}\cap{^i{E}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}=\emptyset$. Denote by $j_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}:{^i{E}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}\rightarrow{E}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}}}$ the natural embedding.
For a general enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$, denote by ${{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i}$ the subspace of $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ consisting of the functions $f$ such that $\Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},\hat{Q}}(f)\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}},i}$. Since $\Phi_{\hat{Q}',\hat{Q}''}\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}=\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}''}$ for enlarged quivers $\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'$ and $\hat{Q}''$ with the same underlying graph, the subspace ${{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i}$ is independent of the choice of $^i\hat{Q}$.
Let $\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ be the subspace of $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ generated by ${\mathcal{N}}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i}$ for various $i\in I$ and $$\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}=\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})/\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$ Let $$\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}=\bigoplus_{\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}}\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$
Fix two enlarged quivers $\hat{Q}=(\hat{I},\hat{H})$ and $\hat{Q}'=(\hat{I},\hat{H}')$ with the same underlying graph and different orientations. Since $\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}({{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i})={{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q}',i}$ for any $i\in{I}$, it holds that $\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}({{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})={{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,\hat{Q}'}$. Hence the Fourier transform $\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}'})$ induces the following map $$\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}:\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}'}.$$
In [@zheng2008categorification], Zheng studied the algebraic stack $[E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}/G_{\nu,I}]$ and the bounded derived category $\mathcal{D}([E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}/G_{\nu,I}])$ of constructible $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}_l$-sheaves on it. Then, Zheng studied a subcategory $\mathcal{N}_{\nu}$ of the the derived category $\mathcal{D}([E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}/G_{\nu,I}])$ and the localized category $\mathfrak{D}_{\nu}=\mathcal{D}([E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}/G_{\nu,I}])/\mathcal{N}_{\nu}$. Here we study $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$, the subspace $\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ of $\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ and the quotient space $\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}=\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})/\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$, which are the functional versions of $\mathcal{D}([E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}/G_{\nu,I}])$, $\mathcal{N}_{\nu}$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{\nu}$ respectively.
The maps $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$
----------------------------------
For any $i\in I$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$, define $$\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}=v^{\bar{\nu}_i-\nu_i}\mathrm{Id}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}),$$ where $\bar{\nu}_i=\sum_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}\nu_{t(h)}+\sum_{h\in\hat{H},t(h)=i}\nu_{s(h)}-\nu_i$.
On the relation between the maps $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$ and the Fourier transforms, Zheng proved the following proposition.
\[proposition\_zheng\_K\_1\] For any two enlarged quivers $\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{Q}'$ with the same underlying graph, it holds that $$\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}=\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q}',i}\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}.$$
In [@zheng2008categorification], Zheng also proved the following propositions.
\[proposition\_zheng\_K\_2\] For any $i\in I$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$, it holds that $$\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}(\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\subset\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$
Hence, the maps $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ induce the following maps $$\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}:\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$
When $i$ is a source of $\hat{Q}$, define $${^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}=v^{\bar{\nu}_i-\nu_i}\mathrm{Id}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}),$$ for any $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$.
By the definition of ${^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$, we have the following commutative diagram $$\label{cd_1}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({E}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[d]^-{j^\ast_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}}\ar[r]^-{\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({E}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[d]^-{j^\ast_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}}\\
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[r]^-{{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}).
}$$
The maps $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$ are the functional versions of the functors $\mathcal{K}_{\Omega,i}$ in [@zheng2008categorification]. Proposition \[proposition\_zheng\_K\_1\] and \[proposition\_zheng\_K\_2\] are the functional versions of Proposition 3.3 and 3.4 in [@zheng2008categorification] and the proofs are on the same.
The maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$
---------------------------------------
For any $\nu,\nu'\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$ such that $\nu'-\nu\in\mathbb{N}I$, fix $\hat{I}$-graded vector spaces $\mathbf{V}=\bigoplus_{i\in\hat{I}}V_i$ and $\mathbf{V}'=\bigoplus_{i\in\hat{I}}V'_i$ of dimension vector $\nu$ and $\nu'$ respectively.
Let $$F_{\nu\nu'}=\{y\in\bigoplus_{j\in{\hat{I}}}\Hom(V_j,V'_j)\,\,|\,\,y_j\textrm{ is injective and } y_{\hat{j}}=\textrm{Id} \textrm{ for any $j\in I$}\}$$ and $G_{\nu\nu',I}=G_{\nu,I}\times G_{\nu',I}$. The group $G_{\nu\nu',I}$ acts on $F_{\nu\nu'}$ by $(g,g').y=g'yg^{-1}$ for any $y\in F_{\nu\nu'}$ and $(g,g')\in G_{\nu\nu',I}$.
Let $$Z_{\hat{Q}}=\{(x,x',y)\in E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}\times E_{\nu',\hat{Q}}\times F_{\nu\nu'}\,\,|\,\,x'_hy_{s(h)}=y_{t(h)}x_h\textrm{ for any $h\in\hat{H}$}\}.$$ Consider the following two maps $p:Z_{\hat{Q}}\rightarrow E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ defined as $p(x,x',y)=x$ and $p':Z_{\hat{Q}}\rightarrow E_{\nu',\hat{Q}}$ defined as $p'(x,x',y)=x'$.
When $i$ is a source of $\hat{Q}$, let $${^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}=\{(x,x',y)\in Z_{\hat{Q}}\,\,|\,\, x'\in{^i{E}}_{\nu',\hat{Q}}\}.$$ Denote by ${^ip}$ and ${^ip'}$ be the restrictions of $p$ and $p'$ to ${^iZ}_{\hat{Q}}$ respectively.
For any $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$ and $i\in I$, let $\nu'=\nu+ni$ and define $$\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}=v^{-n\nu_i}|G_{\nu'}|^{-1}({^i{p}})_!({^i{p}')^\ast}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}(E_{\nu',\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}).$$
On the relation between the maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$ and the Fourier transforms, Zheng proved the following proposition.
\[proposition\_fourier\_e\] For any two enlarged quivers $\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{Q}'$ both having $i$ as sources, it holds that $$\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}=\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q}',ni}\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}.$$
In [@zheng2008categorification], Zheng also proved the following proposition.
\[proposition\_zheng\_e\_1\] For any enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$ such that $i$ is a source, it holds that $$\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}(\mathcal{N}_{\nu+ni,\hat{Q}})\subset\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$
Hence, the maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu+ni,I}}(E_{\nu+ni,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ induce the following maps $$\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}:\mathcal{F}_{\nu+ni,\hat{Q}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$
For a general enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$, choose a new enlarged quiver ${^i\hat{Q}}$ with the same underlying graph and having $i$ as source. Consider the following maps $$\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}=\Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},\hat{Q}}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{{^i\hat{Q}},ni}\Phi_{\hat{Q},{^i\hat{Q}}}:\mathcal{F}_{\nu+ni,\hat{Q}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}.$$ Proposition \[proposition\_fourier\_e\] implies that the definition of $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$ is independent of the choice of ${^i\hat{Q}}$ for any $i\in I$.
When $i$ is a source of $\hat{Q}$, Im${^ip}\subset{^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ and Im${^ip'}\subset{^iE}_{\nu',\hat{Q}}$. Hence, we can define $${^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}=v^{-n\nu_i}|G_{\nu'}|^{-1}({^i{p}})_!({^i{p}')^\ast}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({^iE}_{\nu',\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}),$$ for any $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$ and $\nu'=\nu+ni$.
On the relation between ${^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$, we have the following commutative diagram ([@zheng2008categorification]) $$\label{cd_2}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({E}_{\nu',\hat{Q}})\ar[d]^-{j^\ast_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}}\ar[r]^-{{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({E}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\\
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({^iE}_{\nu',\hat{Q}})\ar[r]^-{{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[u]_-{(j_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}})_{!}}.
}$$
The maps ${\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},ni}$ are the functional versions of the functors $\mathcal{E}^{(n)}_{\Omega,i}$ in [@zheng2008categorification]. Proposition \[proposition\_fourier\_e\] and \[proposition\_zheng\_e\_1\] are the functional versions of Proposition 3.3 and 3.4 in [@zheng2008categorification] and the proofs are on the same.
The maps $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$
-------------------------------------------
For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$, let $\nu'=\nu+\alpha$. Fix $\hat{I}$-graded vector spaces $\mathbf{V}=\bigoplus_{i\in\hat{I}}V_i$ and $\mathbf{V}'=\bigoplus_{i\in\hat{I}}V'_i$ of dimension vector $\nu$ and $\nu'$ respectively.
Let $$Z_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=\{(x,x',y)\in Z_{\hat{Q}}\,\,|\,\,[V_{x'}/\textrm{Im}y]=\alpha\},$$ where $V_{x'}=(\mathbf{V}',x')$. The restrictions of $p$ and $p'$ are still denoted by $p$ and $p'$. Define $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
p'_!p^\ast:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}(E_{\nu',\hat{Q}}).$$
When $\alpha=i$, the map $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ is the functional version of the functor $\mathcal{F}_{\Omega,i}$ in [@zheng2008categorification].
Similarly to the definition of the multiplication $\ast$ on $\mathcal{F}_{Q}$ in Section \[subsection\_function1\], we can give an alternative description of $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$.
Fix an $\hat{I}$-graded vector space $\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}$ of dimension vector $\alpha$. Consider the following correspondence $$\xymatrix{E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}&E'\ar[r]^{p_2}\ar[l]_-{p_1}&E''\ar[r]^-{p_3}&E_{\nu',\hat{Q}}}.$$ Here
1. $E''$ is the variety of all pairs $(x,\mathbf{W})$, where $x\in E_{\nu',\hat{Q}}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ is a $x$-stable $\hat{I}$-graded vector subspace of $\mathbf{V}'$ with dimension vector $\nu$;
2. $E'$ is the variety of all quadruples $(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho_1, \rho_2)$ where $(x, \mathbf{W})\in E''$ and $\rho_1: \mathbf{V}/\mathbf{W}\cong \mathbf{V}_\alpha,$ $\rho_2: \mathbf{W}\cong \mathbf{V}$ are linear isomorphisms;
3. $p_2$ and $p_3$ are natural projections;
4. $p_1(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho_1, \rho_2)=(x',x'')$ such that $$x'_h(\rho_1)_{s(h)}=(\rho_1)_{t(h)}x_h\,\textrm{ and }\,
x''_h(\rho_2)_{s(h)}=(\rho_2)_{t(h)}x_h$$ for any $h\in \hat{H}.$
The group $G_{\nu',I}$ acts on $E''$ by $g.(x, \mathbf{W})=(gxg^{-1}, g\mathbf{W})$ for any $g\in G_{\nu',I}$. The groups $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}$ and $G_{\nu',I}$ act on $E'$ by $(g_1, g_2).(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho_1, \rho_2)=(x, \mathbf{W}, g_1\rho_1, g_2\rho_2)$ and $g.(x, \mathbf{W}, \rho_1, \rho_2)=(gxg^{-1}, g\mathbf{W}, \rho_1g^{-1}, \rho_2g^{-1})$ for any $(g_1, g_2)\in G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}$ and $g\in G_{\nu',I}$. The map $p_1$ is $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}\times G_{\nu',I}$-equivariant ($G_{\nu',I}$ acts on $E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$ trivially) and $p_2$ is a principal $G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}$-bundle.
Consider the following map $$\textrm{Ind}: \mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}) \rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}(E_{\nu',\hat{Q}})$$ as the composition of the following maps $$\xymatrix{\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[r]^-{p^*_1}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}\times G_{\nu',I}}({E}')\ar[r]^-{(p_2^\ast)^{-1}}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({E}'')\ar[r]^-{(p_3)_{!}}&\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}(E_{\nu',\hat{Q}})}.$$
For two functions $f_1\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q})$ and $f_2\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$, let $g(x_1,x_2)=f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)$ for any $(x_1,x_2)\in E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$. Then $g\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}\times G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q}\times E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$. Set $$f_1\ast f_2=v^{-m_{\alpha,\nu}}\textrm{Ind}(g).$$
\[proposition\_relation\_multi\] For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $f\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$, we have $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast f.$$
For any $\beta\in\mathcal{P}$ with dimension vector $\nu$, $\gamma\in\mathcal{P}$ with dimension vector $\nu'=\nu+\alpha$ and $x_{\gamma}\in\mathcal{O}_{\gamma}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(\mathbf{1}_{\beta})(x_{\gamma})&=&
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}
|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
p'_!p^\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\beta})(x_{\gamma})\\
&=&
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}
|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
\sum_{(x,x_{\gamma},y)\in Z_{\hat{Q},\alpha}}p^\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\beta})(x,x_{\gamma},y)\\
&=&
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}
|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
\sum_{(x,x_{\gamma},y)\in Z_{\hat{Q},\alpha}}\mathbf{1}_{\beta}(x)\\
&=&
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}
|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
|(x,x_{\gamma},y)\in Z_{\hat{Q},\alpha},x\in\mathcal{O}_{\beta}|\\
&=&
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}
|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
|G_{\nu}|g_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast\mathbf{1}_{\beta}(x_{\gamma}).\end{aligned}$$ That is $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(\mathbf{1}_{\beta})=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast \mathbf{1}_{\beta}$.
For any $f\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$, $f$ is a linear combination of $\mathbf{1}_{\beta}$ for various $\beta\in\mathcal{P}$ and we have $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast f$.
Similarly to Proposition \[proposition\_fourier\_multi\], we have the following proposition.
\[proposition\_fourier\_multi-1\] For two functions $f_1\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\alpha,I}}(E_{\alpha,Q})$ and $f_2\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$, $$\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}(f_1\ast f_2)=\Phi_{Q,Q'}(f_1)\ast\Phi_{\hat{Q},\hat{Q}'}(f_2),$$ where $Q=(I,H)$ and $Q'=(I,H')$ are two quivers with the same underlying graph and different orientations, $\hat{Q}=(\hat{I},\hat{H})$ and $\hat{Q}'=(\hat{I},\hat{H}')$ are enlarged quivers of $Q$ and $Q'$ respectively.
By using Proposition \[proposition\_relation\_multi\] and \[proposition\_fourier\_multi-1\], we have the following proposition.
\[proposition\_N\_f\] For any enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$, we have $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\subset\mathcal{N}_{\nu+\alpha,\hat{Q}}.$$
Let $a(v)=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}$.
When $i\in{I}$ is a source of $\hat{Q}$, it is clear that $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=a(v)\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast f\in\mathcal{N}_{\nu+\alpha,\hat{Q},i}$ for any $f\in\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i}$.
For a general enlarged quiver $\hat{Q}$, choose a new enlarged quiver ${^i\hat{Q}}$ with the same underlying graph and having $i$ as source. For any $f\in\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q},i}$, there is a function $f'\in{{\mathcal{N}}}_{\nu,{^i\hat{Q}},i}$ such that $f=\Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},\hat{Q}}(f')$. Hence $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=a(v)\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast f=a(v)\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast \Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},\hat{Q}}(f').$$ Since $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}=\Phi_{{^i{Q}},{Q}}\Phi_{{{Q}},{^i{Q}}}(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha})$, $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=a(v)\Phi_{{^i{Q}},{Q}}\Phi_{{{Q}},{^i{Q}}}(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha})\ast \Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},{\hat{Q}}}(f')=a(v)\Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},{\hat{Q}}}(\Phi_{{{Q}},{^i{Q}}}(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha})\ast f').$$ Note that $\Phi_{{{Q}},{^i{Q}}}(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha})=\sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\gamma}\mathbf{1}_{\gamma}$ for some $a_{\gamma}\in\mathbb{C}$. Hence $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=a(v)\Phi_{{^i\hat{Q}},{\hat{Q}}}(\sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\gamma}(\mathbf{1}_{\gamma}\ast f')).$$ Since $\mathbf{1}_{\gamma}\ast f'\in\mathcal{N}_{\nu+\alpha,{^i\hat{Q}},i}$, $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)\in\mathcal{N}_{\nu+\alpha,\hat{Q},i}$.
By the definition of $\mathcal{N}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$, we get the desired result.
Hence, the maps $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}:\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu+\alpha,I}}(E_{\nu+\alpha,\hat{Q}})$ induce the following maps $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}:\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{\nu+\alpha,\hat{Q}}.$$
When $i$ is a source of $\hat{Q}$, let $${^iZ}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=\{(x,x',y)\in{Z}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\,\,|\,\,x'\in{^i{E}}_{\nu',\hat{Q}}\}.$$ Denote by ${^ip}$ and ${^ip'}$ be the restrictions of $p$ and $p'$ to ${^iZ}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ respectively.
For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha}$, define $${^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}({^ip'})_!({^ip})^\ast:
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({^iE}_{\nu',\hat{Q}}).$$
By Proposition \[proposition\_N\_f\], we have the following commutative diagram on the relation between ${^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$ $$\label{cd_3}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({E}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[r]^-{{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}}\ar[d]^-{j^\ast_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({E}_{\nu',\hat{Q}})\ar[d]^-{j^\ast_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}}\\
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}({^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}})\ar[r]^-{{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}}&
\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu',I}}({^iE}_{\nu',\hat{Q}})
.}$$
Main results
------------
\[MT0\] On the maps $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}(i\in I)$, $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(\alpha\in\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathcal{K}^{\pm1}_{\hat{Q},i}(i\in I)$, we have the following relations:
1. $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}=\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}$ for any $i,j\in I$,
2. $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}=v^{(j,i)}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}$ for any $i,j\in I$,
3. $\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=v^{-(\alpha,j)}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},j}$ for any $j\in I$ and $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$,
4. $\sum_{m=0}^{1-(i,j)}(-1)^m(\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i})^{(m)}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},j}(\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i})^{(1-(i,j)-m)}=0$ for any $i\neq j\in I$,
5. $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}=v^{\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle}\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{P}}g_{\alpha\beta}^{\lambda}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\lambda}$ for any $\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{P}$,
6. $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i})$ for any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $i\in I$.
The Relation (1)-(3) are directed from the definitions. The Relation (4) is Theorem 3.9 (8) in [@zheng2008categorification]. The proofs of Relation (5) and (6) will be given in Section \[proof\_mt1&2\].
As a corollary of Theorem \[MT0\] and Proposition \[proposition\_definition-relation\], we have the following theorem.
\[MT1\] By defining $$K_{\pm i}.f=\mathcal{K}^{\pm1}_{\hat{Q},i}(f)\,\,,{u^+_{i}}.f=\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}(f)\textrm{ and }{u^-_{\alpha}}.f=\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f),$$ the space $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ becomes a left $\hat{{D}}(Q)$-module.
For any $\omega=\sum_{i\in I}\omega_i{i}\in\mathbb{Z}I$, let $\mathbf{1}_{\omega}$ be the constant function on ${E}_{\hat{\omega},\hat{Q}}$ with value $1$, where $\hat{\omega}=\sum_{i\in I}\omega_i\hat{i}$. Denote by $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$ the submodule of $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q}}$ generated by $\mathbf{1}_{\omega}$. By the definition, $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$ is a highest weight module of $\hat{D}_q(Q)$ with highest weigh $\omega$.
For the relation between $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$ and $L(\omega)$, we have the following theorem.
\[MT2\] There is an epimorphism of $\hat{{D}}(Q)$-modules from $L(\omega)$ to $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$.
There is an epimorphism of $\hat{{D}}(Q)$-modules from $\hat{{D}}(Q)$ to $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$. Since the image of the left ideal generated by ${u^+_{i}}$, $K_i-v^{\omega_i}$ and $(u^-_{i})^{\omega_i+1}$ for all $i\in I$ is $0$, there exists an epimorphism of $\hat{{D}}(Q)$-modules from $L(\omega)$ to $\mathcal{F}_{\hat{Q},\omega}$.
The proofs of Relation (5) and (6) in Theorem \[MT0\] {#proof_mt1&2}
=====================================================
For any $\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{P}$, we have $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}=v^{\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle}\sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{P}}g_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\gamma}.$$
By Proposition \[proposition\_relation\_multi\], we have $\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}(f)=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu}}\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast f$ for any $f\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$.
Similarly to the associativity of multiplication of a Hall algebra, we have $$\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\beta}\ast f)=(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast \mathbf{1}_{\beta})\ast f.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}(f)\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu+\beta}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}+m_{\alpha,\nu+\beta}}
(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}}v^{\langle{\beta,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}+m_{\beta,\nu}}
\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\beta}\ast f)\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha+\beta}}v^{\langle{\alpha+\beta,\nu}\rangle+\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha+\beta}+m_{\alpha+\beta,\nu}+m_{\alpha,\beta}}
(\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}\ast\mathbf{1}_{\beta})\ast f\\
&=&\sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{P}}(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\gamma}}v^{\langle{\gamma,\nu}\rangle+\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\gamma}+m_{\gamma,\nu}}
g_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}\mathbf{1}_{\gamma}\ast f\\
&=&v^{\langle{\alpha,\beta}\rangle}\sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{P}}
g_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\gamma}(f)\end{aligned}$$ and we have the desired result.
\[lemma\_6\] For any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ and $i\in I$, we have $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}\mathcal{K}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i}).$$
For the proof of Proposition \[lemma\_6\], we need the following lemmas.
\[lemma\_6\_1\] For any $i\in I$ such that $i$ is a source and $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha}$, we have $${^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i}).$$
Since $i$ is a source and $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha}$, we have $$-\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i}=0.$$ Hence, it is enough to prove $$\label{f_3}
{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}.$$
Fix $\nu\in\mathbb{N}\hat{I}$ and let $\mu=\nu+\alpha$, $\mu'=\nu-i$ and $\nu'=\nu+\alpha-i$. Fix $\hat{I}$-graded vector spaces $\mathbf{V}^{\nu}$, $\mathbf{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathbf{V}^{\nu'}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{\mu'}$ with $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{V}^{\nu}=\nu$, $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{V}^{\mu}=\mu$, $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{V}^{\nu'}=\nu'$ and $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{V}^{\mu'}=\mu'$ respectively.
Consider the following diagram $$\label{cd_4}
\xymatrix{
Y\ar[rr]^{\pi'}\ar[dd]_{\pi}&&{^i{E}}_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}\\
&Y_1\ar[lu]_{r_1}\ar[r]^{\varpi_1'}\ar[d]_{\varpi_1}&{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}\ar[u]_-{{^ip_2}}\ar[d]^-{{^ip_2'}}\\
{^i{E}}_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}&{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\ar[l]_-{{^ip_1}}\ar[r]^-{{^ip_1'}}&{^i{E}}_{\mu,{\hat{Q}}}
}$$ where
1. $Y={^i{E}}_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}\times{^i{E}}_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}=\{(x,x')\,\,|\,\,x\in{^i{E}}_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}},x'\in{^i{E}}_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}\}$,
2. $\pi(x,x')=x$ and $\pi'(x,x')=x'$,
3. $Y_1={^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\times_{{^i{E}}_{\mu,{\hat{Q}}}}{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}$, that is $$Y_1=\{(x,x_1,x',y,y')\,\,|\,\,(x,x_1,y)\in{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha},(x_1,x',y')\in{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}\},$$
4. $\varpi_1(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x,x_1,y)$ and $\varpi'_1(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x_1,x',y')$,
5. $r_1(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x,x')$,
6. ${^ip_1}(x,x_1,y)=x$ and ${^ip'_1}(x,x_1,y)=x_1$,
7. ${^ip_2}(x_1,x',y')=x'$ and ${^ip'_2}(x_1,x',y')=x_1$.
By definition, $$\begin{aligned}
{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(^ip_2)_{!}(^ip'_2)^\ast(^ip'_1)_{!}(^ip_1)^\ast\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_1)_{!}(\varpi_1)^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_1)_{!}(r_1)^\ast(\pi)^\ast.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the following decomposition of $Y_1=Y_{11}\bigsqcup Y_{12}$, where $$Y_{11}=\{(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_1\,\,|\,\,\textrm{Im$y\subset$Im$y'$}\}$$ and $$Y_{12}=\{(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_1\,\,|\,\,\textrm{Im$y\not\subset$Im$y'$}\}.$$ Denote by $r_{11}:Y_{11}\rightarrow Y$ and $r_{12}:Y_{12}\rightarrow Y$ the restrictions of $r_1$. And we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_4}
{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_1)_{!}(r_1)^\ast(\pi)^\ast\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{11})_{!}(r_{11})^\ast(\pi)^\ast\nonumber\\
&&+(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{12})_{!}(r_{12})^\ast(\pi)^\ast.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, consider the following diagram $$\label{cd_5}
\xymatrix{
Y\ar[rr]^{\pi'}\ar[dd]_{\pi}&&{^i{E}}_{\nu',{\hat{Q}}}\\
&Y_2\ar[lu]_{r_2}\ar[r]^{\varpi'_2}\ar[d]_{\varpi_2}&{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\ar[u]_-{^ip_4'}\ar[d]^-{^ip_4}\\
{^i{E}}_{\nu,{\hat{Q}}}&{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}\ar[l]_-{^ip_3'}\ar[r]^-{^ip_3}&{^i{E}}_{\mu',{\hat{Q}}}
}$$ where
1. $Y_2={^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}}\times_{{^i{E}}_{\mu',{\hat{Q}}}}{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}$, that is $$Y_2=\{(x,x_1,x',y,y')\,\,|\,\,(x,x_1,y)\in{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q}},(x_1,x',y')\in{^i{Z}}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\},$$
2. $\varpi_2(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x,x_1,y)$ and $\varpi'_2(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x_1,x',y')$,
3. $r_2(x,x_1,x',y,y')=(x,x')$,
4. ${^ip'_3}(x,x_1,y)=x$ and ${^ip_3}(x,x_1,y)=x_1$,
5. ${^ip'_4}(x_1,x',y')=x'$ and ${^ip_4}(x_1,x',y')=x_1$.
By definition, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_5}
\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}\mathcal{E}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\mu'}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{-\mu'_i}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}|G_{\mu'}|^{-1}(^ip'_4)_{!}(^ip_4)^\ast(^ip_3)_{!}(^ip'_3)^\ast\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\mu'}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\mu'_i}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}|G_{\mu'}|^{-1}(^ip'_4)_{!}(\varpi'_2)_{!}(\varpi_2)^\ast(^ip'_3)^\ast\nonumber\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\mu'}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\mu'_i}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}|G_{\mu'}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_2)_{!}(r_2)^\ast(\pi)^\ast.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For any $(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_2$, we have the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
V^{\nu}_i\ar[r]^{x^i}&\hat{V}^{\nu}_i\\
V^{\mu'}_i\ar[r]^{x_1^i}\ar[u]_{y_i}\ar[d]^{y'_i}&\hat{V}^{\mu'}_i\ar[u]_{y^i}\ar[d]^{{y'}^i}\\
V^{\nu'}_i\ar[r]^{{x'}^i}&\hat{V}^{\nu'}_i\\
}$$ where $\hat{V}_i=\oplus_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}V_{t(h)}$, $y^i=\oplus_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}y_{t(h)}$ and $x^i=\oplus_{h\in\hat{H},s(h)=i}x_{h}$. Note that $y^i$ is an isomorphism.
Let $Y_{21}$ be the subset of $Y_2$ such that $$\textrm{Im${y'}^i(y^i)^{-1}x^i\subset$Im${x'}^i$}$$ and $Y_{22}=Y_2\backslash Y_{21}$. This condition implies that there is an embedding $\iota$ from $\mathbf{V}^{\nu}$ to $\mathbf{V}^{\nu'}$ such that the following diagram is commutative for any $(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_{21}$ $$\xymatrix{
V^{\mu'}_i\ar[r]^{x_1^i}\ar@(dl,ul)[dd]_{y'_i}\ar[d]^{y_i}&\hat{V}^{\mu'}_i\ar@(dr,ur)[dd]^{{y'}^i}\ar[d]^{{y}^i}\\
V^{\nu}_i\ar[r]^{x^i}\ar[d]^{{\iota}_i}&\hat{V}^{\nu}_i\ar[d]^{{\iota}^i}\\
V^{\nu'}_i\ar[r]^{{x'}^i}&\hat{V}^{\nu'}_i
.}$$ Since $i$ is a source and $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha}$, the set $Y_{21}$ is empty and $Y_{2}=Y_{22}$.
Since $G_{\mu}$ (resp. $G_{\mu'}$) acts on $Y_{12}$ (resp. $Y_{22}$) freely and there is a bijection between $Y_{12}/G_{\mu}$ and $Y_{22}/G_{\mu'}$ by Lemma \[lemma\_10\], we have $$|G_{\mu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{12})_{!}(r_{12})^\ast(\pi)^\ast=|G_{\mu'}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{2})_{!}(r_{2})^\ast(\pi)^\ast.$$ Note that $$v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}=v^{\langle{\alpha,\mu'}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\mu'_i}.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_6}
&&v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{12})_{!}(r_{12})^\ast(\pi)^\ast\\
&=&v^{\langle{\alpha,\mu'}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\mu'_i}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}|G_{\mu'}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{2})_{!}(r_{2})^\ast(\pi)^\ast.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Formula (\[f\_4\]), (\[f\_5\]) and (\[f\_6\]) imply that $${^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{^i\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{^i\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=-(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{11})_{!}(r_{11})^\ast(\pi)^\ast.$$ Hence, for the proof of Formula (\[f\_3\]), it is enough to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_7}
&&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(\pi')_{!}(r_{11})_{!}(r_{11})^\ast(\pi)^\ast\\
&=&-\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By the commutative diagram (\[cd\_4\]), we have $$(\pi')_{!}(r_{11})_{!}(r_{11})^\ast(\pi)^\ast=(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11})_{!}(\varpi_{11})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast
,$$ where $\varpi'_{11}$ and $\varpi_{11}$ are the restrictions of $\varpi'_{1}$ and $\varpi_{1}$ to $Y_{11}$ respectively.
Consider the following decomposition of $Y_{11}=\bigsqcup_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}Y_{11\beta}$, where $$Y_{11\beta}=\{(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_{11}\,\,|\,\,[\textrm{Im}y'/\textrm{Im}y]=\beta\}.$$ Denote by $\varpi'_{11\beta}$ and $\varpi_{11\beta}$ the restrictions of $\varpi'_{11}$ and $\varpi_{11}$ to $Y_{11\beta}$ respectively and we have $$(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11})_{!}(\varpi_{11})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast
=\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11\beta})_{!}(\varpi_{11\beta})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast.$$
Thus, for the proof of Formula (\[f\_7\]), we just need to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_8}
&&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11\beta})_{!}(\varpi_{11\beta})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast\\
&=&-\frac{|V_i|a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Denote by $\tau$ the canonical projection from $Y_{11\beta}$ to ${^iZ}_{\hat{Q},\beta}$. By Lemma \[lemma\_8\], the cardinality of the fiber of $\tau$ at $a\in{^iZ}_{\hat{Q},\beta}$ is $|G_{\mu}|g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}\frac{a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}v^{-2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}$. At the same time, $$-|V_i|(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}}v^{\langle{\beta,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}v^{\bar{\nu}_i-\nu_i}v^{2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}=(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{|V_i|a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}\mathcal{E}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{^i\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}\\
&=&-|V_i|(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}}v^{\langle{\beta,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\beta}}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}
v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}v^{\bar{\nu}_i-\nu_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}v^{2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}\cdot\\
&&(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11\beta})_{!}(\varpi_{11\beta})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast\\
&=&(-v)^{\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}}v^{\langle{\alpha,\nu}\rangle+\textrm{dim}V_{\alpha}-\nu'_i}|G_{\mu}|^{-1}|G_{\nu}|^{-1}(^ip_2)_{!}(\varpi'_{11\beta})_{!}(\varpi_{11\beta})^\ast(^ip_1)^\ast\end{aligned}$$ and we prove Formula (\[f\_8\]).
\[lemma\_10\] With the notations in the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_6\_1\], there is a bijection between $Y_{12}/G_{\mu}$ and $Y_{22}/G_{\mu'}$.
For any $(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_{12}$, consider the following pull-back $$\xymatrix{
(\hat{x}_1,\mathbf{W})\ar[r]^{\hat{y}'}\ar[d]_{\hat{y}}&(x',\mathbf{V}^{\nu'})\ar[d]_{y'}\\
(x,\mathbf{V}^{\nu})\ar[r]^{y}&(x_1,\mathbf{V}^{\mu}).\\
}$$ By the definition of $Y_{12}$, $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{W}=\mu'$. Fix a linear isomorphism $\sigma:\mathbf{V}^{\mu'}\rightarrow\mathbf{W}$. By the definition of $Y_{22}$, the element $(x,\sigma^{-1}\hat{x}_1\sigma,x',y\sigma,y'\sigma)\in Y_{22}$. This induces a map $\theta$ from $Y_{12}$ to $Y_{22}/G_{\mu'}$. For two elements $(x,x_1,x',y,y')$ and $(x,x_1,\sigma x'\sigma^{-1},\sigma y,\sigma y')\in Y_{12}$ with $\sigma\in G_{\mu}$, $\theta(x,x_1,x',y,y')=\theta(x,x_1,\sigma x'\sigma^{-1},\sigma y,\sigma y')$. Hence, the map $\theta$ induces a map $\bar{\theta}$ from $Y_{12}/G_{\mu}$ to $Y_{22}/G_{\mu'}$.
For any $(x,x_1,x',y,y')\in Y_{22}$, consider the following push-out $$\xymatrix{
({x}_1,\mathbf{V}^{\mu'})\ar[r]^{{y}'}\ar[d]_{{y}}&(x',\mathbf{V}^{\nu'})\ar[d]_{\hat{y}'}\\
(x,\mathbf{V}^{\nu})\ar[r]^{\hat{y}}&(\hat{x}_1,\mathbf{U}).\\
}$$ By the definition of $Y_{22}$, $\underline{\dim}\mathbf{U}=\mu$. Similarly to $\bar{\theta}$, we have a map $\bar{\vartheta}$ from $Y_{22}/G_{\mu'}$ to $Y_{12}/G_{\mu}$.
By the relation between pull-back and push-out, we have $\bar{\vartheta}$ is the inverse of $\bar{\theta}$ and $\bar{\theta}$ is a bijection.
\[lemma\_8\] With the notations in the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_6\_1\], the cardinality of any fiber of $\tau$ is $v^{-2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}|G_{\mu}|g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}\frac{a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}.$
Consider the following maps ([@green1995hall; @Schiffmann_Lectures1; @XXZ_Ringel-Hall_algebras_beyond_their_quantum_groups]) $$\xymatrix{
B&C\ar[l]_-{\pi_1}\ar[r]^-{\pi_2}&D\ar[r]^-{\pi_3}&{^iZ}_{\hat{Q}}
}.$$ Here
1. $B$ is set of $$\xymatrix{
&&0\ar[d]\\
&&L\ar[d]^{a'}\\
0\ar[r]&N\ar[r]^{a}&J
}$$ where $L,N,J$ are representations of the quiver $\hat{Q}$, $a,a'$ are homomorphisms of representations and the row and column are exact,
2. $C$ is set of $$\xymatrix{
&&0\ar[d]&&\\
&&L\ar[d]^{a'}&&\\
0\ar[r]&N\ar[r]^{a}&J\ar[d]^{b'}\ar[r]^{b}&M\ar[r]&0\\
&&K\ar[d]&&\\
&&0&&
}$$ where $L,N,J,M,K$ are representations of the quiver $\hat{Q}$, $a,a'$, $b,b'$ are homomorphisms of representations and the row and column are exact,
3. $D$ is set of $$\xymatrix{
&0\ar[d]&&0\ar[d]&\\
0\ar[r]&L_1\ar[d]^{u'}\ar[r]^{u}&L\ar[r]^{v}&L_2\ar[d]^{x}\ar[r]&0\\
&N\ar[d]^{v'}&&M\ar[d]^{y}&\\
0\ar[r]&K_1\ar[r]^{x'}\ar[d]&K\ar[r]^{y'}&K_2\ar[d]\ar[r]&0\\
&0&&0&
}$$ where $L,N,M,K,L_1,L_2,K_1,K_2$ are representations of the quiver $\hat{Q}$, $u,u'$, $v,v'$, $x,x'$, $y,y'$ are homomorphisms of representations and the rows and columns are exact,
4. $\pi_1$ is the canonical projection,
5. $\pi_2(J,a,a',b,b')=(L_1,L_2,K_1,K_2,u,u',v,v',x,x',y,y')$, where $L_1=\textrm{Ker}b'a=\textrm{Ker}ba'$, $L_2=\textrm{Im}ba'$, $K_1=\textrm{Im}b'a$, $K_2=\textrm{Coker}b'a=\textrm{Coker}ba'$, $u,u'$ and $x,x'$ are natural embeddings, $v,v'$ and $x,x'$ are natural projections,
6. $\pi_1(L_1,L_2,K_1,K_2,u,u',v,v',x,x',y,y')=(L_1,L,u)$.
Fix $N,L,M,K$ with $\underline{\dim}N=\nu,\underline{\dim}L=\nu+\beta,\underline{\dim}K=i$ and $[M]=\alpha$. Then for any $x\in{^iZ}_{\hat{Q},\beta}$, $$|\pi_{3}^{-1}(x)|=|G_{\beta}|g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}a_{\beta}a_{i}|G_{\nu}||G_{i}|.$$ Similarly to proof of Green formula ([@green1995hall; @Schiffmann_Lectures1; @XXZ_Ringel-Hall_algebras_beyond_their_quantum_groups]), $$|\pi_{2}^{-1}\pi_{3}^{-1}(x)|=g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}a_{\beta}a_{i}|G_{\mu}|\frac{|\textrm{Ext}(K_2,L_1)|}{|\textrm{Hom}(K_2,L_1)|}
=g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}a_{\beta}a_{i}|G_{\mu}|v^{-2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}.$$ Hence $$|\pi_{1}\pi_{2}^{-1}\pi_{3}^{-1}(x)|
=\frac{a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}|G_{\mu}|v^{-2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}.$$
Since $\pi_{1}\pi_{2}^{-1}\pi_{3}^{-1}(x)=\tau^{-1}(x)$, the cardinality of the fiber $\tau$ at $x$ is $\frac{a_{\beta}}{a_{\alpha}}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}|G_{\mu}|v^{-2\langle{i,\nu}\rangle}.$
\[lemma\_9\] For any $i\in I$, we have $${\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},i}{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},i}=
\frac{v^2}{v^2-1}
({\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}-{\mathcal{K}}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i})$$
Now, we can give the proof of Proposition \[lemma\_6\].
By the definition of ${\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}$, it is enough to prove this when $i$ is a source.
At first, assume that $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha}$.
Lemma \[lemma\_6\_1\] and commutative diagrams (\[cd\_1\])-(\[cd\_3\]) imply that $$\label{formula_1}
({\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha})(f)=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{K}}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i})(f)$$ for any $f\in\mathcal{F}_{G_{\nu,I}}(E_{\nu,\hat{Q}})$ such that $\mathrm{supp}f\subset{^iE}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$,
Formula (\[formula\_1\]) and Proposition \[proposition\_zheng\_K\_2\], \[proposition\_zheng\_e\_1\], \[proposition\_N\_f\] imply that $$\label{formula_2}
({\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}-{\mathcal{E}}^{+}_{\hat{Q},i}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha})([f])=
\frac{|V_i|}{a_{\alpha}}\sum_{\beta\in\mathcal{P}}a_{\beta}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\beta}
(v^{-\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{i\beta}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{K}}_{\hat{Q},i}-v^{\langle{\beta,i}\rangle}g_{\beta i}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{K}}^{-1}_{\hat{Q},i})([f])$$ for any $[f]\in\mathcal{F}_{\nu,\hat{Q}}$.
In general, for any $\alpha\in\mathcal{P}$, $V_{\alpha}\simeq kV_i\oplus V_{\alpha'}$ such that $V_i$ is not a direct summand of $V_{\alpha'}$, we have $${\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha}=v^{-\langle\alpha',ki\rangle}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},\alpha'}{\mathcal{E}}^{-}_{\hat{Q},ki}.$$ Hence, Formula (\[formula\_2\]) and Lemma \[lemma\_9\] imply the desired result.
[^1]: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11701028, 11771445)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
\
**
INTRODUCTION
============
The most precise measurement of the electron anomalous magnetic moment (AMM) gave the result $$\label{eq_ae_meas}
a_e[\text{expt.}]=0.00115965218073(28).$$ This result was presented by Gabrielse research group at Harvard in Ref. [@experiment]. All theoretical predictions for $a_e$ must satisfy this “quality standard” for the precision. The “mainstream” Standard Model prediction uses the following expression: $$a_e=a_e(\text{QED})+a_e(\text{hadronic})+a_e(\text{electroweak}),$$ $$a_e(\text{QED})=\sum_{n\geq 1} \left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^n
a_e^{2n},$$ $$a_e^{2n}=A_1^{(2n)}+A_2^{(2n)}(m_e/m_{\mu})+A_2^{(2n)}(m_e/m_{\tau})+A_3^{(2n)}(m_e/m_{\mu},m_e/m_{\tau}),$$ where $m_e,m_{\mu},m_{\tau}$ are the masses of the electron, muon and tau-lepton, respectively. The universal QED terms $A_1^{(2n)}(\alpha/\pi)^n$ form the most significant contribution to the value. The coefficient values $$A_1^{(2)}=0.5,\quad A_1^{(4)}=-0.328478965579\ldots$$ were presented in Refs. [@schwinger1; @schwinger2] and Refs. [@analyt2_p; @analyt2_z], respectively. The value of $A_1^{(6)}$ was being calculated in 1970-x by different groups of scientists using numerical integration; see Refs. [@carrollyao; @carroll], [@levinewright], [@kinoshita_6]. The most accurate value $A_1^{(6)}=1.195\pm 0.026$ for that era was obtained in 1974 by T. Kinoshita and P. Cvitanović. The uncertainty is caused by the statistical error of the Monte Carlo integration. A work of analytical calculation of $A_1^{(6)}$ with the help of computers was started at the same time. The final value $$A_1^{(6)}=1.181241456\ldots$$ was obtained by S. Laporta and E. Remiddi in 1996; see Ref. [@analyt3]. That value was a product of efforts of many researchers; see, for example, Refs. [@analyt_mi; @analyt_b2; @analyt_b3; @analyt_b1; @analyt_b4; @analyt_b; @analyt_i; @analyt_j; @analyt_g; @analyt_e; @analyt_h; @analyt_d; @analyt_c; @analyt_ll; @laporta_1993; @analyt_f]. First numerical estimations for $A_1^{(8)}$ were obtained by T. Kinoshita and W. B. Lindquist in 1981 and published in Ref. [@kinoshita_8_first]. The most accurate value presented by T. Kinoshita’s team $$A_1^{(8)}=-1.91298(84)$$ was published in 2015 in Ref. [@kinoshita_8_last]. That value was obtained by Monte Carlo integration. S. Laporta’s semianalytical result $$A_1^{(8)}=-1.9122457649\ldots$$ was obtained in 2017 and published in Ref. [@laporta_8]. These two calculations of $A_1^{(8)}$ are in good agreement as well as another independent calculations of this value from Refs. [@smirnov_amm; @rappl], and for Feynman graphs without lepton loops from Ref. [@volkov_gpu].
The full calculation of $A_1^{(10)}$ was performed only by T. Kinoshita’s team using Monte Carlo integration. The most precise value was obtained in 2019 by T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio and was published in Ref. [@kinoshita_atoms]: $$\label{eq_kinoshita_10}
A_1^{(10)}[\text{AKN}]=6.737(159).$$ A special place is occupied by the contribution of Feynman graphs without lepton loops to $A_1^{(10)}$. This set contains 3213 Feynman graphs[^1] and forms a gauge-invariant class. This contribution is the most complicated one for both Monte Carlo integration and analytical calculations. For example, the uncertainty in (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\]) is entirely determined by that contribution. Also, it is the contribution that suffered the most from found mistakes and corrections; see Ref. [@kinoshita_10_corr]. The value $$\label{eq_kinoshita_10_nolepton}
A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops, AKN}]=7.668(159).$$ can be obtained by using (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\]) and the value of the remaining part that can be extracted from Ref. [@kinoshita_10_corr]. By 2019, there was no independent calculations of $A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops}]$.
We recalculated this contribution with the help of the supercomputer “Govorun” (JINR, Dubna, Russia). 40000 GPU-hours of Monte Carlo integration on NVidia Tesla V100 that were spread over several months have led to the result $$\label{eq_nolepton}
A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops, Volkov}]=6.793(90),$$ where the uncertainty corresponds to $1\sigma$ limits. It is in good agreement with the preliminary value $6.782(113)$ published in Ref. [@volkov_acat]. The descrepancy between this result and (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\_nolepton\]) is approximately $4.8\sigma$. This means that the values are probably different. The reason of this difference is unknown. Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\] contains some considerations about reliability of the result. In addition, it is important that this result can be checked by parts; see the detailed explanation in Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\].
Combining (\[eq\_nolepton\]) with the value of the residual part of $A_1^{(10)}$ from Ref. [@kinoshita_10_corr], we obtain $$\label{eq_volkov_akn_10}
A_1^{(10)}[\text{Volkov+AKN}]=5.862(90).$$ Taking the known and double-checked values for $A_2^{(2n)}$, $n\leq 5$, $A_3^{(2n)}$, $n\leq 4$, $a_e(\text{hadronic})+a_e(\text{electroweak})$ (see a review in Ref. [@kinoshita_atoms]) and the measured value of $\alpha$ from Ref. [@alpha_cesium] based on a measurement of the cesium atom mass relative to the Planck constant $$\label{eq_alpha_cesium}
\alpha^{-1}(\text{Cs})=137.035999046(27),$$ we obtain $$a_e[\text{theory},\alpha(\text{Cs}),\text{Volkov}]=0.001159652181547(6)(12)(229),$$ where the first uncertainty comes from (\[eq\_nolepton\]), the second one from the hadronic and electroweak corrections, and the last one from the uncertainty of $\alpha$. The usage of (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\]) will give $$a_e[\text{theory}, \alpha(\text{Cs}),\text{AKN}]=0.001159652181606(11)(12)(229)$$ instead. If we will use the $a_e$ prediction with (\[eq\_volkov\_akn\_10\]) and the measured value (\[eq\_ae\_meas\]) for improving $\alpha$, we obtain $$\label{alpha_ae_volkov}
\alpha^{-1}[a_e,\text{Volkov}]=137.0359991427(7)(14)(331),$$ where the uncertainties come from (\[eq\_nolepton\]), the hadronic and electroweak corrections, (\[eq\_ae\_meas\]), correspondingly. The discrepancy with (\[eq\_alpha\_cesium\]) is approximately $2.27\sigma$. The corresponding value obtained from (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\]) is $$\label{alpha_ae_akn}
\alpha^{-1}[a_e, \text{AKN}]=137.0359991496(13)(14)(330)$$ with the discrepancy $2.43\sigma$ relative to (\[eq\_alpha\_cesium\]). If we take $$\label{eq_alpha_rubidium}
\alpha^{-1}(\text{Rb})=137.035998996(85)$$ obtained from the measurement of the rubidium atom mass relative to the Planck constant (Ref. [@alpha_rubidium]) combined with the improved values of some constants from CODATA-2014 (Ref. [@codata_2014]), we obtain $$a_e[\text{theory},\alpha(\text{Rb}),\text{Volkov}]=0.001159652181969(6)(12)(720),$$ $$a_e[\text{theory}, \alpha(\text{Rb}),\text{AKN}]=0.001159652182037(11)(12)(720).$$ The values (\[alpha\_ae\_volkov\]) and (\[alpha\_ae\_akn\]) have the discrepancies $1.61\sigma$ and $1.69\sigma$ relative to (\[eq\_alpha\_rubidium\]). This means that the discrepancy between (\[eq\_nolepton\]) and (\[eq\_kinoshita\_10\_nolepton\]) affects $\alpha$ and $a_e$ slightly. However, this discrepancy can become significant in the future, when the precision of the measurements will be increased. Also, if both calculations have mistakes, then this can be sensible even at the current level of precision. Thus, an additional independent calculation is required.
There is no universal method that makes it possible to calculate 5-loop QED contributions in a realistic time frame. Firstly, the existing universal IR divergence control methods like those that are based on the dimensional regularization lead to enormous amounts of symbolic manipulations. And secondly, the universal integration routines demonstrate a very slow convergence on the obtained integrals.
To make the 5-loop calculations practically feasible it is required to remove all ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) divergences before integration and to avoid any $\varepsilon$-like regularizations. All UV divergences in Feynman integrals can be removed by the direct subtraction on the mass shell using a forestlike formula like Zimmermann’s forest formula[^2]. However, an analogous method for removing IR divergences has not been invented yet. The anomalous magnetic moment is free from IR divergences: the IR divergences corresponding to soft virtual photons are compensated by the IR divergences connected with the on-shell renormalization; see notes in Ref. [@volkov_prd]. But unfortunately, direct methods lead to an emergence of IR divergences in individual Feynman graphs. Different authors use different homemade divergence subtraction procedures that work in some cases; see Refs. [@carrollyao; @levinewright; @kinoshita_infrared; @kinoshita_atoms]. A relatively simple subtraction procedure giving finite Feynman parametric integrals was developed for our calculations. It was presented firstly in Ref. [@volkov_2015] and is briefly described in Sec. \[sec\_subtraction\].
The 5-loop calculations lead to Feynman parametric integrals with 13 variables. At this time, the only way to evaluate such integrals numerically is to use Monte Carlo integration. Unfortunately, Feynman parametric integrands after divergence subtraction are unbounded and have a very complicated asymptotic behavior near boundaries. The universal adaptive Monte Carlo integration routines like VEGAS can, in principle, work with unbounded functions and functions having a steep landscape. However, these routines are suited for functions with a certain shape. This becomes critical for large numbers of variables. For example, VEGAS uses the probability density functions of the form $$f_1(x_1)\cdot f_2(x_2)\cdot\ldots\cdot f_n(x_n)$$ and tries to fit the functions $f_j$ to make the convergence as fast as possible[^3]. Unfortunately, this approximation does not work fine for Feynman parametric integrals with large numbers of variables. A nonadaptive[^4] method that uses some a priori knowledge about the Feynman parametric integrands behavior was developed for our calculations. The method that is briefly described in Sec. \[sec\_monte\_carlo\] works only for graphs without lepton loops. The first version of this method was presented in Ref. [@volkov_prd].
The developed Monte Carlo integration method allows us to reduce the needed number of samples substantially. However, in the 5-loop case, for evaluating 3213 Feynman graphs a supercomputer is still required. Modern graphics processors (GPUs) are more suitable for performing many uniform sequences of arithmetic operations in parallel than usual processors. The Monte Carlo integration was performed on GPUs NVidia Tesla V100 as a part of the supercomputer[^5] “Govorun” from JINR (Dubna, Russia). The realization is described in Sec. \[sec\_realization\] with some programming details. Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\] contains the results of the calculations, a discussion about these results, the description of the supplemental materials, and some technical information about the computation including the GPU performance, arithmetic precision statistics and so on.
DIVERGENCE ELIMINATION {#sec_subtraction}
======================
The developed subtraction procedure is based on a forest formula with linear operators that are applied to the Feynman amplitudes of UV divergent subgraphs. This is similar to the Zimmermann forest formula. The difference is only in the choice of the linear operators used and in the way of combining them. Let us recapitulate the advantages of the developed procedure:
- The procedure is fully automated for any order of the perturbation series[^6].
- The method is beautiful and is relatively simple for realization on computers.
- The subtraction is equivalent to the on-shell renormalization: for obtaining the final result we should only sum up the contributions of all Feynman graphs after subtraction. Thus, no residual renormalizations are required.
- Feynman parameters can be used directly, without any additional tricks.
There are the following types of UV-divergent subgraphs[^7] in QED Feynman graphs without lepton loops: *electron self-energy subgraphs* ($N_e=2,N_{\gamma}=0$) and *vertexlike* subgraphs ($N_e=2,N_{\gamma}=1$), where by $N_e$ and $N_{\gamma}$ we denote the number of external electron and photon lines in the subgraph.
Two subgraphs are said to overlap if they are not contained one inside the other, and the intersection of their sets of lines is not empty.
A set of subgraphs of a graph is called a *forest* if any two elements of this set do not overlap.
For a vertexlike graph $G$ by ${\mathfrak{F}}[G]$ we denote the set of all forests $F$ that consist of UV-divergent subgraphs of $G$ and satisfy the condition $G\in F$. By ${\mathfrak{I}}[G]$ we denote the set of all vertexlike subgraphs $G'$ of $G$ such that $G'$ contains the vertex that is incident[^8] to the external photon line of $G$.[^9]
We work in the system of units, in which $\hbar=c=1$, the factors of $4\pi$ appear in the fine-structure constant: $\alpha=e^2/(4\pi)$, the tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$ is defined by $$g_{\mu\nu}=g^{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{matrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 &
0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{matrix}\right),$$ the Dirac gamma-matrices satisfy the condition $\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}+\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}=2g^{\mu\nu}$.
The following linear operators are used for the subtraction:
1. $A$ is the projector of the AMM. This operator is applied to the Feynman amplitudes of vertexlike subgraphs. See the definition in Refs. [@volkov_2015; @volkov_prd].
2. The definition of the operator $U$ depends on the type of UV-divergent subgraph to which the operator is applied:
- If $\Sigma(p)$ is the Feynman amplitude that corresponds to an electron self-energy subgraph, $$\Sigma(p)=u(p^2)+v(p^2)\hat{p},$$ then, by definition[^10], $$U\Sigma(p) = u(m^2)+v(m^2)\hat{p},$$ where $m$ is the mass of the electron, $\hat{p}=p^{\mu}\gamma_{\mu}$.
- If $\Gamma_{\mu}(p,q)$ is the Feynman amplitude corresponding to a vertexlike subgraph, $$\label{eq_gamma_general_q0}
\Gamma_{\mu}(p,0)=a(p^2)\gamma_{\mu} + b(p^2)p_{\mu} +
c(p^2)\hat{p}p_{\mu}+d(p^2)(\hat{p}\gamma_{\mu}-\gamma_{\mu}\hat{p}),$$ then, by definition, $$U\Gamma_{\mu}=a(m^2) \gamma_{\mu}.$$
3. $L$ is the operator that is used in the standard subtractive on-shell renormalization of vertexlike subgraphs. If $\Gamma_{\mu}(p,q)$ is the Feynman amplitude that corresponds to a vertexlike subgraph, (\[eq\_gamma\_general\_q0\]) is satisfied, then, by definition, $$L\Gamma_{\mu}=[a(m^2)+mb(m^2)+m^2c(m^2)]\gamma_{\mu}.$$
Let $f_G$ be the unrenormalized Feynman amplitude that corresponds to a vertexlike graph $G$. Let us write the symbolic definition $$\tilde{f}_G={\mathcal{R}}^{{\text{\textit{\textbf{new}}}}}_G f_G,$$ where $${\mathcal{R}}^{{\text{\textit{\textbf{new}}}}}_G=\sum_{\substack{F=\{G_1,\ldots,G_n\}\in {\mathfrak{F}}[G] \\
G'\in {\mathfrak{I}}[G]\cap F}}(-1)^{n-1}M^{G'}_{G_1}M^{G'}_{G_2}\ldots
M^{G'}_{G_n},$$ $$M^{G'}_{G''}=\begin{cases}A_{G'},\text{ if }G'=G'', \\
U_{G''},\text{ if }G''\notin {\mathfrak{I}}[G]\text{, or }G''\varsubsetneq
G',
\\ L_{G''},\text{ if }G''\in {\mathfrak{I}}[G], G'\varsubsetneq G'', G''\neq
G,
\\ (L_{G''}-U_{G''}),\text{ if }G''=G, G'\neq G.\end{cases}$$ In this notation, the subscript of an operator symbol denotes the subgraph to which this operator is applied.
The coefficient before $\gamma_{\mu}$ in $\tilde{f}_G$ is the contribution of $G$ to $a_e$.
For example, for the graph $G$ from FIG. \[fig\_graph\_eia\_fail\] we will have the following operator expression: $$[A_G(1-U_{bcdefghij})-(L_G-U_G)A_{bcdefghij}](1-U_{cd})(1-U_{fghi})(1-U_{fgh}-U_{ghi}).$$ Here the subscripts mean the subgraphs to which the operators are applied (denoted by the enumeration of the vertexes). The expression means that we should remove brackets, and for each term we should transform the Feynman amplitudes of the subgraphs using the corresponding operators from the inner subgraphs to the outer ones. The transformation is applied in Feynman parametric space before integration. This can be explained easy using the approach to Feynman parameters based on the transferring from Schwinger parameters; see Ref. [@volkov_2015].
The equivalence of the subtraction procedure and the direct subtraction on the mass shell is proved in a combinatorial way in Ref. [@volkov_2015], Appendix B. For a detailed explanation of the developed method, see Ref. [@volkov_2015] and some additional explanations in Refs. [@volkov_prd; @volkov_gpu].
MONTE CARLO INTEGRATION {#sec_monte_carlo}
=======================
Probability density functions
-----------------------------
After removing divergences the contribution of each Feynman graph to $A_1^{(2n)}$ is represented as an integral of the form $$\label{eq_feyn_integral}
\int_{z_1,\ldots,z_M>0}I(z_1,\ldots,z_M)\delta(z_1+\ldots+z_M-1)dz_1\ldots
dz_M,$$ where $M=3n-1$ (see[^11]), $z_j$ are the Feynman parameters. For each graph we calculate the $(3n-2)$-dimensional integral directly; we do not use any additional reductions.
We propose to split all the integration area into the Hepp sectors (see Ref. [@hepp]) that are simply orders on the Feynman parameters: $$z_{j_1}\geq z_{j_2}\geq\ldots\geq z_{j_M}.$$
We use the probability density functions of the form $$\label{eq_pdf_final}
g(\underline{z})=C_1g_1(\underline{z}) + C_2g_2(\underline{z}) +
C_3g_3(\underline{z}) + C_4g_4(\underline{z}),$$ where $\underline{z}=(z_1,\ldots,z_M)$, $$\label{eq_pdf}
g_1(\underline{z})=C\cdot \frac{\prod_{l=2}^M \left(z_{j_l}/z_{j_{l-1}}\right)^{{\mathrm{Deg}}(\{ j_l,j_{l+1},\ldots,j_M\})}}{z_1\cdot z_2\cdot\ldots \cdot z_M},$$ $C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4$ are some constants (see Sec. \[sec\_realization\]), ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$ are positive real numbers for each set $s$ of internal lines[^12] of the graph (except the empty and full sets), $C$ is the normalization constant defined by $$\int_{z_1,\ldots,z_M>0}g_1(z_1,\ldots,z_M)\delta(z_1+\ldots+z_M-1)dz_1\ldots
dz_M = 1.$$ The stabilization functions $g_2,g_3,g_4$ are defined in Ref. [@volkov_gpu]; an additional constant $D$ is used for defining $g_3$.
Functions of the form (\[eq\_pdf\]) was first used for approximating the behavior of parametric integrals by E. Speer; see Ref. [@speer].
The main problem in this approach is that for good Monte Carlo convergence the values ${\mathrm{Deg}}$ must be adjusted very accurately. Speer’s lemma (Ref. [@speer]) states that in some simple cases, when we do not have UV divergent subgraphs and we do not consider the infrared behavior, we may take the ultraviolet degree of divergence (with the sign minus) of $s$ as ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$ and use (\[eq\_pdf\]) as an upper bound for $|I(\underline{z})|$. A good upper bound can play the role of a good probability density function for Monte Carlo integration; see Ref. [@volkov_prd]. However, in the real case we should use a more complicated formulas for obtaining ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$. These formulas were developed for our calculations[^13]. The first version of the method was presented in Ref. [@volkov_prd]. We use an improved version from Ref. [@volkov_gpu]. The algorithm of obtaining ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$ uses six constants ${C_{\text{bigF}}}>0$, ${C_{\text{bigZ}}}>0$, ${C_{\text{add}}}$, ${C_{\text{subI}}}$, ${C_{\text{subSE}}}$, ${C_{\text{subO}}}$ that should be choosed by hand. For the 5-loop case we use the same values as we used for the 4-loop, 3-loop, and 2-loop cases in Ref. [@volkov_gpu]: $$\label{eq_mc_settings}
\begin{array}{c}
{C_{\text{bigZ}}}=0.256,\ {C_{\text{bigF}}}=0.839,\ {C_{\text{add}}}=0.786,\ \\ {C_{\text{subI}}}=0.2,\
{C_{\text{subSE}}}=0 ,\ {C_{\text{subO}}}=0.2.
\end{array}$$ These values were obtained by numerical experiments with 4-loop graphs. Note that some of the values ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$, obtained by the method, less than $1$ and even sometimes less than $1/3$, in contrast to integer numbers in Speer’s lemma (Ref. [@speer]).
The terms $C_jg_j(\underline{z})$, $j=2,3,4$ in (\[eq\_pdf\_final\]) are added for ensurance: they cannot slow down the Monte Carlo convergence speed significantly, but they can (in principle) prevent from occasional emergence of gigantic contributions of some samples; see Ref. [@volkov_gpu].
The algorithm of fast random sample generation is described in Ref. [@volkov_prd].
Obtaining the value and uncertainty {#subsec_carlo_values}
-----------------------------------
If the random samples $\underline{z}_1,\ldots,\underline{z}_N$ are generated with the probability density function $g(\underline{z})$, then the integral value is approximated as $$\label{eq_integral_approx}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{I(\underline{z}_j)}{g(\underline{z}_j)}.$$ For approximating the standard deviation $\sigma$ we can use the formula $$\label{eq_sigma_down}
\sigma^2=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^N y_j^2}{N^2} -
\frac{\left(\sum_{j=1}^N y_j \right)^2}{N^3},$$ where $y_j=I(\underline{z}_j)/g(\underline{z}_j)$. However, in practice this formula often leads to an underestimation of the standard deviation. The reason is that the real $\sigma^2$ is the mean value of the right part of (\[eq\_sigma\_down\]), but using (\[eq\_sigma\_down\]) we will rather obtain something near the median of that value that is often less than the mean value. Taking into account this difference is especially important when we integrate unbounded functions. Because of this, we use an improved value $\sigma_{\uparrow}$ as $\sigma$ instead of (\[eq\_sigma\_down\]). The algorithm of obtaining $\sigma_{\uparrow}$ based on heuristic predictions is described in Ref. [@volkov_gpu]. For the 5-loop case we use exactly the same method. The value defined by (\[eq\_sigma\_down\]) we denote by $\sigma_{\downarrow}$. A large value of $\sigma_{\uparrow}/\sigma_{\downarrow}$ indicates that the obtained integral value is suspicious, but no guarantees are possible for Monte Carlo integration. We use $\sigma_{\uparrow}$ for all intervals in the paper.
REALIZATION {#sec_realization}
===========
Evaluation of the integrands with GPUs {#subsec_realization_integrands}
--------------------------------------
The code for all 3213 integrands was generated automatically. The D programming language was used for the codegenerator; see Ref. [@dlang]. The generated code was written in C++[^14] with CUDA; see Ref. [@cuda]. The codegeneration took about one month on two CPU cores of a personal computer.
Numerical subtraction of divergences under the integral sign can cause round-off errors. We use interval arithmetic (IA) for controlling them. In interval arithmetic we work not with numbers, but with intervals of numbers. NVidia GPUs support all necessary operations for the realization of interval arithmetic. However, arithmetic operations with intervals are slow, and we developed a fast modification of interval arithmetic that was called “*eliminated interval arithmetic*” (EIA). The main idea of EIA is that in some cases we can replace a large sequence of interval arithmetic operations by the analogous sequence of operations on the centers of the intervals and estimate the radius of the final interval by a relatively simple formula. The intervals obtained by EIA are wider than the ones obtained by IA, but both of them are reliable. EIA is described in detail in Ref. [@volkov_gpu].
The integrals for all Feynman graphs are calculated simultaneously; see Sec. \[subsec\_monte\_carlo\_details\]. At the stage of inititialization, we evaluate approximately $10^8$ random points for each Feynman graph with the machine double-precision IA taking the nearest to zero point of each interval. After initialization, when we evaluate the value of $I(\underline{z})/g(\underline{z})$ from (\[eq\_integral\_approx\]) at some point $\underline{z}$, we first calculate it using EIA. The obtained interval $[y^-;y^+]$ is accepted if[^15] $$\label{eq_interval_accept}
y^+-y^- \leq \frac{1}{4}\sigma_{\downarrow,j} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{\sum_l (\sigma_{\downarrow,l})^2}}{\sum_l \sigma_{\downarrow,l}},$$ where the summations go over all contributing Feynman graphs, $j$ is the number of the current graph, $\sigma_{\downarrow,l}$ is the value of $\sigma_{\downarrow}$ calculated for the integral corresponding to the graph with the number $l$. This formula guarantees that the total round-off error (summed over all graphs) does not exceed $C\sigma_{\downarrow}$ for some constant $C$. Also, it satisfies the natural demand that larger round-off errors are possible for graphs with larger $\sigma_{\downarrow,l}$. If the interval was not accepted, it is recalculated using IA with increased precisions until it is accepted: machine double precision, 128-bit-mantissa precision, 192-bit-mantissa precision, 256-bit-mantissa precision. If all precisions failed, then the contribution is supposed to be zero. EIA fails approximately on one in five samples. However, the integrand evaluation in EIA is approximately 6.5 times faster than in the double-precision IA; see Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\] and Table \[table\_tech\]. Thus, the usage of EIA significantly improves the performance.
The Monte Carlo samples are generated and performed by blocks. Each block contains approximately $10^9$ samples pertaining to a single Feynman graph. The block scheduling algorithm is described in Sec. \[subsec\_monte\_carlo\_details\]. The samples are processed on a GPU in 20480 parallel threads[^16]. Each thread processes some set of the block samples sequentially. Branching is not allowed in the execution of a code for GPU, so the samples requiring increased precision are collected and then processed in the subsequent GPU calls.
We use a handmade library for arbitrary precision arithmetic. The 128-bit-mantissa arithmetic is realized using the GPU register memory[^17]. The greater precisions are realized with the global GPU memory. The usage of the register memory improves the performance by approximately 10 times[^18]. Nevertheless, the increased precision calculations occupy a considerable part of the calculation time; see Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\] and Table \[table\_tech\].
For each integrand we generate program codes for three precisions separately: EIA, double-precision IA, and arbitrary-precision IA. This leads to a relatively large code. The total size of the integrands code is 400 GB in the not compiled form and 500 GB in the compiled form.
The calculation of some integrand values requires millions of arithmetic operations. However, both compilers and optimizers do not like big functions. We split the calculation of each integrand into several CUDA kernels[^19]. Each CUDA kernel contains approximately 3000 arithmetic operations for the EIA code, 2000 operations for the double-precision IA code, and 1000 operations for the arbitrary-precision IA code. The arbitrary-precision integrand code is also split into several files: approximately 50 CUDA kernels per file. The choice of the function sizes is a compromise: the performance of small functions suffers from memory transfer delays, but a big function size leads to a badly optimized[^20] and slowly compiled code.
We use the techniques for prevention of occasional emergence of very large values that are described in [@volkov_prd] (with little modifications and adaptation for GPU parallelism).
When we calculate $I(\underline{z})/g(\underline{z})$, it is often the case that machine double precision is not enough for storing $g(\underline{z})$. The machine double precision allows values up to $2^{1025}$. This situation is due to a large number of variables and a closeness of some values of ${\mathrm{Deg}}(s)$ from (\[eq\_pdf\]) to zero. It is not obvious from the beginning that these points can be ignored; see Sec. \[sec\_res\_tech\] and Table \[table\_tech\]. To solve this problem, we store $g(\underline{z})$ as $x\cdot 2^j$, where $0.5\leq x<1$ is stored with machine double precision, $j$ is stored as 32-bit integer.
Compilation of the integrands code
----------------------------------
The integrands code was compiled with the NVidia Compiler `nvcc` into shared libraries that are linked dynamically with the integrator. The compiler is a relatively slow one, and 400 GB of code requires a lot of time for compilation. Like the integration, this compilation was performed on the supercomputer “Govorun” from JINR (Dubna, Russia). The processors Intel Xeon Gold 6154 with 18 cores were mostly used for this work. The compilation operation was organized using the MPI protocol with parallel processes that run `nvcc`: two processes per CPU core. The total compilation time amounted to about 120 CPU-hours.
Monte Carlo integration: details {#subsec_monte_carlo_details}
--------------------------------
The Monte Carlo integrator was written in C++ with CUDA. The integration was performed on several GPUs NVidia Tesla V100 of the supercomputer “Govorun” from JINR (Dubna, Russia). Most of the time from 2 to 16 GPUs were occupied for the integration. The inter-device parallelism was organized using the MPI protocol.
The controlling part of the integrator generates the numbers of Feynman graphs to obtain a next block of samples. The number $j$ of a Feynman graph is generated randomly. The probabilities $p_j$ of taking the graph $j$ are chosen to make the convergence as fast as possible. Let us describe the method of obtaining $p_j$. Put $$C_j=\sigma_{\uparrow,j} \sqrt{N_j},$$ where $N_j$ is the number of samples that have already been processed for the graph $j$. By $t_j$ we denote the average time required for evaluation of one integrand value for the graph $j$. The total time that is needed for evaluation of $N$ samples is approximately $$t=N\sum_j p_j t_j.$$ The total standard deviation can be estimated as $$\sigma^2=\frac{1}{N} \sum_j \frac{(C_j)^2}{p_j} = \frac{1}{t} \left(\sum_j \frac{(C_j)^2}{p_j}\right)\left( \sum_j p_j t_j\right) = \frac{1}{t} \left(\sum_j \frac{(C_j)^2 t_j}{q_j}\right)\left( \sum_j q_j\right),$$ where $q_j=p_jt_j$. The minimum point satisfies the equation $$\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} - \frac{\partial}{\partial q_l} \right) \left( \sum_j \frac{(C_j)^2 t_j}{q_j} \right)=0$$ for any $i,l$. Using this, we obtain $$q_j=C C_j\sqrt{t_j},$$ where $C$ is some constant, or $$p_j=\frac{C_j/\sqrt{t_j}}{\sum_l (C_l/\sqrt{t_l})}.$$ We use this probabilities for random generation of the graph numbers with a little modification for stabilization: a little more attention is being given to the graphs $j$ with big $\sigma_{\uparrow,j}/\sigma_{\downarrow,j}$.
After integration, the total standard deviations (upper and lower) are obtained by $$\label{eq_sigma_sum}
(\sigma_{\uparrow})^2=\sum_j (\sigma_{\uparrow,j})^2,\quad (\sigma_{\downarrow})^2=\sum_j (\sigma_{\downarrow,j})^2.$$
RESULTS AND THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION {#sec_res_tech}
=====================================
For reliability, two calculations were performed with different pseudorandom generators, with different choices of the constants $C_2,C_3,C_4$ from (\[eq\_pdf\_final\]) and the constant $D$ that is used for defining $g_3$ from (\[eq\_pdf\_final\]); see Ref. [@volkov_gpu].
- `Calc 1`: the generator `MRG32k3a` from the NVidia CURAND library, $$C_2=0.03,\quad C_3=0.035, \quad C_4=0.035,\quad D=0.75.$$
- `Calc 2`: the generator `Philox‘_4x32‘_10` from the NVidia CURAND library, $$C_2=0.03,\quad C_3=0.01,\quad C_4=0.06,\quad D=0.75.$$
We use the value $$C_1=1-C_2-C_3-C_4$$ for all calculations.
The calculations have led to the results $$A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops, Calc 1}]=6.74(13),$$ $$A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops, Calc 2}]=6.84(12).$$ The results were first statistically combined graph-by-graph and then were summed using (\[eq\_sigma\_sum\]). These operations are not commutative. Thus, some of the results may look strange[^21].
The supplemental materials contain the results for all 3213 Feynman graphs for both calculations.
Table \[table\_gauge\_5loops\] contains the results for nine gauge-invariant classes $(k,m,m')$ splitting the set of all 5-loop Feynman graphs without lepton loops. By definition, $(k,m,m')$ is the set of all Feynman graphs such that $m$ and $m'$ are the quantities of internal photon lines to the left and to the right from the external photon line (or vice versa), $k$ is the quantity of photons with the ends on the opposite sides of it. In this table, $N_{\text{diag}}$ and $N_{\text{total}}$ are the number of Feynman graphs and the total number of Monte Carlo samples generated for this class.
[ccccccccc]{}
\
Class & Calc 1 & Calc 2 & Value $=\sum_i a_i$ & $\sum_i |a_i|$ & $\max_i |a_i|$ & $\sum_i \int \left|I_i(\underline{z})\right|d\underline{z}$ & $N_{\text{diag}}$ & $N_{\text{total}}$\
\
Class & Calc 1 & Calc 2 & Value $=\sum_i a_i$ & $\sum_i |a_i|$ & $\max_i |a_i|$ & $\sum_i \int \left|I_i(\underline{z})\right|d\underline{z}$ & $N_{\text{diag}}$ & $N_{\text{total}}$\
$(1,4,0)$ & 6.158(49) & 6.184(45) & 6.157(33) & 1219.8 & 11.8 & 2521.8 & 706 & $43\times 10^{12}$\
$(2,3,0)$ & -0.746(63) & -0.763(59) & -0.754(42) & 3076.8 & 46.2 & 4871.0 & 706 & $73\times 10^{12}$\
$(1,3,1)$ & 0.854(50) & 0.972(45) & 0.970(33) & 3170.1 & 67.5 & 3749.9 & 148 & $31\times 10^{12}$\
$(3,2,0)$ & -0.399(51) & -0.402(47) & -0.403(34) & 2593.5 & 54.9 & 3783.4 & 558 & $56\times 10^{12}$\
$(2,2,1)$ & -2.133(53) & -2.197(50) & -2.165(36) & 3318.1 & 85.0 & 4563.6 & 370 & $48\times 10^{12}$\
$(4,1,0)$ & -1.028(31) & -0.991(29) & -1.011(21) & 1199.3 & 56.7 & 1758.2 & 336 & $27\times 10^{12}$\
$(1,2,2)$ & 0.312(30) & 0.315(28) & 0.315(20) & 1338.5 & 68.7 & 1515.3 & 55 & $11\times 10^{12}$\
$(3,1,1)$ & 2.628(35) & 2.630(33) & 2.625(24) & 1437.3 & 63.5 & 2013.9 & 261 & $26\times 10^{12}$\
$(5,0,0)$ & 1.0929(94) & 1.0898(87) & 1.0902(62) & 137.0 & 19.3 & 209.8 & 73 & $39\times 10^{11}$
It was observed by different researchers that the contributions of gauge-invariant classes are relatively small in absolute value, but the contributions of individual Feynman graphs are relatively large and often significantly greater than the class contributions. This occurs regardless of the divergence elimination method used. Table \[table\_gauge\_5loops\] demonstrates this fact: the sums and maximums of the graph contribution absolute values are included to the table. Some of the individual graph contributions are 10 times greater than the total contribution. However, this “oscillating” nature does not emerge at the level of Feynman parameters. The table demonstrates this too: if the graph contributions are obtained by (\[eq\_feyn\_integral\]), then the values of $$\int_{z_1,\ldots,z_M>0}|I(z_1,\ldots,z_M)|\delta(z_1+\ldots+z_M-1) dz_1\ldots
dz_M$$ are greater than the contribution absolute values only a little; the sums are given in the table. These values are useful for understanding what accuracy can potentially be reached by Monte Carlo integration methods with these integrands. The values for the individual graphs are presented in the supplemental materials. The Feynman graphs with the maximal absolute values of the contributions are presented in FIG. \[fig\_max\_abs\_gauge\] for each class $(k,m,m')$.
![Graphs from the gauge-invariant classes $(k,m,n)$ with the maximal absolute values of the contributions.[]{data-label="fig_max_abs_gauge"}](graphs_5loops)
It is very important to check the obtained values independently. However, the amount of computations is huge is this case. Thus, an ability to check the values by parts using different methods would be very useful. We have a splitting of the whole set of graphs into 807 subsets for which the developed subtraction procedure is equivalent to the direct subtraction on the mass shell in Feynman gauge. For each set the equivalence can be proved combinatorially using the Ward identity for individual graphs; see Ref. [@volkov_gpu]. The splitting is presented in the supplemental materials. It was generated automatically. Each set in this splitting is contained in some gauge-invariant class $(k,m,m')$. There are many sets containing only one graph. The largest set contains 706 graphs: it is the class $(1,4,0)$. We do not know if it is possible to divide this class. An analogous splitting and a comparison with known analytical results is presented in Ref. [@volkov_2015] for the 3-loop case and in Ref. [@volkov_gpu] for the 2-loop and 3-loop cases without lepton loops. For the 4-loop case without lepton loops an analogous splitting is presented in Ref. [@volkov_gpu], but without a comparison (because no one presented the 4-loop results in the form that is applicable for the comparison).
![The set with the maximum contribution (in absolute value) from the splitting for comparison with the direct subtraction on the mass shell: non-oriented Feynman graphs and their contributions to $A_1^{(10)}$.[]{data-label="fig_max_abs_split"}](graphs_5loops_max_abs_split)
The graph sets from the splitting smooth the peaks of the individual graph contributions as well as the gauge-invariant sets[^22]. However, this “smoothing” is not so prominent: some of the set contributions are many times greater than the total contribution (in absolute value). The set with the maximum contribution (in absolute value) is depicted in FIG. \[fig\_max\_abs\_split\]. This contribution equals $42.0700(50)$.
[ccc]{}
\
$N_{\text{total}}$ & Value & $\sigma_{\uparrow}/\sigma_{\downarrow}$\
\
$N_{\text{total}}$ & Value & $\sigma_{\uparrow}/\sigma_{\downarrow}$\
$5\times 10^{11}$ & 9(13) & $2.40$\
$10^{12}$ & 10.2(8.9) & $2.45$\
$2\times 10^{12}$ & 11.2(5.4) & $2.42$\
$5\times 10^{12}$ & 9.4(2.6) & $2.25$\
$10^{13}$ & 7.9(1.4) & $2.10$\
$2\times 10^{13}$ & 7.21(53) & $1.67$\
$5\times 10^{13}$ & 6.88(24) & $1.38$\
$10^{14}$ & 6.80(16) & $1.34$\
$17\times 10^{13}$ & 6.84(12) & $1.31$
Table \[table\_dependence\_5loops\] contains the dependence of the total calculated value and the error on the number of Monte Carlo samples for `Calc 2`.
Table \[table\_tech\] contains some technical information about the calculations `Calc 1` and `Calc 2`. The fields of the table have the following meaning:
- Value is the obtained value for $A_1^{(10)}[\text{no lepton loops}]$ with the uncertainty $\sigma_{\uparrow}$; see Sec. \[subsec\_carlo\_values\] and Ref. [@volkov_gpu];
- $\sigma_{\uparrow}/\sigma_{\downarrow}$ is the relation between the improved standard deviation and the conventional one, see Sec. \[subsec\_carlo\_values\] and Ref. [@volkov_gpu];
- $N_{\text{total}}$ is the total quantity of Monte Carlo samples;
- $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$ is the quantity of samples for which eliminated interval arithmetic failed; see Sec. \[subsec\_realization\_integrands\] and Ref. [@volkov_gpu];
- $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$ is the contribution of that samples;
- $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$ is the quantity of samples for which direct double-precision interval arithmetic failed;
- $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$ is the contribution of that samples;
- $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$, $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$, $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{256}}$ are the quantities of samples for which the interval arithmetic based on numbers with 128-bit, 192-bit, 256-bit mantissa failed;
- $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$ are the contributions of that samples;
- $N^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ is the quantity of samples for which machine double precision was not enough for storing the probability density; see Sec. \[subsec\_realization\_integrands\];
- $\triangle^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ is the contribution of that samples;
- GFlops = billions floating point number operations per second (during the evaluation of the integrands); GIntervals = billions interval operations per second (in the sense of interval arithmetic); M = millions.
[lcc]{}
\
& Calc 1 & Calc 2\
\
& Calc 1 & Calc 2\
Value & $6.74(13)$ & $6.84(12)$\
$\sigma_{\uparrow}/\sigma_{\downarrow}$ & $1.31$ & $1.31$\
$N_{\text{total}}$ & $15\times 10^{13}$ & $17\times 10^{13}$\
$N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$ & $34\times 10^{12}$ & $39\times 10^{12}$\
$N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$ & $38\times 10^{10}$ & $42\times 10^{10}$\
$N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$ & $67\times 10^{6}$ & $73\times 10^{6}$\
$N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$ & $10787$ & $2453$\
$N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{256}}$ & $8669$ & $0$\
$N^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ & $11\times 10^{5}$ & $13\times 10^{5}$\
$\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$ & $4$ & $5$\
$\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$ & $0.9$ & $3$\
$\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$ & $-0.07$ & $-0.07$\
$\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$ & $-0.002$ & $-3\times 10^{-6}$\
$\triangle^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ & $-6\times 10^{-13}$ & $6\times 10^{-10}$\
Total calculation time, GPU-hours & 19515 & 20341\
Share in the time: double-precision EIA & $21.6\%$ & $23.3\%$\
Share in the time: double-precision IA & $35.5\%$ & $34.5\%$\
Share in the time: 128-bit-mantissa IA & $28.1\%$ & $29.1\%$\
Share in the time: 192-bit and 256-bit-mantissa IA & $11.4\%$ & $10.0\%$\
Share in the time: sample generation & $1.8\%$ & $1.5\%$\
Share in the time: other operations & $1.7\%$ & $1.7\%$\
GPU speed: double-precision EIA, GFlop/s & $2221.88$ & $2227.99$\
GPU speed: double-precision EIA, GInterval/s & $1962.13$ & $1965.60$\
GPU speed: double-precision IA, GFlop/s & $1358.63$ & $1505.30$\
GPU speed: double-precision IA, GInterval/s & $274.13$ & $303.31$\
GPU speed: 128-bit-mantissa IA, GFlop/s & $13.47$ & $13.48$\
GPU speed: 128-bit-mantissa IA, GInterval/s & $2.54$ & $2.53$\
GPU speed: 192-bit and 256-bit-mantissa IA, MFlop/s & $4.21$ & $4.65$\
GPU speed: 192-bit and 256-bit-mantissa IA, MInterval/s & $0.74$ & $0.80$
It is easy to see that in EIA one arithmetic operation on intervals takes approximately one operation on numbers. This is due to the fact that the most part of the EIA calculation is occupied by the operations on the centers of the intervals. However, in IA one interval operation takes approximately five operations on numbers. Also, the speed of the number operations for IA is by 1.6 times less than for EIA. This is because most of the operations in IA require specifying a rounding mode[^23], but the operations on the centers of intervals in EIA do not require it.
`Calc 1` suffered from some errors that cause an emergence of anomalous points that have contributions to $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$, $N^{\text{fail}}_{\text{256}}$, $N^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$; see Table \[table\_tech\]. We can not perform the full recalculation because this requires a lot of time. However, that points do not have a significant impact on the results; the table confirms this fact. That errors were corrected in `Calc 2`.
Table \[table\_tech\] demonstrates that the points requiring an increased precision have a significant contribution to the result. For example, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$ and $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$ are at the level of the total contribution, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$ is at the level of the uncertainty. Also, the table shows that that contributions are unstable due to an “oscillating” character of the individual graph contributions, a floating character of the interval acception criteria (\[eq\_interval\_accept\]), and a difference in the probability density functions. In addition, the table shows that the contribution $\triangle^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ is insignificant. However, this contribution is too far from the boundaries of machine double precision like $2^{-1025}$ (on a logarithmic scale). Thus, there may be situations, where such contributions will be significant. This fact demonstrates that universal Monte Carlo integration routines can work poorly for many-loop Feynman parametric integrals.
An analogous information for the individual Feynman graphs is contained in the supplemental materials. The graphs with the maximal contributions to $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{EIA}}$, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{IA}}$, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{128}}$, $\triangle^{\text{fail}}_{\text{192}}$, $\triangle^{\text{dens}}_{\text{out of double}}$ are shown in FIG. \[fig\_graph\_eia\_fail\] and FIG. \[fig\_extr\_graphs\] (c–f). The corresponding contributions (for `Calc 2`) are $$67.1,\quad 26.3,\quad 0.15,\quad 3.1\cdot 10^{-5},\quad 5.9\cdot 10^{-10}.$$ The Monte Carlo integration convergence quality for a given graph $j$ can be estimated as $$\frac{\sigma_{\uparrow,j}\cdot \sqrt{N_j}}{\int \left|I_j(\underline{z})\right|d\underline{z}},$$ where $N_j$ is the number of Monte Carlo samples for the $j$-th graph, $I_j$ is the corresponding Feynman parametric integrand. Less values correspond to a better quality. The graphs with the best and the worst quality are shown in FIG. \[fig\_extr\_graphs\] (a,b). The corresponding values (for `Calc 2`) are $$16.2,\quad 525.9.$$ These values demonstrate that even in the best case the Monte Carlo integration works not ideally due to large dimensionality. However, this is acceptable and requires a relatively small amount of the supercomputer time for integration.
![The graph with the maximum (in absolute value) contribution of the Monte Carlo samples for which eliminated interval arithmetic failed.[]{data-label="fig_graph_eia_fail"}](graph_eia_fail)
![The extreme graphs of different kinds: (a) best Monte Carlo integration convergence quality; (b) worst Monte Carlo integration convergence quality; (c,d,e) maximal (in absolute value) contribution of the samples for which the interval arithmetic with numbers of double precision, 128-bit mantissa, 192-bit mantissa failed; (f) maximal (in absolute value) contribution of the samples for which double precision was not enough for storing the probability density.[]{data-label="fig_extr_graphs"}](graphs_5loops_extr)
CONCLUSION
==========
A numerical calculation of the total contribution of the 5-loop QED Feynman graphs without lepton loops to the corresponding coefficient of the electron anomalous magnetic moment expansion in $\alpha$ was performed. The calculation is based on a specific method of reduction of the problem to Feynman parametric integrals and on Monte Carlo integration using a supercomputer. Usage of some mathematical considerations about the integrands behavior provided us an ability to reduce the amount of the needed supercomputer power and time significantly.
This calculation provides the first independent check of the value obtained by T. Kinoshita’s team that is presented in Ref. [@kinoshita_atoms]. However, the discrepancy of about $4.8\sigma$ between the results was discovered. On the one hand, this discrepancy does not significantly affect the known values of $a_e$ and $\alpha$. But on the other hand, it requires an additional independent calculation and can affect the physics in the future.
The results of the calculation are presented in detail. This detailed presentation gives us an ability to check the results by parts using another methods. The contribution values of nine gauge-invariant classes splitting the whole set are presented for the first time (except the preliminary values in Ref. [@volkov_acat]).
For reliability, two different Monte Carlo integrations with different pseudorandom generators were performed. The results of these calculations agree with each other, and they were stastistically combined in the final result.
A cancellation of an “oscillating” nature of the individual Feynman graph contributions in the gauge-invariant classes confirms that the results are correct. This “oscillating” nature is described in detail. However, there is no mathematical foundation for this cancellation at the current moment of time. Also, it is surprising that we have only an inter-graph oscillation, but not in Feynman parametric space for one graph.
The technical information that is presented in the paper will be useful for the scientists that are going to perform many-loop calculations in quantum field theory or another computations using supercomputers and graphics accelerators. Also, the provided information about the Monte Carlo integration will be useful for developers of Monte Carlo integrators.
In closing, let us recapitulate some problems that still remain open:
1. To perform an independent calculation of the 5-loop contribution of the graphs with lepton loops; to check the value from Ref. [@kinoshita_10_corr].
2. To prove rigorously (or disprove) that the developed subtraction procedure (Ref. [@volkov_2015]) leads to finite integrals for each suitable Feynman graph;
3. To substantiate rigorously the developed Monte Carlo integration method (Ref. [@volkov_prd]) and to extend it to the graphs with lepton loops;
4. To explain why the “oscillating” nature of the individual Feynman graph contributions is cancelled in the gauge-invariant classes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author thanks Andrey Kataev for helpful recommendations, Lidia Kalinovskaya for her help in organizational issues, and Predrag Cvitanović for the ideas about gauge-invariant classes. Also, the author thanks the Laboratory of Information Technologies of JINR (Dubna, Russia) for providing an access to the supercomputer “Govorun” and the organizers of the conference ACAT-2019 for providing an ability to present the preliminary results at the conference without financial problems.
[99]{} D. Hanneke, S. F. Hoogerheide and G. Gabrielse, “Cavity Control of a Single-Electron Quantum Cyclotron: Measuring the Electron Magnetic Moment,” Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 052122 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.83.052122 \[arXiv:1009.4831 \[physics.atom-ph\]\]. J. S. Schwinger, “On Quantum electrodynamics and the magnetic moment of the electron,” Phys. Rev. [**73**]{} (1948) 416. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.73.416 J. Schwinger, “Quantum Electrodynamics, III: the electromagnetic properties of the electron — radiative corrections to scattering” // Physical Review. — 1949. — V. **76**. — 790. A. Petermann, “Fourth order magnetic moment of the electron,” Helv. Phys. Acta [**30**]{} (1957) 407. C. M. Sommerfield, “Magnetic Dipole Moment of the Electron,” Phys. Rev. [**107**]{} (1957) 328. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.107.328 R. Carroll and Y. P. Yao, “Alpha-to-the-3 contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron in the mass-operator formalism,” Phys. Lett. [**48B**]{} (1974) 125. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(74)90659-5 R. Carroll, “Mass-operator calculation of the electron $g$ factor” // Physical Review D. — 1975. — V. **12**, N. 8. — 2344–2355. M. J. Levine and J. Wright, “Anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” Phys. Rev. D [**8**]{} (1973) 3171. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.3171 P. Cvitanovic and T. Kinoshita, “Sixth Order Magnetic Moment of the electron,” Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{} (1974) 4007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.4007 S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, “The Analytical value of the electron (g-2) at order alpha\*\*3 in QED,” Phys. Lett. B [**379**]{} (1996) 283 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00439-X \[hep-ph/9602417\]. J. Mignaco, E. Remiddi, “Fourth-order vacuum polarization contribution to the sixth-order electron magnetic moment” // Nuovo Cimento A **60**, 519 (1969). R. Barbieri, M. Caffo, E. Remiddi, “A contribution to sixth-order electron and muon anomalies. – II” // Lett. Nuovo Cimento **5**, 769 (1972). D. Billi, M. Caffo, E. Remiddi, “A Contribution to the sixth-Order electron and muon Anomalies” // Lettere al Nuovo Cimento. — 1972. — V. **4**, N. 14. — 657–660. R. Barbieri, E. Remiddi, “Sixth order electron and muon $(g-2)/2$ from second order vacuum polarization insertion” // Physics Letters B **49**, p.468 (1974). R. Barbieri, M. Caffo and E. Remiddi, “A Contribution to Sixth Order electron and Muon Anomalies. 3.,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**9**]{} (1974) 690. doi:10.1007/BF02763393 M. J. Levine and R. Roskies, “Hyperspherical approach to quantum electrodynamics - sixth-order magnetic moment,” Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{} (1974) 421. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.421 K. A. Milton, W. Tsai and L. L. DeRaad, Jr., “Sixth-order electron $g$ factor: Mass-operator approach. I” // Phys. Rev. D **9**, 1809 (1974). L. L. DeRaad, Jr., K. A. Milton and W. Tsai, “Sixth-order electron $g$ factor: Mass-operator approach. II” // Phys. Rev. **D** 9, 1814 (1974). R. Barbieri, M. Caffo and E. Remiddi, “A sixth order contribution to the electron anomalous magnetic moment” // Phys. Lett. B **57**, 460 (1975). M. J. Levine, R. C. Perisho and R. Roskies, “Analytic Contributions to the G Factor of the electron,” Phys. Rev. D [**13**]{} (1976) 997. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.997 M. J. Levine and R. Roskies, “Analytic contribution to the $g$ factor of the electron in sixth order” // Phys. Rev. D **14**, 2191 (1976). R. Barbieri, M. Caffo, E. Remiddi, S. Turrini, D. Oury, “The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron in QED: some more sixth order contributions in the dispersive approach” // Nuclear Physics B. — 1978. — V. **144**. — 329–348. M. J. Levine, E. Remiddi and R. Roskies, “Analytic Contributions To The G Factor Of The Electron In Sixth Order,” Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{} (1979) 2068. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2068 S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, “The Analytic value of the light-light vertex graph contributions to the electron (g-2) in QED,” Phys. Lett. B [**265**]{} (1991) 182. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90036-P S. Laporta, “Analytical value of some sixth order graphs to the electron (g-2) in QED,” Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{} (1993) 4793. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4793 S. Laporta, “The Analytical value of the corner ladder graphs contribution to the electron (g-2) in QED,” Phys. Lett. B [**343**]{} (1995) 421 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01401-W \[hep-ph/9410248\]. T. Kinoshita and W. B. Lindquist, “Eighth-Order Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron” // Phys. Rev. Lett. **47**, 1573 (1981). T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, “Tenth-Order Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment — Contribution of Diagrams without Closed Lepton Loops,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{} (2015) no.3, 033006 Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{} (2017) no.1, 019901\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.033006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.019901 \[arXiv:1412.8284 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Laporta, “High-precision calculation of the 4-loop contribution to the electron g-2 in QED,” Phys. Lett. B [**772**]{} (2017) 232 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.056 \[arXiv:1704.06996 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, M. Steinhauser and D. Wellmann, “$(g-2)_\mu$ at four loops in QED,” arXiv:1708.07138 \[hep-ph\]. F. Rappl, “Feynman Diagram Sampling for Quantum Field Theories on the QPACE 2 Supercomputer”, Dissertationsreihe der Fakultät für Physik der Universität Regensburg 49, PhD, Universität Regensburg, 2016. S. Volkov, “Numerical calculation of high-order QED contributions to the electron anomalous magnetic moment,” Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{} (2018) no.7, 076018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.076018 \[arXiv:1807.05281 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, “Theory of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron”, Atoms, **7**, 28 (2019). T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, “Revised and Improved Value of the QED Tenth-Order Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment,” Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{} (2018) no.3, 036001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.036001 \[arXiv:1712.06060 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Volkov, “Numerical calculation of 5-loop QED contributions to the electron anomalous magnetic moment,” preprint for ACAT-2019 proceedings, arXiv:1905.08007 \[hep-ph\]. R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. Muller, “Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model,” Science [**360**]{} (2018) 191 doi:10.1126/science.aap7706 \[arXiv:1812.04130 \[physics.atom-ph\]\]. R. Bouchendira, P. Clade, S. Guellati-Khelifa, F. Nez and F. Biraben, “New determination of the fine structure constant and test of the quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{} (2011) 080801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.080801 \[arXiv:1012.3627 \[physics.atom-ph\]\]. P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell and B. N. Taylor, “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2014,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**88**]{} (2016) no.3, 035009 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035009 \[arXiv:1507.07956 \[physics.atom-ph\]\]. V.A. Scherbina // Catalogue of Deposited Papers, VINITI, Moscow, **38**, 1964 (in Russian). O.I. Zavialov, B.M. Stepanov // Yadernaja Fysika (Nuclear Physics) **1**, 922, 1965 (in Russian). W. Zimmermann, “Convergence of Bogolyubov’s method of renormalization in momentum space,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**15**]{} (1969) 208 \[Lect. Notes Phys. [**558**]{} (2000) 217\]. doi:10.1007/BF01645676 S. Volkov, “New method of computing the contributions of graphs without lepton loops to the electron anomalous magnetic moment in QED,” Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{} (2017) no.9, 096018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.096018 \[arXiv:1705.05800 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Cvitanovic and T. Kinoshita, “New Approach to the Separation of Ultraviolet and Infrared Divergences of Feynman - Parametric Integrals,” Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{} (1974) 3991. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3991 S. Volkov, “Subtractive procedure for calculating the anomalous electron magnetic moment in QED and its application for numerical calculation at the three-loop level”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. (2016), V. **122**, N. 6, pp. 1008–1031; in Russian: JETP, V. **149**, N. 6, p. 1164; doi:10.1134/S1063776116050113 K. Hepp, “Proof of the Bogolyubov-Parasiuk theorem on renormalization,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1966) 301. doi:10.1007/BF01773358 E. Speer, “Analytic Renormalization”, J. Math. Phys. **9**, 1404 (1968); doi: 10.1063/1.1664729. A. Alexandrescu, “The D Programming Language”, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010. CUDA C Programming Guide, NVIDIA Developer Documentation.
[^1]: Graphs that are obtained from each other by changing arrow directions are regarded as one.
[^2]: The Zimmermann forest formula was first published in Ref. [@scherbina] and Ref. [@zavialovstepanov]. However, the historic name is connected with Ref. [@zimmerman].
[^3]: The Monte Carlo integration error usually behaves as $\sigma\sim C/\sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the number of samples. However, it is very important to make $C$ as small as possible.
[^4]: except the inter-graph adaptivity described in Sec. \[subsec\_monte\_carlo\_details\] and the adjustment of six constants (\[eq\_mc\_settings\]) that was performed once for the 4-loop graphs
[^5]: The GPU part of the supercomputer “Govorun” has 40 GPUs NVidia Tesla V100. The peak performance of the GPU part is 300 TFlops for double precision. The peak performance of the whole supercomputer (including the CPU part) is 500 TFlops.
[^6]: The method must work for all Feynman graphs contributing to $A_1^{(2n)}$ including the ones containing lepton loops; see Ref. [@volkov_2015]. However, a rigorous mathematical proof for this fact is not developed even for graphs without lepton loops.
[^7]: We consider only such subgraphs that are strongly connected and contain all lines that join the vertexes of the given subgraph.
[^8]: We say that a line $l$ and a vertex $v$ are *incident* if $v$ is one of the endpoints of $l$.
[^9]: In particular, $G\in {\mathfrak{I}}[G]$.
[^10]: Note that it differs from the standard on-shell renormalization.
[^11]: We use a trick for reducing the number from $3n$ to $3n-1$; see [@volkov_prd].
[^12]: If we use the trick for reducing the number of variables by one, we consider two electron lines that adjoin the external photon line as one line.
[^13]: However, a rigorous mathematical proof that the expressions of this form can be used as upper bounds for $I(\underline{z})$ has not been obtained yet. The assurance is based on numerical experiments.
[^14]: We did not use any substantial improvement of C++ over C like object oriented programming for the generated code. But some little improvements were used, so we must call it “C++”, not “C”.
[^15]: This criteria differs from the previous one from Ref. [@volkov_gpu]. The previous criteria was erroneous: it did not take into account that the mean value of the round-off error is not zero. However, that error did not significantly affect the result.
[^16]: 80 blocks of 256 threads; see [@cuda].
[^17]: The register memory is the fastest kind of memory in NVidia GPUs.
[^18]: However, Table \[table\_tech\] shows a more significant gap. That is because there are very few points that require 192-bit-mantissa and more precision, and the GPU parallelism can not be exploited for all its worth on these points.
[^19]: A CUDA kernel is a GPU function that is called from the CPU part; see [@cuda].
[^20]: We are not sure that we understand the behavior of the NVidia optimizer. For example, increasing the CUDA kernel size from 2000 arithmetic operations to 3000 ones sometimes slows down the integrand evaluation speed twice.
[^21]: For example, in Table \[table\_gauge\_5loops\] some average values are not in the interval of the source values.
[^22]: It should be noted that this smoothing is not a general principle: for example, the sum of $n$ independent random numbers with the mean values $0$ and the quadratic means $a$ have the quadratic mean $a\cdot\sqrt{n}$.
[^23]: However, this difference in the speed was not discovered in the calculations on NVidia Tesla K80 from Ref. [@volkov_gpu] despite the fact that the difference was discovered during the preliminary tests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore an alternative to twist averaging in order to obtain more cost-effective and accurate extrapolations to the thermodynamic limit (TDL) for coupled cluster doubles (CCD) calculations. We seek a single twist angle to perform calculations at, instead of integrating over many random points or a grid. We introduce the concept of connectivity, a quantity derived from the non-zero four-index integrals in an MP2 calculation. This allows us to find a special twist angle that provides appropriate connectivity in the energy equation, and which yields results comparable to full twist averaging. This special twist angle effectively makes the finite electron number CCD calculation represent the TDL more accurately, reducing the cost of twist-averaged CCD over $N_\mathrm{s}$ twist angles from $N_s$ CCD calculations to $N_s$ MP2 calculations plus one CCD calculation.'
address:
- 'Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa'
- 'University of Iowa Informatics Initiative, University of Iowa'
- 'Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology'
- 'Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa'
- 'University of Iowa Informatics Initiative, University of Iowa'
author:
- Tina Mihm
- 'Alexandra R. McIsaac'
- 'James J. Shepherd'
title: 'An optimized twist angle to find the twist-averaged correlation energy applied to the uniform electron gas'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, the use of wavefunction-based post-Kohn–Sham or post-Hartree–Fock methods to solve problems in materials science has proliferated. [@muller_wavefunction-based_2012] This is in part driven by an interest in obtaining precise energies (accurate to within 1mHa) for complex systems using hierarchies of methods found in quantum chemistry such as coupled cluster theory. While growing in popularity, wavefunction methods have yet to see widespread adoption, in large part due to their significant computational cost scaling with system size. This is especially of note in coupled cluster theory using a plane wave basis, and as a result, some authors are seeking methods to control finite size errors in order to run calculations using smaller system sizes. [@gruber_applying_2018]
Finite size errors arise when attempts are made to simulate an infinite system Hamiltonian with a periodic supercell containing a necessarily finite particle number.[@fraser_finite-size_1996; @drummond_finite-size_2008] The finite size of a supercell places a limitation on the minimum momenta in Fourier sums (e.g., with a cubic box of length $L$, the smallest momentum transfer is $2\pi/L$). These limitations ultimately lead to errors in the correlation energy; [@gruber_applying_2018; @ruggeri_correlation_2018] this has been attributed to long range van der Waals forces. [@gruber_applying_2018; @gruber_ab_2018]
Since these finite size errors are large and slowly converging with increasing supercell size, [which has been analyzed in detail for coupled cluster theory, [@mcclain_gaussian-based_2017]]{} there has been significant interest in developing wavefunction methods with reduced computational cost to circumvent finite size error and allow the treatment of larger supercells. These include embedding methods,[@sun_quantum_2016] such as density matrix embedding,[@knizia_density_2012; @knizia_density_2013; @bulik_electron_2014; @bulik_density_2014; @ricke_performance_2017; @zheng_cluster_2017; @pham_can_2018] wavefunction-in-DFT embedding,[@henderson_embedding_2006; @tuma_treating_2006; @gomes_calculation_2008; @sharifzadeh_all-electron_2009; @huang_quantum_2011; @libisch_embedded_2014; @manby_simple_2012; @goodpaster_accurate_2014; @chulhai_projection-based_2018] electrostatic embedding,[@hirata_fast_2005; @dahlke_electrostatically_2007; @hirata_fast_2008; @leverentz_electrostatically_2009; @bygrave_embedded_2012] QM/MM-inspired schemes,[@shoemaker_simomm:_1999; @sherwood_quasi:_2003; @herschend_combined_2004; @beran_predicting_2010; @chung_oniom_2015] and others.[@eskridge_local_2018; @lan_communication:_2015; @rusakov_self-energy_2019; @voloshina_embedding_2007; @masur_fragment-based_2016] Local correlation methods[@collins_energy-based_2015; @usvyat_periodic_2018] such as fragment-based schemes,[@gordon_fragmentation_2012; @li_generalized_2007; @li_cluster--molecule_2016; @rolik_general-order_2011; @li_divide-and-conquer_2004; @kobayashi_alternative_2007; @kristensen_locality_2011; @ghosh_noncovalent_2010; @kitaura_fragment_1999; @fedorov_extending_2007; @netzloff_ab_2007; @ziolkowski_linear_2010] incremental methods,[@stoll_correlation_1992; @paulus_method_2006; @friedrich_fully_2007; @stoll_approaching_2012; @friedrich_incremental_2013; @voloshina_first_2014; @kallay_linear-scaling_2015; @fertitta_towards_2018] and heirarchical methods,[@deev_approximate_2005; @manby_extension_2006; @nolan_calculation_2009; @collins_ab_2011] break the system into smaller subsystems, then extrapolate or stitch together the energies. Some methods take advantage of range separation[@toulouse_adiabatic-connection_2009; @bruneval_range-separated_2012; @shepherd_range-separated_2014] or other distance-based schemes[@spencer_efficient_2008; @maurer_efficient_2013; @kats_sparse_2013; @kats_speeding_2016; @ayala_extrapolating_1999] to reduce computational cost. In addition to work on developing or modifying electronic structure methods, much work on reducing the cost of wavefunction methods has been focused on modifying basis sets in order to accelerate convergence and decrease computation time. Local orbital methods have been popular,[@pisani_local-mp2_2005; @ayala_atomic_2001; @usvyat_periodic_2015; @werner_fast_2003; @flocke_natural_2004; @werner_scalable_2015; @rolik_efficient_2013; @forner_coupled-cluster_1985; @schutz_low-order_2000; @neese_efficient_2009; @sun_gaussian_2017; @booth_plane_2016; @blum_ab_2009; @subotnik_local_2005] often based on the local ansatz of Pulay and Saebo[@saebo_local_1993] or Stollhoff and Fulde.[@stollhoff_local_1977] Other common methods include progressive downsampling,[@shimazaki_brillouin-zone_2009; @hirata_fast_2009; @ohnishi_logarithm_2010] downfolding,[@purwanto_frozen-orbital_2013] use of explicitly-correlated basis sets[@adler_local_2009; @shiozaki_communications:_2010; @gruneis_explicitly_2013; @usvyat_linear-scaling_2013; @gruneis_efficient_2015] or natural orbitals,[@gruneis_natural_2011] and tensor manipulations.[@hohenstein_tensor_2012; @benedikt_tensor_2013; @hummel_low_2017; @peng_highly_2017; @motta_efficient_2018] Discussion of the details and relative merits of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper; for a review, we direct the interested reader to Refs. .
However, there has been some work on developing corrections for finite size errors.[@fraser_finite-size_1996; @kent_finite-size_1999; @kwee_finite-size_2008; @drummond_finite-size_2008; @holzmann_theory_2016; @liao_communication:_2016] Many-body methods can sometimes be integrated to the thermodynamic limit (TDL),[@gell-mann_correlation_1957; @nozieres_correlation_1958; @onsager_integrals_1966; @bishop_electron_1982; @bishop_electron_1978; @bishop_overview_1991; @ziesche_selfenergy_2007] allowing for the derivation of analytic finite-size correction expressions.[@chiesa_finite-size_2006] Several studies from the last year have particular relevance to our work here. Gr[ü]{}eneis *et al.*[@gruber_applying_2018; @gruber_ab_2018] employed a grid integration within periodic coupled cluster for *ab initio* Hamiltonians with applications to various solids. In another study, Alavi *et al.*[@ruggeri_correlation_2018] devised a novel extrapolation relationship that links different electron gas calculations through the density parameter. Both of these papers use a technique known as twist averaging to try to remove finite size error.
Twist averaging is a method that attempts to control finite size errors by first offsetting the $k$-point grid by a small amount, ${\bf k}_s$, and then averaging over all possible offsets.[@lin_twist-averaged_2001] [ We refer to ${\bf k}_s$ here as a twist angle. One of the main purposes of twist averaging is to provide for a smoother extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit by reducing severe energy fluctuations as the particle number varies. ]{} When performed with a fixed particle number and box length, this process is referred to as twist averaging in the canonical ensemble, which is what we study here. When employed in stochastic methods, such as variational Monte Carlo,[@lin_twist-averaged_2001] diffusion Monte Carlo[@drummond_finite-size_2008] or full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo,[@ruggeri_correlation_2018; @shepherd_quantum_2013] the grid can be stochastically sampled at the same time as the main stochastic algorithm, and both stochastic error and error in twist-averaging related to approximate integration can be removed at the same time. As a result, the scaling with the number of twist angles sampled is extremely modest. Unfortunately, the same cost savings cannot be realized for deterministic methods. In this case, in order to achieve a reasonable estimate for the average, one must use a large number of individual energy calculations. This results in the cost scaling linearly with the number of twist angles used, [although the lessening of finite size effects with rising electron number would alleviate this scaling to some extent.[@mcclain_gaussian-based_2017]]{}
Here, we seek to remedy the linear scaling of twist averaging for deterministic methods by devising a way to provide an energy that is as accurate as twist-averaging, but with single-calculation cost. [ In principle, it is possible to find a single twist angle which exactly reproduces the total twist-averaged energy by recognizing that it is an integral of the energy over the twist angles for a system. This was the same logic used in analysis by Baldereschi to find a special $k$-point[@baldereschi_mean-value_1973] and has been used by others in the QMC community to find a special twist angle.[@dagrada_exact_2016; @Rajagopal_quantum_1994; @Rajagopal_variational_1995] We are motivated similarly and wish to find a single twist angle that yields an energy approximately equal to the full twist-averaged energy for CCD and related wavefunction methods.]{} [ We take advantage of the similarity between the MP2 and CCD correlation energy expressions, using the much cheaper MP2 method to find a single twist angle that produces a system with the most similar number of allowed excitations to the twist-averaged system. We refer to this set of allowed excitations as the ‘connectivity’. We then use this twist angle to calculate the CCD energy, which is in good agreement with the fully twist-averaged CCD energy. Finally, we compare our energies to those obtained using one twist angle at the Baldereschi point.[@baldereschi_mean-value_1973] ]{} [ We do not seek to completely remedy the whole of the finite size error, instead noting that other authors have come up with corrections or extrapolations that can be used after twist-averaging is applied.[@chiesa_finite-size_2006; @drummond_quantum_2009; @gruber_ab_2018]]{}
Twist averaging & Connectivity
==============================
Both continuum/real-space and basis-set twist averaging have been used effectively in quantum Monte Carlo calculations;[@lin_twist-averaged_2001; @drummond_finite-size_2008; @ruggeri_correlation_2018; @shepherd_quantum_2013] however, twist averaging remains relatively rare in coupled cluster calculations. In [[Fig. \[fig:TADemonstration\]]{}]{}, the total $\Gamma$-point CCD energy ($N=38$ to $N=922$) and twist-averaged CCD energy ($N=38$ to $N=294$) are plotted alongside the extrapolation to the TDL for the uniform electron gas ($0.609(3)$ Ha/electron, where the error in the last digit is in parentheses). The CCD calculation is performed in a finite basis that is analogous to a minimal basis.[@shepherd_many-body_2013] The $\Gamma$-point energy is highly non-monotonic; it does not fit well with the extrapolation. The twist-averaged data shows a much better fit with the extrapolation, resulting in a better estimate of the TDL. The drawback of twist averaging, however, is that it costs $N_\mathrm{s}\,\mathcal{O}\mathrm{[CCD]}$ for $N_\mathrm{s}$ twist angles (here, 100). The twist-averaged energy becomes too costly to calculate with CCD for system sizes above 294 electrons.
![Comparison between the twist-averaged (TA) CCD energy and the $\Gamma$-point CCD energy for a uniform electron gas with $r_s=1.0$ as the system size changes (up to $N=294$ and $N=922$, respectively). In general, an extrapolation (here, red line) is performed to calculate the TDL energy. Twist averaging makes this extrapolation easier, because the noise around the extrapolation is smaller, leading to a smaller extrapolation error. Twist averaging is performed over 100 twist angles. Standard errors are calculated in the normal fashion for twist averaging, $\sigma\approx\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(E_{\mathrm{CCD}}({{\bf k}_s})) / N_s}$ (are too small to be shown on the graph, on average 0.2 mHa/el).[]{data-label="fig:TADemonstration"}](./Figure1.pdf){width="49.00000%" height="\textheight"}
Figure \[fig:TADemonstration\] is a clear statement of the problem we wish to resolve here. [ Twist averaging resolves some finite size errors that are present at an individual particle number $N$, and allows for improved extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. ]{} That said, the scaling with the number of twist angles is cost-prohibitive. We aim to develop an approximation to twist averaging that gives comparable accuracy at a fraction of the cost. We begin by analyzing how the Hartree-Fock energy and the MP2 correlation energy are modified by twist averaging. This analysis then allows us to build an algorithm that produces CCD twist-averaged accuracy/results for only MP2 cost.
Hartree-Fock and single-particle eigenvalues
--------------------------------------------
![[The degeneracy pattern in the energy levels of the $\Gamma$-point calculation can be identified by plotting the HF eigenvalues are plotted in ascending order. Here, we show $N=14, 54$ two systems that are closed shell at the $\Gamma$-point. Averaging the eigenvalues in the manner described in the text removes these degeneracies. The gap between the eigenvalues themselves and across the band gap goes to zero as the TDL is approached, giving rise to the metallic character of the gas.]{}[]{data-label="fig:AverageEigenvalues"}](./Figure2.pdf){width="49.00000%" height="\textheight"}
A finite-sized electron gas at the $\Gamma$-point is only closed-shell at certain so-called magic numbers, which are determined by the symmetry of the lattice (for example $N=2$, 14, 38, and 54). [ One of the reasons that the $\Gamma$-point calculations are so noisy ([[Fig. \[fig:TADemonstration\]]{}]{}) is that there are degeneracies in the HF eigenvalues, which can be seen in [[Fig. \[fig:AverageEigenvalues\]]{}]{} and has long been recognized. [@drummond_quantum_2009] This can be partially remedied by modifying the Hartree–Fock eigenvalues. The starting-point for this is]{} writing the HF energy as follows: $$E_\mathrm{HF}({\bf k}_s)= \sum_{i} T_i ({\bf k}_s)- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} v_{ijji}({\bf k}_s)
\label{eq:fullHF}$$ where $T_i$ is the kinetic energy of orbital $i$ and $v_{ijji}$ is the exchange integral between electrons in orbitals $i$ and $j$. Here, we have included the explicit form of the dependence on the twist angle, ${\bf k}_s$.
The twist-averaged energy is found by summing [[Eq. (\[eq:fullHF\])]{}]{} over all possible ${\bf k}_s$: $$\langle E_\mathrm{HF} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s} =
\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{s}}\sum_{{\bf k}_s}^{N_\mathrm{s}} \sum_{i} T_i ({\bf k}_s) - \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{s}}\sum_{{\bf k}_s}^{N_\mathrm{s}}\frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} v_{ijji}({\bf k}_s)$$ where $N_s$ indicates the number of twist angles used. Swapping the sums yields: $$\langle E_\mathrm{HF} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s} = \sum_{i} \left[\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{s}} \sum_{{\bf k}_s}^{N_\mathrm{s}} T_i ({\bf k}_s) \right]- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} \left[ \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{s}}\sum_{{\bf k}_s}^{N_\mathrm{s}} v_{ijji}({\bf k}_s) \right] .
\label{eq:ks_sums}$$ Therefore, twist averaging the HF energy is numerically identical to twist averaging the individual matrix elements: $$\langle E_\mathrm{HF} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s} = \sum_{i} \langle T_i \rangle_{\bf{k}_s}
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} \langle v_{ijji} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s}$$ Overall, then, we can use twist-averaged HF eigenvalues in place of twist-averaging the HF energy, obtaining a more reasonable density of states [[Fig. \[fig:AverageEigenvalues\]]{}]{}. We will use this in our subsequent scheme.
Beyond Hartree–Fock
-------------------
[ The above approach does not generalize to correlated theories because they have more complex energy expressions. For example, averaging the second-order M[ø]{}ller-Plesset theory (MP2) correlation energy over all possible twist angles can be written: $$\langle E_\mathrm{corr} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s}=\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{s}}\sum_{{\bf k}_s}^{N_\mathrm{s}} \frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab} \bar{t}_{ijab}({\bf k}_s) \bar{v}_{ijab} ({\bf k}_s),
\label{eq:Mp2}$$ where $i$ and $j$ refer to occupied orbitals and $a$ and $b$ refer to unoccupied orbitals. The symbols $\bar{v}$ and $\bar{t}$ refer to the antisymmetrized electron-repulsion integral and amplitude respectively. For MP2: $$\bar{t}_{ijab} ({\bf k}_s) \bar{v}_{ijab} ({\bf k}_s)=
\frac{ |\bar{v}_{ijab}({\bf k}_s)|^2 }{\epsilon_i({\bf k}_s)+\epsilon_j({\bf k}_s)-\epsilon_a({\bf k}_s)-\epsilon_b({\bf k}_s)}$$]{} [ Even though MP2 diverges in the thermodynamic limit, the energy expression ([[Eq. (\[eq:Mp2\])]{}]{}) has a similar structure to coupled cluster theory, the random phase approximation, and even full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo. As such, we can make generalized observations using the MP2 energy expression, and then use these observations to derive a scheme to find an optimal $k_s$ twist angle that works for all of these methods.]{}
The connectivity approach
-------------------------
The MP2 correlation energy can vary substantially as the twist angle is changed. For example, in the $N=14$ electron system with a basis set of $M=38$ orbitals, the MP2 energy can vary between $-0.0171$ Ha/electron to $-0.0001$ Ha/electron. This arises, in particular, because the number of low-momentum excitations (minimum $|{\bf k}_i-{\bf k}_a|$) will vary significantly. Since the contribution of each excitation to the MP2 sum is $|{\bf k}_i-{\bf k}_a|^{-4}$, there is a rapid decay of an excitation’s contribution to the correlation energy beyond the minimum vector.
[ This effect arises because, when the twist angle is changed,]{} different orbitals now fall into the occupied ($ij$) space, and different orbitals fall into the virtual ($ab$) space. This changes the value of the sum over both occupied and virtual orbitals, since many individual terms in the sum are now substantively different. We illustrate this using a diagram in the Supplementary Information.
By contrast, the integrals themselves do not change; [ to show this, the integral can be written: [ $$v_{ijab}=\frac{4\pi}{L^3} \frac{1}{({\bf k}_i-{\bf k}_a)^2} \delta_{{\bf k}_i-{\bf k}_a , {\bf k}_b-{\bf k}_j} \delta_{\sigma_i \sigma_a}\delta_{\sigma_j \sigma_b} .
\label{eq:ERIs}$$ ]{} The Kronecker deltas, $\delta$, ensure that momentum and spin symmetry (denoted $\sigma$) are conserved.]{} On changing ${\bf k}_p \rightarrow {\bf k}_p+{\bf k}_s$ for all ${\bf k}$’s, the difference in the denominator here does not change, since $({\bf k}_i+{\bf k}_s-{\bf k}_a-{\bf k}_s)^2=({\bf k}_i-{\bf k}_a)^2$. [ In general, our calculations were set up using details which can be found in our prior work e.g. Ref. ]{}.
At this stage, we conjecture that *if* one of the mechanisms by which twist averaging is affecting the MP2 energy (and other correlation energies) is to smooth out the inconsistent contributions between different momenta, *then* it might be possible for us to find a ‘special twist angle’ where the number of low-momentum states for that single twist angle is a good match to the average number of momentum states across all twist angles. [ Further, we will show this special twist angle is transferable to other, more sophisticated methods such as coupled cluster doubles theory. ]{}
To find this special twist angle, we proceed as follows:
1. For a given twist angle ${\bf k}_s$, loop over the same $ijab$ as the MP2 sum $\sum_{ijab}$. For each $ijab$ set:
1. Determine the momentum transfer $x=|{\bf n}_i-{\bf n}_a|^2$ where ${\bf n}_a$ is the integer equivalent of the quantum number: ${\bf k}_a=\frac{2\pi}{L}{\bf n}_a$.
2. Increment a histogram element $h_x$ by one.
2. Create a vector ${\bf h}$, whose elements are $h_x$, which correspond to the number of of $v_{ijab}$ matrix elements with magnitude $\frac{1}{\pi L}\frac{1}{x}$ that are encountered during the MP2 sum.
3. Average ${\bf h}$ over all twist angles, yielding $\langle {\bf h} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s}$
4. Loop over the twist angles again, and find the single ${\bf h}$ (and corresponding twist angle) that best matches $\langle {\bf h} \rangle_{\bf{k}_s}$ using: $$\min_{\bf{k}_s} \sum_x \frac{1}{x^2} \left( h_x - \langle h_x \rangle_{\bf{k}_s} \right)^2$$ The weight term $1/x^2$ was chosen empirically to diminish the contributions of large numbers of high-momentum weights that contribute relatively little to the energy.
[ Looking at [[Eq. (\[eq:Mp2\])]{}]{}, there are two ways to proceed. We could either use this special ${\bf k}_s$ for all aspects of the calculation (e.g. for both the integral evaluation and the eigenvalue difference), or we could use the special ${\bf k}_s$ for the integral only, and twist-average the eigenvalues before performing the CCD calculation. We found that the latter was more numerically effective for $N=14$ and decided to use this approach to generate the results presented here. In general, though, for larger systems it does not make a large difference.]{}
In practice, we implemented this algorithm within an MP2 and CCD code; we call the MP2 calculation at each twist angle and then the CCD calculation once at the end. For the remainder of this work, we will call this application of the above algorithm the “connectivity scheme," referencing the idea that the pattern of non-zero matrix elements $v_{ijab}$ resembles a connected network.
Results
=======
[We demonstrate the effectiveness of this algorithm for coupled cluster calculations on the uniform electron gas in [[Fig. \[fig:results\]]{}]{}. In general, our results as show that the connectivity scheme works for different electron numbers, basis sets, and $r_s$ values. Furthermore, evaluation of the connectivity scheme is approximately 100x cheaper than twist averaging. ]{}
In [[Fig. \[subfig:diffN\]]{}]{}, we compare the connectivity scheme to full twist-averaging for CCD calculations on the uniform electron gas. Energy differences from the $\Gamma$-point energy are plotted for each electron number. Our results show that the connectivity scheme delivers comparable accuracy (mean absolute deviation = 0.3 mHa/electron) to twist averaging, with the benefit of being much faster to compute. The connectivity scheme is substantially cheaper than the twist-averaging scheme: the $N=294$ twist-averaged calculation, for example, costs $58$ hours, which is about the same time it takes to run the $N=922$ connectivity scheme calculation. A complete set of timings is provided in the Supplementary Information.
In [[Fig. \[subfig:diffM\]]{}]{}, we compare our connectivity scheme to full twist-averaging over a range of basis set sizes ($M= 36 - 2838$ orbitals) for 54 electrons. In [[Fig. \[subfig:diffRs\]]{}]{}, we compare the connectivity scheme to full twist-averaging over a range of $r_s$ values ($0.01 -50.0$ a.u.) for 54 electrons. In both cases there is good agreement between the two methods for all system sizes, proving that the connectivity scheme delivers good accuracy when compared with twist averaging for a range of both basis set sizes (mean absolute deviation $<$ 0.35 mHa/electron) and $r_s$ values (mean absolute deviation $<$ 0.25 mHa/electron) at a decreased cost.
![Connectivity scheme CCD correlation energies for electron numbers up to $N=922$ for $r_s=1.0$ in the uniform electron gas (yellow triangles). We fit 10 points (dotted red line) to the function $E=a+bN^{-1}$, as proposed by other authors; [@drummond_finite-size_2008] we then use this fit to extrapolate to the thermodynamic limit.[]{data-label="fig:TDLresults"}](./Figure4.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%" height="\textheight"} \[subfig:TDL1\]
In [[Fig. \[fig:TDLresults\]]{}]{}, we show the extrapolation of our connectivity scheme CCD correlation energy to the thermodynamic limit for the $r_s=1.0$ uniform electron gas. We perform calculations up to $N=922$ electrons, and fit these results to the equation $E=a+bN^{-1}$, as proposed by other authors. [@drummond_finite-size_2008] We then use this fit to extrapolate the correlation energy to the thermodynamic limit. We also performed the same extrapolation for the twist-averaged data set up to $N=294$ electrons (not shown). The extrapolations predict the TDL energy to be $-0.0340(8)$ Ha/electron for the connectivity scheme and $-0.033(4)$ Ha/electron for the twist-averaged scheme, a difference of $0.001(4)$ Ha/electron. The numbers in parentheses are errors in the final digit. These agree within error, and the connectivity scheme has an improved error due to having more data points.
[Next, we demonstrate how to use this method to obtain a complete basis set and thermodynamic limit estimate for the uniform electron gas. Connectivity scheme CCD energies were collected for the $N=54$ electron system with basis sets varying from $M=922$ to $M=2838$ orbitals, and for systems with electron numbers varying between $N=162$ to $610$, with $M\approx 4N$. These data allow us to extrapolate to both the complete basis set limit and the thermodynamic limit by using the numerical approach set out in our previous work.[@shepherd_communication:_2016] This yields an energy that is 0.0566(6), with the error in parentheses resulting from the extrapolations; this is in good agreement with our prior estimate with significantly less error.[@shepherd_communication:_2016] For more details the reader is referred to the Supplementary Information. ]{}
[ Finally, in [[Fig. \[fig:BPCompresults\]]{}]{}, we compare the CCD energies from full twist-averaging, our connectivity scheme, and performing single calculation using the Baldereschi point as a twist angle. This point, first developed for insulators, is well known for the role it played in developing efficient thermodynamic integrations[@baldereschi_mean-value_1973; @chadi_special_1973; @cunningham_special_1974; @monkhorst_special_1976] and was subsequently used for twist-averaging as the center-point of uniform grid twist-averaging by Drummond *et al.*[@drummond_quantum_2009]. At higher electron numbers ($N\geq 162$) the difference between BP and the TA energies falls below 1mHa/electron as all of the approaches converge to the same energy. At small electron numbers, however, the Baldereschi point significantly deviates from the twist-averaged energy, while the connectivity scheme is a much better approximation.]{}
![[All energies shown reflect the difference in correlation energy between the $\Gamma$-point and the relevant calculation. The connectivity algorithm delivers comparable corrections to the correlation energy (relative to the $\Gamma$-point) when compared with twist averaging across a wide range of electron numbers. The Baldereschi point only delivers comparable corrections to the correlation energy (relative to the $\Gamma$-point) at higher electron numbers ($N \geq 162$) when compared with twist averaging. Twist averaging is performed over 100 twist angles. Standard errors are calculated in the normal fashion for twist averaging, $\sigma\approx\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(E_{\mathrm{CCD}}({{\bf k}_s})) / N_s}$.]{}[]{data-label="fig:BPCompresults"}](./Figure5.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="\textheight"} \[subfig:BPComp\]
Discussion & concluding remarks
===============================
Our results show that a finite electron gas is best able to reproduce the twist-averaged total and correlation energies when a special $\bf{k}_s$-point is chosen to minimize the differences between the momentum connectivity of the finite system and a reference (here, a twist-averaged finite system). [Our interpretation of the connectivity-derived special $\bf{k}_s$-point’s utility is that the low-momentum two-particle excitations from HF often suffer from finite size errors due to the shape of the Fermi surface in $k$-space. By finding a particularly representative $k_s$-point, we aim to take the ‘best case’ of a representative shape–or, at least, as best as can be managed by a truly finite system. ]{} When we examine the occupied orbitals in $k$-space at the special $\bf{k}_s$-point, they adopt low-symmetry patterns that tend more toward the shape of a sphere than the $\Gamma$-point distribution.
Though we have made significant progress here towards ameliorating finite size error, [there are still two open questions. First, could our method be modified in order to minimize the energy difference to the thermodynamic limit rather than just to the twist-averaged energy? The second open question surrounds the extrapolation – in particular, what is the *actual* form of the energy as the system size tends to infinity?]{} We could investigate this source of error by comparing with the known high-density limit of RPA, which CCD is expected to be able to capture. We leave both of these investigations for future work.
Overall, the results here should improve our ability to understand infinite-sized model systems that are necessarily represented as finite systems, such as the electron gas with varying dimensions, the Hubbard model, and the models of nuclear matter we previously studied. [@shepherd_communication:_2016; @Baardsen2; @Baardsen1] This communication is timely due to a resurgence of interest in the uniform electron gas [@neufeld_study_2017; @white_time-dependent_2018; @spencer_large_2018; @mcclain_spectral_2016; @spencer_hande-qmc_2019; @malone_accurate_2016; @shepherd_many-body_2013; @shepherd_range-separated_2014; @gruneis_explicitly_2013] and of twist-averaged coupled cluster calculations. [@gruber_applying_2018; @hagen_coupledcluster_2014] We expect this work can immediately be applied to improve calculations.
[ Our long-term goals are to use this approach to study realistic systems. Though calculations are left for future manuscripts, we expect to follow a similar approach to our prior work in this area. In particular, we start by observing the similarity between how twist-averaging works in plane wave ab initio calculations where the energy is still obtained as a sum over matrix elements $v_{ijab}$ (as in [[Eq. (\[eq:ERIs\])]{}]{}) which are offset by a twist angle. Specifically, then, it should be possible to choose the twist angle in the same way as we propose here, so for a cubic system with $N$ electrons and a box length of $L$, the same twist angle as used here should work. As such, we will soon be applying this to real solids and leave this for a future study. ]{}
[***Supplementary Material.–*** ]{} The reader is directed to the supplementary material for raw data tables and illustrations mentioned in the text.
[***Acknowledgements.–*** ]{} JJS and TM acknowledge the University of Iowa for funding. JJS thanks the University of Iowa for an Old Gold Award. ARM was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1122374. The code used throughout this work is a locally modified version of a github repository used in previous work [@shepherd_range-separated_2014; @shepherd_coupled_2014]: https://github.com/jamesjshepherd/uegccd.
[142]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/C2CP24020C) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021043) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.1814) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.125106) [**** (), 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.161105](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.161105), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.134108) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00049) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00356) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.186404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct301044e) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2034), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.035140) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00268976.2017.1290839) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.95.045103) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01248) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2209688) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/B608262A) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/B805739G) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.cplett.2009.01.072) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3577516) [ (), 10.1021/ar500086h](\doibase 10.1021/ar500086h) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct300544e) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4864040) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01154) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00268970500083788) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct700057x) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3021077) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct900095d) [****, ()](\doibase doi:10.1063/1.4759079) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp982600e) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/S0166-1280(03)00285-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1635802) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jz101383z) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/cr5004419) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05471), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4938562) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00927) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2715555) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00651) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cr500455b) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/wcms.1357) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cr200093j) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp067721q) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00268976.2016.1139755) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3632085) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1792051) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2761878) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct200114k) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/jp107557p) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/S0009-2614(99)00874-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp0716740) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2768534) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3456535) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.463415) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.01.003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2721538) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3687003) [ (), 10.1021/ct4008074](\doibase 10.1021/ct4008074) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct401040t) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4921542) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00268976.2018.1444208) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1879792) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/B613676A) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.80.165109) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3581845) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.096404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.256403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.133002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.193110) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4770502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4798940) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4954963) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0009-2614(99)00498-4) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1857479) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1414369) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4921301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1564816) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1811606) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/ct500725e) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4819401) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/0301-0104(85)87035-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1330207) [****, ()](\doibase doi:10.1063/1.3086717) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4998644) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06457), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.06.022) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2000252) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.pc.44.100193.001241) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01312932) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/qua.22176) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.085118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3455717) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct4006486) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3160675) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3396079) [****, ()](\doibase doi:10.1063/1.4818753) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4829898) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.066402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/ct200263g) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4732310) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4833565) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4977994) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00605) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01549), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.physchem.59.032607.093528) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00648) in [**](\doibase 10.1007/978-3-319-42913-7_9-1), (, , ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1917) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.126404) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.94.035126) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4964307) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.106.364) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.111.442) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.19664730108) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.26.5523) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.17.3757) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01119617) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.200610220) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.076404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016702) **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.7.5212) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.94.245108) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.1959) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.10591) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.245104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.226401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.035111) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4958461) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.8.5747) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.10.4988) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.5188) @noop [ ()]{} **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.5003794) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00773) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.5047420) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.93.235139) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01217) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.115701) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.89.014319) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4867783)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the claims that data from Google Trends contain enough information to predict future financial index returns. We first review the many subtle (and less subtle) biases that may affect the backtest of a trading strategy, particularly when based on such data. Expectedly, the choice of keywords is crucial: by using an industry-grade backtest system, we verify that random finance-related keywords do not to contain more exploitable predictive information than random keywords related to illnesses, classic cars and arcade games. However, other keywords applied on suitable assets yield robustly profitable strategies, thereby confirming the intuition of [@preis2013quantifyingGT].'
author:
- Damien Challet
- Ahmed Bel Hadj Ayed
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Predicting financial markets with Google Trends and not so random keywords
---
Introduction
============
Taking the pulse of society with unprecedented frequency and accuracy is becoming possible thanks to data from various websites. In particular, data from Google Trends (GT thereafter) report historical search volume interest (SVI) of given keywords and have been used to predict the present [@choi2012predicting] (called *nowcasting* in [@castle2009nowcasting]), that is, to improve estimate of quantities that are being created but whose figures are to be revealed at the end of a given period. They include unemployment, travel and consumer confidence figures [@choi2012predicting], quarterly company earnings (from searches about their salient product)s [@da2010search], GDP estimates [@castle2009nowcasting] and influenza epidemics [@ginsberg2008detecting].
Asset prices are determined by traders. Some traders look for, share and ultimately create information on a variety on websites. Therefore asset prices should be related to the behavior of website users. This syllogism has been investigated in details in [@da2011search]: the price returns of the components of the Russell 3000 index are regressed on many factors, including GT data, and these factors are averaged over all of the 3000 assets. Interestingly, the authors find *inter alia* a significant correlation between changes in SVI and individual investors trading activity. In addition, on average, variations of SVI are negatively correlated with price returns over a few weeks during the period studied (i.e, in sample). The need to average over many stocks is due to the amount of noise in both price returns and GT data, and to the fact that only a small fraction of people who search for a given keywords do actually trade later.
[@preis2013quantifyingGT]’s claim is much stronger: it states that future returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average are negatively correlated with SVI surprises related to some keywords, hence that GT data contains enough data to predict financial indices. Several subtle (and not so subtle) biases prevent their conclusions from being as forceful as they could be. Using a robust backtest system, we are able to confirm that GT data can be used to predict future asset price returns, thereby placing their conclusions on a much more robust footing.
Data and Strategy
=================
Raw asset prices are well described by suitable random walks that contain no predictability whatsoever. However, they may be predictable if one is able to determine a set of conditions using either only asset returns (see e.g. [@MarsiliClust] for conditions based on asset cross-correlations) or external sources of information. Google Trends provide normalized time series of number of searches for given keywords with a weekly time resolution[^1], denoted by $v_{t}$. [@preis2013quantifyingGT] propose the following trading strategy: defining the previous base-line search interest as $\bar{v}_{t}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t'=t-T}^{t}v_{t'}$, the SVI surprise is $\delta_{t}=v_{t}-\bar{v}_{t-1}$, and the position to take on a related asset during week $t+1$ is $s_{t+1}=-\mbox{sign }\delta_{t}$. Nothing prevents to consider the inverse strategy, but average price reversion over the next one or two weeks with respect to a change of SVI was already noticed by other authors [@da2011search; @dzielinski2012measuring].
Instead of trying to predict the Dow Jones Industrial Average index, we use the time series of SPY, which mirrors the Standard and Poors 500 index. This provides a weak form of cross-validation, the two time series being highly correlated but not identical. For the same reason, we compute returns from Monday to Friday close prices instead of Monday to Monday, which keeps index returns in sync with GT data (they range from Sundays to Saturdays).
Methodological biases
=====================
Prediction is hard, especially about the future. But prediction about the future *in* the past is even harder. This applies in particular to the backtesting of a trading strategy, that is, to the computation of its virtual gains in the past. It is prone to many kinds of biases that may significantly alter its reliability, often positively [@freeman1992behind; @leinweber2007stupid]. Most of them are due to the regrettable and possibly inevitable tendency of the future to creep into the past.
Tool bias
---------
This is the most overlooked bias. It explains in part why backtest performances are often very good in the 80s and 90s, but less impressive since about 2003, even when one accounts for realistic estimates of total transaction costs. Finding predictability in old data with modern tools is indeed easier than it ought to be. Think of applying computationally cpu- or memory-intensive methods on pre-computer era data. The best known law of the computational power increase is named after Gordon Moore, who noticed that the optimal number of transistors in integrated circuits increases exponentially with time (with a doubling time $\tau\simeq$ 2 years) [@moore1965cramming]. But other important aspects of computation have been improving exponentially with time, so far, such as the amount of computing per unit of energy (Koomey’ law, $\tau\simeq1.5$ years [@koomey2011computingefficiency]) or the price of storage (Kryder’s law, $\tau\simeq$ 2 years [@kryder2009hdd]). Remarkably, these technological advances are mirrored by the evolution of a minimal reaction timescale in financial data [@hardiman2013critical]. In addition, the recent ability to summon and unleash almost at once deluges of massive cloud computing power on large data sets has changed the ways financial data can be analyzed. It is very hard to account for this bias. For educational purposes, one can familiarize oneself with past computer abilities with virtual machines such as `qemu` [@bellard2005qemu] tuned to emulate the speed and memory of computers available at a given time for a given sum of money.
The same kind of bias extends to progresses of statistics and machine learning literature, and even to the way one understands market dynamics: using a particular method is likely to give better results before its publication than, say, one or two years later. One can stretch this argument to the historicity of the methods tested on financial data at any given time because they follow fashions. At any rate, this is an aspect of backtesting that deserves a more systematic study.
Data biases
-----------
Data are biased in two ways. First, when backtesting a strategy that depends on external signals, one must ask oneself first if the signal was available at the dates that it contains. GT data was not reliably available before 6 August 2008, being updated randomly every few months [@wiki:GT]. Backtests at previous dates include an inevitable part of science fiction, but are still useful to calibrate strategies.
The second problem is that data is revised, for several reasons. Raw financial data often contains gross errors (erroneous or missing prices, volumes, etc.), but this is the data one would have had to use in the past. Historical data downloaded afterwards has often been partly cleaned. [@Daco] give good advice about high-frequency data cleaning. Revisions are also very common for macro-economic data. For example, Gross Domestic Product estimates are revised several times before the definitive figure is reached (about revision predictability, see e.g. [@faust2005news]).
More perversely, data revision includes format changes: the type of data that GT returns was tweaked at the end of 2012. It used to be made of real numbers whose normalization was not completely transparent; it also gave uncertainties on these numbers. Quite consistently, the numbers themselves would change within the given error bars every time one would download data for the same keyword. Nowadays, GT returns integer numbers between 0 and 100, 100 being the maximum of the time-series and 0 its minimum; small changes of GT data are therefore hidden by the rounding process; error bars are no more available, but it is fair to assume that a fluctuation of $\pm1$ should be considered irrelevant. In passing, the process of rounding final decimals of prices sometimes introduces spurious predictability, which is well known for FX data [@NeilPrivateComm].
Revised data also concerns the investible universe. Freely available historical data does not include deceased stocks. This is a real problem as assets come and go at a rather steady rate: today’s set of investible assets is not the same as last week’s. Accordingly, components of indices also change. Analyzing the behavior of the components of today’s index components in the past is a common way to force feed it with future information and has therefore an official name: survivor(ship) bias. This is a real problem known to bias considerably measures of average performance. For instance [@freeman1992behind] shows that it causes an overestimation of backtest performance in 90% of the cases of long-only portfolios in a well chosen period. This is coherent since by definition, companies that have survived have done well. Early concerns were about the performance of mutual funds, and various methods have been devised to estimate the strength of this bias given the survival fraction of funds [@brown1992survivorship; @elton1996survivor]
Finally, one must mention that backtesting strategies on untradable indices, such as the Nasdaq Composite Index, is not a wise idea since no one could even try to remove predictability from them.
Choice of keywords
------------------
What keywords to choose is of course a crucial ingredient when using GT for prediction. It seems natural to think that keywords related to finance are more likely to be related to financial indices, hence, to be more predictive. Accordingly, [@preis2013quantifyingGT] build a keyword list from the Financial Times, a financial journal, aiming at biasing the keyword set. But this bias needs to be controlled with a set of random keywords unrelated to finance, which was neglected.
Imagine indeed that some word related to finance was the most relevant in the in-sample window. Our brain is hardwired to find a story that justifies this apparent good performance. Statistics is not: to test that the average performance of a trading strategy is different from zero, one uses a T test, whose result will be called t-stat in the following, and is defined as $z=\frac{\mu}{\sigma}\sqrt{N}$ where $\mu$ stands for the average of strategy returns, $\sigma$ their standard deviation and $N$ is the number of returns; for $N>20$, $z$ looks very much like a Gaussian variable with zero average and unit variance. [@preis2013quantifyingGT] wisely compute t-stats: the best keyword, `debt`, has a t-stat of 2.3. The second best keyword is `color` and has a t-stat of 2.2. Both figures are statistically indistinguishable, but `debt` is commented upon in the paper and in the press`; color` is not, despite having equivalent “predictive” power.
Let us now play with random keywords that were known before the start of the backtest period (2004). We collected GT data for 200 common medical conditions/ailments/illnesses, 100 classic cars and 100 all-time best arcade games (reported in appendix A) and applied the strategy described above with $k=10$ instead of $k=5$. Table \[tab:tstats\] reports the t-stats of the best 3 positive and negative performance (which can be made positive by inverting the prescription of the strategy) for each set of keywords.
keyword t-stat keyword t-stat keyword t-stat keyword t-tstat
-------------------------- -------- -- --------------------- -------- -- ------------------- -------- -- -------------- ---------
`multiple sclerosis` -2.1 `Chevrolet Impala` -1.9 `Moon Buggy` -2.1 `labor` -1.5
`muscle cramps ` -1.9 `Triumph 2000` -1.9 `Bubbles` -2.0 `housing` -1.2
`premenstrual syndrome ` -1.8 `Jaguar E-type` -1.7 `Rampage` -1.7 `success` -1.2
`alopecia` 2.2 `Iso Grifo` 1.7 `Street Fighter` 2.3 `bonds` 1.9
`gout` 2.2 `Alfa Romeo Spider` 1.7 `Crystal Castles` 2.4 `Nasdaq` 2.0
`bone cancer` 2.4 `Shelby GT 500` 2.4 `Moon Patrol` 2.7 `investment` 2.0
: Keywords and associated t-stats of the performance of a simple strategy using Google Trends time series to predict `SPY` \[tab:tstats\] from Monday close to Friday close prices.
We leave the reader pondering about what (s)he would have concluded if `bone cancer` or `Moon Patrol` be more finance-related. This table also illustrates that the best t-stats reported in [@preis2013quantifyingGT] are not significantly different from what one would obtains by chance: the t-stats reported here being a mostly equivalent to Gaussian variables, one expects 5% of their absolute values to be larger that 1.95, which explains why keywords such `color` as have also a good t-stat. Finally, `debt` is not among the three best keywords when applied to SPY from Monday to Friday: its performance is unremarkable and unstable, as shown in more details below.
Nevertheless, their reported t-stats of financial-related terms is biased towards positive values, which is compatible with the reversal observed in [@da2011search; @dzielinski2012measuring], and with results of Table 1. This may show that the proposed strategy is able to extract some amount of the possibly weak information contained in GT data.
Coding errors
-------------
An other explanation for this bias could have been coding errors (it is not). Time series prediction is easy when one mistakenly uses future data as current data in a program, e.g. by shifting incorrectly time series; we give the used code in appendix. A very simple and effective way of avoiding this problem is to replace all alternatively price returns and external data (GT here) by random time series. If backtests persist in giving positive performance, there are bugs somewhere.
No out-of-sample
----------------
The aim of [@preis2013quantifyingGT] was probably not to provide us with a profitable trading strategy, but to attempt to illustrate the relationship between collective searches and future financial returns. It is however striking that no in- and out-sample periods are considered (this is surprisingly but decreasingly common in the literature). We therefore cannot assess the trading performance of the proposed strategy, which can only be judged by its robustness and consistency out-of-sample, or, equivalently, of both the information content and viability of the strategy. We refer the reader to [@leinweber2007stupid] for an entertaining account of the importance of in- and out-of-sample periods.
Keywords from the future
------------------------
[@preis2013quantifyingGT] use keywords that have been taken from the editions of the FT dated from August 2004 to June 2011, determined ex post. This means that keywords from 2011 editions are used to backtest returns in e.g. 2004. Therefore, the set of keywords injects information about the future into the past. A more robust solution would have been to use editions of the FT available at or before the time at which the performance evaluation took place. This is why we considered sets of keywords known before 2004.
Parameter tuning/data snooping
------------------------------
Each set of parameters, which include keywords, defines one or more trading strategies. Trying to optimize parameters or keywords is called data snooping and is bound to lead to unsatisfactory out of sample performance. When backtest results are presented, it is often impossible for the reader to know if the results suffer from data snooping. A simple remedy is not to touch a fraction of historical data when testing strategies and then using it to assess the consistence of performance (cross-validation) [@freeman1992behind]. More sophisticated remedies include White’s reality check [@white2000reality] (see e.g. [@sullivan1999data] for an application of this method). Data snooping is equivalent as having no out-of-sample, even when backtests are properly done with sliding in- and out-of-sample periods.
Let us perform some in-sample parameter tuning. The strategy proposed has only one parameter once the financial asset has been chosen, the number of time-steps over which the moving average $\bar{v}_{t}$ is performed. Figure \[fig:debt\] reports the t-tstat of the performance associated with keyword `debt` as a function of $k$. Its sign is relatively robust against changes over the range of $k\in{2,\cdots,30}$ but its typical value in this interval is not particularly exceptional (between 1 and 2). Let us take now the absolute best keyword from the four sets, `Moon Patrol`. Both the values and stability range of its t-stat are way better than those of `debt` (see Figure \[fig:MP-debt-tstat-k\]), but this is most likely due to pure chance. There is therefore no reason to trust more one keyword than the other.
![Left plot: t-stat as a function of the length of the moving average $k$. Right plot: cumulated performance for various values of $k$. Transaction costs set to 2bps per transaction.\[fig:debt\]](debt_tstat_k "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}![Left plot: t-stat as a function of the length of the moving average $k$. Right plot: cumulated performance for various values of $k$. Transaction costs set to 2bps per transaction.\[fig:debt\]](debt_k "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![T-stats of the performance associated with keywords `debt` and `Moon Patrol` versus the length of the moving average $k$. Transaction costs set to 2bps per transaction.\[fig:MP-debt-tstat-k\]](MP_debt_tstat_k){width="40.00000%"}
No transaction fees
-------------------
Assuming an average cost of 2bps (0.02%) per trade, 104 trades per year and 8 years of trading (2004-2011), transaction fees diminish the performance associated to any keyword by about 20%. As a beneficial side effect, periods of flat fees-less performance suddenly become negative performance periods when transaction costs are accounted for, which provides more realistic expectations. Cost related to spread and price impact should also included in a proper backtest.
{width="40.00000%"}
The predictive power of Google Trends
=====================================
Given the many methodological weaknesses listed above, one may come to doubt the conclusions of [@preis2013quantifyingGT]. We show here that they are correct. The first step is to avoid methodological problems listed above. One of us has used an industrial-grade backtest system and more sophisticated strategies (which therefore cause tool bias). First, let us compare the resulting cumulated performance of the three random keyword sets that we defined, plus the set of keywords from the Financial Times. For each sets of keywords, we choose as inputs the raw SVI, lagged SVI, and various moving averages of SVI, together with past index returns. It turns out that none of the keyword sets brings information able to predict significantly index movements (see Fig. \[fig:backtests\_4\]). This is not incompatible with results of [@da2011search; @dzielinski2012measuring; @preis2013quantifyingGT]. It simply means that the signal is probably too weak to be exploitable in practice. The final part of the performances is of course appealing, but this come from the fact that Monday close to Friday close SPY returns have been mostly positive during this period: any machine learning algorithm applied on returns alone would likely yield the same result.
So far we can only conclude that a given proper (and not overly stringent) backtest system was not able to find any exploitable information from the four keyword sets, not that the keyword sets do not contain enough predictive information. To conclude, we use the same backtest system using some GT data with exactly the same parameters and input types as before. The resulting preliminary performance, reported in Fig. \[fig:backtests\_4\], is more promising and shows that there really is consistently some predictive information in GT data. It is not particularly impressive when compared to the performance of SPY itself, but is nevertheless interesting since the net exposure is always close to zero (see [@dc_encelade_2013] for more information).
![Left plot: cumulated performance associated with each of the four keyword sets from 2005-12-23 to 2013-06-14. Right plot: cumulated performance of suitable keywords applied on suitable assets. Transaction costs set at 2bps per trade.\[fig:backtests\_4\]](backtests "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}![Left plot: cumulated performance associated with each of the four keyword sets from 2005-12-23 to 2013-06-14. Right plot: cumulated performance of suitable keywords applied on suitable assets. Transaction costs set at 2bps per trade.\[fig:backtests\_4\]](perf_encelade "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
Sophisticated methods coupled with careful backtest are needed to show that Google Trends contains enough exploitable information. This is because such data include too many searches probably unrelated to the financial assets for a given keyword, and even more unrelated to actual trading. When one restricts the searches by providing more keywords, GT data often only contain information at a monthly time scale, or no information at all.
If one goes back to the algorithm proposed by [@preis2013quantifyingGT] and the compatible findings of [@da2011search; @dzielinski2012measuring], it is hard to understand why future prices should systematically revert after a positive SVI surprise and vice-versa one week later. The reversal is weak and only valid on average. It may be the most frequent outcome, but profitability is much higher if one knows what triggers reversal or trend following. There is some evidence that supplementing GT data with news leads to much improved trading performance (see e.g. [@quant3.0mood]).
Another paper by the same group suggests a much more promising source of information: it links the changes in the number of visits on Wikipedia pages of given companies to future index returns [@moat2013quantifying]. Further work will investigate the predictive power of this type of data.
We acknowledge stimulating discussions with Frédéric Abergel, Marouanne Anane and Thierry Bochud.
Keywords
========
We have downloaded GT data for the following keywords, without any manual editing.
Illnesses
---------
Source:<http://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-common-diseases-most-common-illnesses/diseases-and-medications-info>, accessed on 27 May 2013\
`AIDS, Acne, Acute bronchitis, Allergy, Alopecia, Altitude sickness, Alzheimer’s disease, Andropause, Anorexia nervosa, Antisocial personality disorder, Arthritis, Asperger syndrome, Asthma, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Autism, Avoidant personality disorder, Back pain, Bad Breath, Bedwetting, Benign prostatic hyperplasia, Bipolar disorder, Bladder cancer, Bleeding, Body dysmorphic disorder, Bone cancer, Borderline personality disorder, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Brain Cancer, Brain tumor, Breast cancer, Burns, Bursitis, Cancer, Canker Sores, Carpal tunnel syndrome, Cervical cancer, Cholesterol, Chronic Childhood Arthritis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coeliac disease, Colorectal cancer, Conjunctivitis, Cradle cap, Crohn’s disease, Dandruff, Deep vein thrombosis, Dehydration, Dependent personality disorder, Depression, Diabetes mellitus, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Diaper rash, Diarrhea, Disabilities, Dissociative identity disorder, Diverticulitis, Down syndrome, Drug abuse, Dysfunctional uterine bleeding, Dyslexia, Ear Infections, Ear Problems, Eating Disorders, Eczema, Edwards syndrome, Endometriosis, Epilepsy, Erectile dysfunction, Eye Problems, Fibromyalgia, Flu, Fracture, Freckle, Gallbladder Diseases, Gallstone, Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Genital wart, Glomerulonephritis, Gonorrhoea, Gout, Gum Diseases, Gynecomastia, HIV, Head Lice, Headache, Hearing impairment, Heart Disease, Heart failure, Heartburn, Heat Stroke, Heel Pain, Hemorrhoid, Hepatitis, Herniated Discs, Herpes simplex, Hiatus hernia, Histrionic personality disorder, Hyperglycemia, Hyperkalemia, Hypertension, Hyperthyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Infectious Diseases, Infectious mononucleosis, Infertility, Influenza, Iron deficiency anemia, Irritable Male Syndrome, Irritable bowel syndrome, Itching, Joint Pain, Juvenile Diabetes, Kidney Disease, Kidney stone, Leukemia, Liver tumour, Lung cancer, Malaria, Melena, Memory Loss, Menopause, Mesothelioma, Migraine, Miscarriage, Mucus In Stool, Multiple sclerosis, Muscle Cramps, Muscle Fatigue, Muscle Pain, Myocardial infarction, Nail Biting, Narcissistic personality disorder, Neck Pain, Obesity, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Osteoarthritis, Osteomyelitis, Osteoporosis, Ovarian cancer, Pain, Panic attack, Paranoid personality disorder, Parkinson’s disease, Penis Enlargement, Peptic ulcer, Peripheral artery occlusive disease, Personality disorder, Pervasive developmental disorder, Peyronie’s disease, Phobia, Pneumonia, Poliomyelitis, Polycystic ovary syndrome, Post-nasal drip, Post-traumatic stress disorder, Premature birth, Premenstrual syndrome, Propecia, Prostate cancer, Psoriasis, Reactive attachment disorder, Renal failure, Restless legs syndrome, Rheumatic fever, Rheumatoid arthritis, Rosacea, Rotator Cuff, Scabies, Scars, Schizoid personality disorder, Schizophrenia, Sciatica, Severe acute respiratory syndrome, Sexually transmitted disease, Sinusitis, Skin Eruptions, Skin cancer, Sleep disorder, Smallpox, Snoring, Social anxiety disorder, Staph infection, Stomach cancer, Strep throat, Sudden infant death syndrome, Sunburn, Syphilis, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Tennis elbow, Termination Of Pregnancy, Testicular cancer, Tinea, Tooth Decay, Traumatic brain injury, Tuberculosis, Ulcers, Urinary tract infection, Urticaria, Varicose veins.`
Classic cars
------------
Source:<http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-1960_s-cars>, accessed on 27 May 2013\
`1960 Aston Martin DB4 Zagato, 1960 Ford, 1961 Ferrari 250 SWB, 1961 Ferrari 250GT California, 1963 Corvette, 1963 Iso Griffo A3L, 1964 Ferrari 250 GTL (Lusso), 1965 Bizzarrini 5300 Strada, 1965 Ford GT40, 1965 Maserati Mistral, 1965 Shelby Cobra, 1966 Ferrari 365P, 1966 Maserati Ghibli, 1967 Alfa Romeo Stradale, 1967 Ferrari 275 GTB/4, 1967 Shelby Mustang KR500, 1968 Chevrolet Corvette L88, 1968 DeTomaso Mangusta, 1969 Pontiac Trans Am, 1969 Yenko Chevelle, 57 Chevy, 68 Ferrari 365 GTB/4Daytona Spyder, 69 Yenko Camaro Z28, AC Cobra, Alfa Romeo Spider, Aston Martin DB5, Austin Mini Saloon 1959, BMW E9, Buick Riviera, Buick Wildcat, Cane, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Chevelle, Chevrolet Impala, Chevy Chevelle, Chrysler Valiant, Corvette Stingray, Dodge Challenger, Dodge Charger, Dodge Dart Swinger, Facel Vega Facel II, Ferrari 250, Ferrari 250 GTO, Ferrari 250 GTO, Ferrari 275, Ferrari Daytona, Fiat 500, Ford Corsair, Ford Cortina, Ford GT40, Ford Mustang, Ford Ranchero, Ford Thunderbird, Ford Torino, Ford Zephyr MK III, Iso Grifo, Jaguar E-type, Jeep CJ, Lamborghini Miura, Lamborghini Miura SV, Lincoln Continental, Lotus Elan, Maserati Ghibli, Mercedes Benz 220SE, Mercedes-Benz 300SL, Mercury Cougar, Plymouth Barracuda, Pontiac GTO, Porsche 356, Porsche 911, Porsche 911, Porsche 911 classic, Rambler Classic, Rover 2000, Shelby Daytona Coupe, Shelby GT350, Shelby GT500, Studebaker Avanti, Sunbeam Tiger, Toyota 2000GT, Triumph 2000, Vauxhall Velox 1960, Vauxhall Victor 1963, Wolseley 15/60`
Arcade Games
------------
Source:[http://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-common-diseases-most-common-illnesses/diseases-and-medications-info]("http://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-common-diseases-most-common-illnesses/diseases-and-medications-info), accessed on 27 May 2013\
`1942, 1943, 720, After Burner, Airwolf, Altered Beast, Arkanoid, Asteroids, Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja, Bagman, Battlezone, Beamrider, Berzerk, Bionic Commando, Bomb Jack, Breakout, Bubble Bobble, Bubbles, BurgerTime, Centipede, Circus Charlie, Commando, Crystal Castles, Cyberball, Dangar - Ufo Robo, Defender, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 3, Donkey Kong Junior, Double Dragon, Dragon’s Lair, E.T. (Atari 2600), Elevator Action, Final Fight, Flashback, Food Fight, Frogger, Front Line, Galaga, Galaxian, Gauntlet, Geometry Wars, Gorf, Gorf, Gyruss, Hogan’s Alley, Ikari Warriors, Joust, Kangaroo, Karate Champ, Kid Icarus, Lode Runner, Lunar Lander, Manic Miner, Mappy, Marble Madness, Mario Bros., Millipede, Miner 2049er, Missile Command, Moon Buggy, Moon Patrol, Ms. Pac-Man, Naughty Boy, Pac-Man, Paperboy, Pengo, Pitfall!, Pole Position, Pong, Popeye, Punch-Out!!, Q*bert, Rampage, Red Baron, Robotron: 2084, Rygar: The Legendary Adventure, Sewer Sam, Snow Bros, Space Invaders, Spy Hunter, Star Wars, Stargate, Street Fighter, Super Pac-Man, Tempest, Tetris, The Adventures of Robby Roto!, The Simpsons, Time Pilot, ToeJam & Earl, Toki, Track & Field, Tron, Wizard Of Wor, Xevious `
Source code
===========
Here is a simple implementation in R of the strategy given in [@preis2013quantifyingGT]. We do mean “`=`” instead of “`<-`”.
computePerfStats=function(filename,k=10,getPerf=FALSE){
gtdata=loadGTdata(filename)
if(is.null(gtdata) || length(gtdata)<100){
return(NULL)
}
spy=loadYahooData('SPY')
spy_rets=getFutureReturns(spy) #spy_rets is a zoo object, contains r_{t+1}
gtdata_mean=rollmeanr(gtdata,k) # \bar v_t
gtdata_mean_lagged=lag(gtdata_mean,-1) # \bar v_{t-1}
pos=2*(gtdata>gtdata_mean_lagged)-1
perf=-pos*spy_rets
perf=perf[which(!is.na(perf))]
if(getPerf){
return(perf)
}else{
return(t.test(perf)$statistic)
}
}
[^1]: When requesting data restricted to a given quarter, GT returns daily data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have revisited the fragment-asperity interaction model recently introduced by Sotolongo-Costa and Posadas (Physical Review Letters 92, 048501, 2004) [@oscar2004] by considering a different definition for mean values in the context of Tsallis nonextensive statistics and introducing a new scale between the earthquake energy and the size of fragment $\epsilon \propto r^3$. The energy distribution function (EDF) deduced in our approach is considerably different from the one obtained in the above reference. We have also tested the viability of this new EDF with data from two different catalogs (in three different areas), namely, NEIC and Bulletin Seismic of the Revista Brasileira de Geofísica. Although both approaches provide very similar values for the nonextensive parameter $q$, other physical quantities, e.g., the energy density differs considerably, by several orders of magnitude.'
author:
- 'R. Silva'
- 'G. S. França'
- 'C. S. Vilar'
- 'J. S. Alcaniz'
title: Nonextensive models for earthquakes
---
Introduction
============
Over the last two decades, a great deal of attention has been paid to the so-called nonextensive Tsallis entropy, both from theoretical and observational viewpoints. This particular nonextensive formulation [@T88; @SL99] seems to present a consistent theoretical tool to investigate complex systems in their nonequilibrium stationary states, systems with multifractal and self-similar structures, systems dominated by long-range interactions, anamolous diffusion phenomena, among others. Some recent applications of Tsallis entropy $S_{q\neq 1}$ to a number of complex scenarios is now providing a more definite picture of the kind of physical problems to which this $q$-formalism can in fact be applied.
In this regard, systems of interest in geophysics has also been studied in light of this nonextensive formalism. In this particular context, the very first investigation was done by Abe [@abe03a] who showed that the statistical properties of three-dimensional distance between successive earthquakes follow a $q$-exponential function with the nonextensive parameter lying in the interval $[0,1]$ [@abe01]. Since then, other geophysical analyses have been performed as, for instance, the statistics of the calm time, which indicates a scale-free nature for earthquake phenomena and corresponds to a $q$-exponential distribution with $q>1$ [@abe04], and models for temperature distributions and radon emission of volcanos [@gerv04]. More recently, a very interesting model for earthquakes dynamics related to Tsallis nonentensive framework has been proposed by Sotolongo-Costa and Posadas (SCP Model) [@oscar2004]. Such a model consists basically of two rough profiles interacting via fragments filling the gap between them, where the fragments are produced by local breakage of the local plates. By using the nonextensive formalism the authors of Ref. [@oscar2004] not only showed the influence of the size distribution of fragments on the energy distribution of earthquakes but also deduced a new energy distribution function (EDF), which gives the well-known Gutenberg-Richter law [@gut44] as a particular case.
However, in dealing with this nonextensive framework, a particular attention must be paid to the possible definitions for mean values, which play a fundamental role within the domain of this nonextensive statistics [@tsallis98]. In this concern, recent studies of the properties of the relative entropy and the Shore-Johnson theorem for consistent minimum cross-entropy principle, revealed the necessity of the so-called $q$-expectation value in studies involving this nonextensive statistical mechanics (see [@abe05] for details). Thus, by introducing this $q$-definition of mean value we re-analyzed the fragment-asperity interaction model of Sotolongo-Costa and Posadas [@oscar2004]. Moreover, a new scale law between the released relative energy $\epsilon$ and the $3$-dimensional size of fragments has also been introduced. By using the standard method of entropy maximization we also deduced a new energy distribution function, which differs considerably from the one obtained in Ref. [@oscar2004]. In order to test the viability of our appoach we used data taken from two seismic catalogs, namely, NEIC and Bulletin Seismic of the Revista Brasileira de Geofisica. It is shown that although both approaches provide very similar values for the nonextensive parameter $q$, the other physical quantity, e.g., the energy density differ by several orders of magnitude.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the standard formalism of nonextensive statistical mechanics is reexamined, as well as the theorical basis of SCP model. In Sec III, a new EDF is analytically calculated through extremization of Tsallis’ entropy under the constrains of the $q$-expectation value and normalization condition. In Sec IV, we test this new EDF with data from two different catalogs and estimate the best-fit values for the nonextensive parameter $q$ and the proportionality constant between the released relative energy $\epsilon$ and the volume of the fragments $r^3$, i.e., the energy density, $a$. We end this paper by emphasizing the main results in the conclusion Section.
Non-extensive framework and SCP model
=====================================
In this Section, we recall the nonextensive theoretical basis of the SCP model. As widely known, the Tsallis’ statistics generalizes the Botzmann-Gibbs statistics in what concerns the concept of entropy. Such formalism is based on the parametric class of entropies given by $$\label{eq:1}
S_{q\neq 1}=-k_B\int p^q(\sigma)\ln_q p(\sigma) d\sigma ,$$ where $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. In the SCP model, $p(\sigma)$ stands for the probability of finding a fragment of relative surface $\sigma$ (which is defined as a characteristic surface of the system), $q$ is the nonextensive parameter and the $q$-logarithmic function above is defined by $$\label{eq:224}
\ln_q p\, =\, (1-q)^{-1}(p^{1-q}-1), \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (p>0)$$ which recovers the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy $S_1 = - k_{B}\int p \ln p {d^{3}p}$ in the limit $q\rightarrow 1$. It is worth mentioning that most of the experimental evidence supporting Tsallis proposal are related to the power-law distribution associated with $S_{q\neq 1}$ descripition of the classical $N$-body problem [@SPL98].
The SCP model is a simple approach for earthquakes dynamics revealing a very interesting application of the Tsallis’ framework. Indeed, the fundamental idea consists in the fact that the space between faults is filled with the residues of the breakage of the tectonic plates. In this regard, the authors studied the influence of the size distribution of fragments on the energy distribution of earthquakes. The theoretical motivation follows from the fragmentation phenomena [@englman87] in the context of the geophysics systems. In this latter work, Englaman et al showed that the standard Botzmann-Gibbs formalism, although useful, cannot account for an important feature of fragmentation process, i.e., the presence of scaling in the size distribution of fragments, which is one of the main ingredients of the SCP approach. Thus, a nonextensive formalism is not only justified in SCP model but also necessary since the process of violent fractioning is very probably a nonextensive phenomenon, leading to long-range interactions among the parts of the object being fragmented (see, e.g., [@oscar2004; @oscar2000]). In reality, such an influence was earlier emphasized in other investigations [@sauler96]. In general lines, the SCP model follows similar arguments to those presented in Refs. [@bhv96] being, however, a more realistic seismic model than the one proposed in Ref. [@herrmann90]. In particular, the theoretical ingredients reads:
- the mechanism of relative displacement of fault plates is the main cause of earthquakes;
- the surfaces of the tectonic plates are irregular and the fragments filling the space between them are very diverse and have irregular shapes;
- the mechanism of triggering earthquakes is established through the combination of irregularities of the fault planes and the distribution of fragments between them;
- the fragment distribution function and consequently the EDF emerges naturally from a nonextensive framework.
From the above arguments, the EDF deduced in Ref. [@oscar2004] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\log (N_{>m}) & = & \log N + \left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}\right) \times \\ \nonumber & & \times \log \left[1 + a(q-1) (2-q)^{(1-q) \over (q-2)}\times 10^{2m}\right]. \end{aligned}$$ According to Ref. [@oscar2004], the above expression describes very well the energy distribution in all detectable range of magnitudes, unlike the empirical formula of Gutenberg-Richter [@gut44].
0.1in
New approach
============
Now, let us discuss the standard method of maximization of the Tsallis entropy. Here and hereafter, the Boltzmann constant is set equal to unity for the sake of simplicity. Thus, the functional entropy to be maximized is $$\delta S^*_q =\delta\left(S_q +\alpha\int_0^\infty p(\sigma)d\sigma - \beta \sigma_q\right) = 0,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the Lagrange multipliers. The constrains used above are the normalization of the distribution $$\int_0^{\infty} p(\sigma) d\sigma = 1$$ and [*the $q$-expectation value*]{} $$\sigma_q=<\sigma>_q=\int_0^{\infty} \sigma P_q (\sigma) d\sigma$$ with the escort distribution [@abe03] given by $$P_q={p^q(\sigma) \over \int_0^{\infty} p^q(\sigma) d\sigma}.$$ By considering the same physical arguments of Ref. [@oscar2004], we derive, after some algebra, the following expresion for the fragment size distribution function $$\label{sigma}
p(\sigma)= \left[1-{(1-q)\over (2-q)}(\sigma - \sigma_q)\right]^{1 \over 1-q},$$ which corresponds to the area distribution for the fragments of the fault plates. Here, however, differently from Ref. [@oscar2004], which assumes $\varepsilon \sim r$, we use a new energy scale $\varepsilon \sim r^3$. Thus, the proportionality between the released relative energy $\epsilon$ and $r^3$ ($r$ is the size of fragments) is now given by $\sigma - \sigma_q = {\left(\varepsilon/a\right)^{2/3}}$, where $\sigma$ scales with $r^2$ and $a$ (the proportionality constant between $\varepsilon$ and $r^3$) has dimension of volumetric energy density. In particular, this new scale is in accordance with the standard theory of seismic rupture, the well-known seismic moment scaling with rupture length (see, for instance [@thorne95]).
The new EDF of earthquakes is, therefore, obtained by changing variables from $\sigma-\sigma_q$ to ${\left(\varepsilon/a\right)^{2/3}}$. From (\[sigma\]) it is straightforward to show that $$\label{pe}
p(\varepsilon )d\varepsilon = \frac{C\varepsilon^{-{1\over 3}} d\varepsilon}{\left[1 + C'\varepsilon^{2/3}\right]^{1 \over q-1}},$$ which has also a power-law form with $C$ and $C'$ given by $$C={2\over 3 a^{2/3}}\quad{\rm and}\quad C'=-{(1-q)\over(2-q)a^{2/3}}.$$ In the above expression, the energy probability is written as $p(\varepsilon)=n(\varepsilon)/N$, where $n(\varepsilon)$ corresponds to the number of earthquakes with energy $\varepsilon$ and $N$ total number earthquakes.
Testing the new EDF with the cumulative number of earthquakes
=============================================================
In order to test the viability of the new EDF above derived \[Eq. (\[pe\])\] we introduce the cumulative number of earthquakes, given by integral [@oscar2004] $$\label{inte}
{N_{\epsilon >}\over N} =\int _{\varepsilon}^\infty p(\varepsilon) d\varepsilon,$$ where $N_{\varepsilon >}$ is the number of earthquakes with energy larger than $\varepsilon $. Now, substituting (\[pe\]) into (\[inte\]), and considering $m = \frac{1}{3} \log\varepsilon$ ($m$ stands for magnitude) it is possible to calculate the above expression. In reality, note that depending on the value of $q$ the limits of the integral (\[inte\]) presents a cutoff on the maximum value allowed for energy $\epsilon$, which is given by $\epsilon_{max}=\sqrt{a^{2/3}(2-q)/(1-q)}$ for the intervals $q<1$ and $q>2$, while for $1 < q < 2$ the cutoff is absent in the distribution. Note also that in the limit $q\rightarrow 1$, $\epsilon_{max} \rightarrow \infty$ and $p(\varepsilon)$ goes to the exponential function. As matter of fact, the calculation of the integral (\[inte\]) for $q\neq 1$ leads to the general expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
\log (N_{>m}) & = & \log N + \left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}\right) \times \\ \nonumber & & \times \log \left[1 -
\left(\frac{1-q}{2-q}\right)\times \left({10^{2m}\over a^{2/3}}\right)\right], \end{aligned}$$ which, similarly to the modified Gutenberg-Ricther law (See, e.g., Refs. [@sornette] for more details), describes appropriately the energy distribution in a wider detectable range of magnitudes.
Figure 1 shows the relative cumulative number of earthquakes ($G_{m>}=N_{m>}/N$) as a function of the magnitude $m$. The data points, corresponding to earthquakes events lying in the interval $3 < m < 8$, were taken from two different catalogs, namely, Bulletin Seismic of the Revista Brasileira de Geofísica (left panels) and NEIC (central and right panels). The left, central and right Panels show the results of our analysis for the Samambaia fault, Brazil (100 events), New madrid fault, USA (173 events), and Anatolian fault, Turkey (8980 events), respectively. We note that, similarly to original version of SCP model, our approach, represented by Eqs. (\[sigma\])-(\[11\]), provide a very good fit to the experimental data of the two catalogs here considered. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the energy density differ by several orders of magnitude from our model to the original SCP model. Therefore, we expect that other independent estimates of the parameter $a$ may indicate which approach is more physically realistic. The estimates of the parameters $q$ and $a$ obtained in this paper and in Ref. [@oscar2004] are summarized in Table 1.
[lclc]{} Fault& Ref. &$q$ & $a$\
\
California - USA & [@oscar2004] & $1.65$& $5.73 \times 10^{-6}$\
Iberian Penisula - Spain & [@oscar2004] & $1.64$& $3.37 \times 10^{-6}$\
Andalucía - Spain & [@oscar2004] & $1.60$& $3.0 \times 10^{-6}$\
\
Samambaia - Brazil & This Paper & $1.60$& $1.3 \times 10^{10}$\
New Madrid - USA & This Paper & $1.63$ & $1.2 \times 10^{10}$\
Anatolian - Turkey & This Paper & $1.71$ & $2.8 \times 10^{10}$\
conclusion
==========
In Ref. [@abe05], what seems to be the correct definition for expectation values within the Tsallis nonextensive statistical mechanics was rediscussed. Based on properties of the generalized relative entropies and the Shore-Johnson theorem, it was shown that the expectation value of any physical quantity in this extended framework converges to the normalized $q$-expectation value, instead of to the ordinary definition.
In this paper, by considering this *necessity* of $q$-expectation values in Tsallis nonextensive framework, we have revisited the fragment-asperity interaction model for earthquakes, as introduced in Ref. [@oscar2004]. A new energy distribution function has been calculated, which allowed us to determine the relative cumulative number of earthquakes as a function of the magnitude. Additionally, a new scale law between the released relative energy $\epsilon$ and the volume of fragments $r^3$ has also been introduced, i.e., in agreement with the so-called seismic moment scaling with rupture length. As discussed earlier, although our analysis and the one presented in Ref. [@oscar2004] provide very similar values for the nonextensive parameter $q$, the other physical quantity, e.g., the energy density differ by several orders of magnitude. It would be interesting, therefore, if we could have experimental estimates for these quantities in order to compare the predictions of the models. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the estimates for the nonextensive parameter from the two catalogs here considered (Fig. 1) are consistent with the upper limit $q<2$, obtained from several independent studies involving the Tsallis nonextensive framework [@newref].
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} The authors thank the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and comments. We also thank the partial support by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - Brazil). JSA is supported by CNPq (307860/2004-3) and CNPq (475835/2004-2). CSV is supported by FAPERN.
[30]{}
O. Sotolongo-Costa, and A. Posadas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 048501 (2004). C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. [**52**]{}, 479 (1988); See also http://tsallis.cat.cbpf.br/biblio.htm for an updated bibliography. Braz. J. Phys. [**[29,]{}**]{}, 1 (1999), Special Issue on Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamic, edited by S. R. A. Salinas and C. Tsallis; Nonextensive Entropy—Interdisciplinary Applications, edited by M. Gell-Mann and C. Tsallis (Oxford University Press, New York, 2004). S. Abe, and N. Suzuki, J. Goephys. Res. 108 (B2), 2113 (2003). S. Abe, Y. Okamoto (Eds.), Nonextensive Statiscal Mechanics and Its Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, 2001. S. Abe, and N. Suzuki, Physica A, [**350**]{}, 588 (2005). G. Gervino [*et al.*]{}, Physica A, [**340**]{}, 402 (2004). B. Guttenberg, C. F. Richter, Bull. Deismol. Soc. Am. [**[34]{}**]{}, 185 (1944). C. Tsallis, R. S. Mendes, and A. Plastino, Physica A, [**261**]{}, 534 (1998). S. Abe, and G. B. Bagci, Phys. Rev. E, [**71**]{}, 016139 (2005). R. Silva, A. R. Plastino and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Lett. [**A 249**]{}, 401 (1998); A. R. Plastino and A. Plastino, Braz. Journ. Phys. [**29**]{}, 79 (1999); J. A. S. Lima, R. Silva A. R. Plastino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2938 (2001); G. Kaniadakis, Physica A [**296**]{}, 405 (2001); J. A. S. Lima, R. Silva and J. Santos, Phys. Rev E [**61**]{}, 3260 (2000); E. M. F. Curado, F. D. Nobre, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 021107 (2003); M. Shiino, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 056118 (2003); B. Dybiec and E. Gudowska-Nowak, Phys. Rev E [**69**]{}, 016105 (2004). R. Englman, N. Rivier, and Z. Jaeger, Philos. Mag. B, [**56**]{}, 751 (1987). O. Sotolongo-Costa, A. H. Rodriguez, and G. J. Rodgers, Entropy [**02**]{}, 172 (2000). H. Sauler, C. G. Sammis and D. Sornette, J. Geophys. Res. [**101**]{}, 17661 (1996). R. Burridge and L. Knopoff, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. [**57**]{}, 341 (1967); H. Olami, J. S. Feder and K. Christensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1244 (1992); V. De Rubeis, R. Hallgas, V. Loreto, G. Paladin, L. Pietronero and P. Tosi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2599 (1996). H. J. Herrmann, G. Mantica and D. Bessis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 3223 (1990). S. Abe, Phys. Rev E, [**68**]{}, 031101 (2003). Thorne Lay and Terry C. Wallace, [*Modern Global Seimology*]{}, Academic Press (1995). V.F. Pisarenko and D. Sornette, Pure and Applied Geophysics [**160**]{}, 2343 (2003); [**161**]{}, 839 (2004); V. Pisarenko, D. Sornette, and M. Rodkin, Computational Seismology [**35**]{}, 138 (2004). B. M. Boghosian, Braz. Journ. Phys. [**29**]{}, 91(1999); I. V. Karlin, M. Grmela and A. N. Gorban, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 036128 (2002); R. Silva and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. A [**313**]{}, 393 (2003); R. Silva and J. S. Alcaniz, Physica A [**341**]{}, 208 (2004); G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia and A. M. Scarfone, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 046128 (2005); S.H. Hansen,D. Egli,L. Hollenstein and C. Salzmann, New Astronomy [**10**]{}, 379 (2005); R. Silva, J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Physica A [**356**]{}, 509 (2005); R. Silva, and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev E [**72**]{}, 057101 (2005)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[**ABSTRACT**]{}
We calculate the direct dark matter detection spin-independent and proton spin-dependent cross-sections for a semi-realistic intersecting $D$6-brane model. The cross-sections are compared to the latest constraints of the current dark matter direct detection experiments, as well as the projected results of future dark matter experiments. The allowed parameter space of the intersecting $D$6-brane model is shown with all current experimental constraints, including those regions satisfying the WMAP and Supercritical String Cosmology (SSC) limits on the dark matter density in the universe. Additionally, we compute the indirect detection gamma-ray flux resulting from neutralino annihilation for the $D$6-brane model and compare the flux to the projected sensitivity of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Finally, we compute the direct and indirect detection cross-sections as well as the gamma-ray flux resulting from WIMP annihilations for the one-parameter model for comparison, where the one-parameter model is a highly constrained subset of the mSUGRA parameter space such that the soft supersymmetry breaking terms are functions of the common gaugino mass, which is common to many string compactifications.
author:
- 'James A. Maxin'
- 'Van E. Mayes'
- 'Dimitri V. Nanopoulos'
title: Stringy WIMP Detection and Annihilation
---
, [MIFP-09-17]{}\
Introduction
============
Observations in cosmology and astrophysics suggest the presence of a stable dark matter particle. Supersymmetry (SUSY) supplies a satisfactory candidate for a dark matter particle, where R-parity is conserved and the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable [@Ellis:1983ew], which is usually the lightest neutralino $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ [@Ellis:1983ew; @Goldberg:1983nd]. Two proposed methods of discovering this weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) are directly through WIMP interactions with ordinary matter and indirectly via the products of WIMP annihilations. The direct detection method searches for elastic scattering of WIMPs off nuclei in underground experiments. The experiments are conducted in deep underground laboratories in an effort to reduce the background to minimal levels. The indirect detection method seeks out debris resulting from WIMP annihilations in the galactic halo. One galactic process that could produce gamma-rays from WIMP annihilation is the process $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, where two gamma-rays are produced directly from a WIMP annihilation, and another is $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow q \overline{q} \rightarrow \pi^{0} \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$. Analyses of direct detection cross-sections and gamma-ray flux within mSUGRA (or CMSSM) models have been completed [@Baltz:2004aw; @Ellis:2005mb; @Roszkowski:2007fd; @Baer:2004qq]. It is, however, a worthwhile pursuit to analyze the direct and indirect detection parameters in alternative models.
The last few years have seen a great deal of interest in Type II string compactifications. Indeed, intersecting D-brane models (see [@Blumenhagen:2005mu] and [@Blumenhagen:2006ci] for reviews) on Type II orientifolds have become particularly attractive. In contrast to the standard framework, mSUGRA, the supersymmetry-breaking soft terms for intersecting D-brane models are in general non-universal [@Kors:2003wf]. Despite substantial progress in constructing such models, most supersymmetric D-brane models suffer from two significant problems. One problem is the lack of gauge coupling unification at the string scale, and the other is the rank one problem in the Standard Model (SM) fermion Yukawa matrices which prevents the generation of mass for the first two generations of quarks and leptons. Nevertheless, there is known one example of an intersecting $D$6-brane model constructed in Type IIA theory on the $T^{6}/({{\mathbb Z}}_{2} \times {{\mathbb Z}}_{2})$ orientifold where these problems have been resolved [@Cvetic:2004ui] [@Chen:2006gd]. This model exhibits automatic gauge coupling unification at the tree-level and it is also possible to obtain the correct Yukawa mass matrices for both up and down-type quarks and leptons for specific values of the moduli VEVs [@Chen:2007px] [@Chen:2007zu]. Furthermore, the soft-supersymmetry breaking terms for this model have been calculated, where regions in the parameter space were discovered that generate the observed dark matter density and satisfy current experimental constraints [@Chen:2007px] [@Chen:2007zu]. Although this model has many appealing phenomenological features, one issue still to be completely resolved is that of moduli stabilization. This issue has been addressed to an extent [@Chen:2006gd] [@Chen:2007af] by turning on fluxes, but there is still the task of stabilizing the open-string moduli associated with D-brane positions in the internal space and Wilson lines. Only once the moduli stabilization issue has been completely addressed can this model be considered fully realistic.
In this work we show the parameter space allowed by all the experimental constraints for this intersecting $D$6-brane model for varying cases of gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The spin-independent cross-sections are computed and plotted against the current dark matter detection experiment constraints. Furthermore, we present the proton spin-dependent cross-sections, whereas the computed neutron spin-dependent cross-sections only vary slightly from those of the proton, so the neutron cross-sections are not shown. The gamma-ray flux resulting from neutralino annihilations in the galactic halo for the $D$6-brane model is plotted and compared to the most recent telescope measurements. Finally, in order to compare our results with a model with universal soft terms representing the opposite extreme, we calculate the spin-independent and spin-dependent cross-sections for the so-called one-parameter model [@Lopez:1993rm; @Lopez:1994fz; @Lopez:1995hg; @Maxin:2008kp], including the gamma-ray flux. The one-parameter model is a highly constrained small subset of the mSUGRA parameter space such that the soft supersymmetry breaking terms are all functions of the common gaugino mass. In no-scale supergravity models, generically $m_{0} = m_{0}(m_{1/2})$ and $A = A(m_{1/2})$, thus the number of free parameters is reduced to two, $m_{1/2}$ and tan$\beta$. Adopting a strict no-scale framework, one can also fix the $B$-parameter as $B=B(m_{1/2})$, and hence we are led to a [*one-parameter*]{} model where all of the soft terms may be fixed in terms of $m_{1/2}$. Therefore, the one-parameter model represents a suitable case with which to compare the intersecting $D$6-brane model with non-universal soft supersymmetry breaking terms.
Low-Energy Effective Action
===========================
In this section, we give a background discussion for the more technically-minded reader which describes the way in which the supersymmetry breaking soft terms are calculated for intersecting $D6$-brane models. In recent years, intersecting D-brane models have provided an exciting approach toward constructing semi-realistic vacua. To summarize, D6-branes (in Type IIA) fill three-dimensional Minkowski space and wrap 3-cycles in the compactified manifold, with a stack of $N$ branes having a gauge group $U(N)$ (or $U(N/2)$ in the case of $T^6/({{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2)$) in its world volume. The 3-cycles wrapped by the D-branes will in general intersect multiple times in the internal space, resulting in a chiral fermion in the bifundamental representation localized at the intersection between different stacks. The multiplicity of such fermions is then given by the number of times the 3-cycles intersect. Due to orientifolding, for every stack of D6-branes we must also introduce its orientifold images. Thus, the D6-branes may also have intersections with the images of other stacks, also resulting in fermions in bifundamental representations. Each stack may also intersect its own images, resulting in chiral fermions in the symmetric and antisymmetric representations. In addition, there are constraints that must be satisfied for the consistency of the model, namely the requirement for Ramond-Ramond tadpole cancellation and to have a spectrum with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry.
To discuss the low-energy phenomenology we start from the low-energy effective action. From the effective scalar potential it is possible to study the stability [@Blumenhagen:2001te], the tree-level gauge couplings [@CLS1; @Shiu:1998pa; @Cremades:2002te], gauge threshold corrections [@Lust:2003ky], and gauge coupling unification [@Antoniadis:Blumen]. The effective Yukawa couplings [@Cremades:2003qj; @Cvetic:2003ch], matter field Kähler metric and soft-SUSY breaking terms have also been investigated [@Kors:2003wf]. A more detailed discussion of the Kähler metric and string scattering of gauge, matter, and moduli fields has been performed in [@Lust:2004cx]. Although turning on Type IIB 3-form fluxes can break supersymmetry from the closed string sector [@Cascales:2003zp; @MS; @CL; @Cvetic:2005bn; @Kumar:2005hf; @Chen:2005cf], there are additional terms in the superpotential generated by the fluxes and there is currently no satisfactory model which incorporates this. Thus, we do not consider this option in the present work. In principle, it should be possible to specify the exact mechanism by which supersymmetry is broken, and thus to make very specific predictions. However, for the present work, we will adopt a parametrization of the SUSY breaking so that we can study it generically.
The $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity action depends upon three functions, the holomorphic gauge kinetic function, $f$, K“ahler potential $K$, and the superpotential $W$. Each of these will in turn depend upon the moduli fields which describe the background upon which the model is constructed. The holomorphic gauge kinetic function for a D6-brane wrapping a calibrated three-cycle $\Pi$ is given by (see [@Blumenhagen:2006ci] for a detailed discussion and explanation of the notation) $$f_P = \frac{1}{2\pi \ell_s^3}\left[e^{-\phi}\int_{\Pi_P} \mbox{Re}(e^{-i\theta_P}\Omega_3)-i\int_{\Pi_P}C_3\right].$$ In terms of the three-cycle wrapped by the stack of branes, we have $$\int_{\Pi_a}\Omega_3 = \frac{1}{4}\prod_{i=1}^3(n_a^iR_1^i + 2^{-\beta_i}il_a^iR_2^i).$$ where $n^i$ and $l^i$ are the wrapping numbers of the D-branes on the $i$th two-torus, from which it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
f_P &=&
\frac{1}{4\kappa_P}(n_P^1\,n_P^2\,n_P^3\,s-\frac{n_P^1\,l_P^2\,l_P^3\,u^1}{2^{(\beta_2+\beta_3)}}-\frac{n_P^2\,l_P^1\,l_P^3\,u^2}{2^{(\beta_1+\beta_3)}}-
\frac{n_P^3\,l_P^1\,l_P^2\,u^3}{2^{(\beta_1+\beta_2)}}),
\label{kingauagefun}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_P = 1$ for $SU(N_P)$ and $\kappa_P = 2$ for $USp(2N_P)$ or $SO(2N_P)$ gauge groups and where we use the $s$ and $u$ moduli in the supergravity basis. In the string theory basis, we have the dilaton $S$, three Kähler moduli $T^i$, and three complex structure moduli $U^i$ [@Lust:2004cx]. These are related to the corresponding moduli in the supergravity basis by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Re}\,(s)& =&
\frac{e^{-{\phi}_4}}{2\pi}\,\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{Im}\,U^{1}\,
\mathrm{Im}\,U^{2}\,\mathrm{Im}\,U^3}}{|U^1U^2U^3|}\right)
\nonumber \\
\mathrm{Re}\,(u^j)& =&
\frac{e^{-{\phi}_4}}{2\pi}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{Im}\,U^{j}}
{\mathrm{Im}\,U^{k}\,\mathrm{Im}\,U^l}}\right)\;
\left|\frac{U^k\,U^l}{U^j}\right| \qquad (j,k,l)=(\overline{1,2,3})
\nonumber \\
\mathrm{Re}(t^j)&=&\frac{i\alpha'}{T^j} \label{idb:eq:moduli}\end{aligned}$$ and $\phi_4$ is the four-dimensional dilaton. To second order in the string matter fields, the K”ahler potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K(M,\bar{M},C,\bar{C}) = \hat{K}(M,\bar{M}) + \sum_{\mbox{untwisted}~i,j} \tilde{K}_{C_i \bar{C}_j}(M,\bar{M})C_i \bar{C}_j + \\ \nonumber \sum_{\mbox{twisted}~\theta} \tilde{K}_{C_{\theta} \bar{C}_{\theta}}(M,\bar{M})C_{\theta}\bar{C}_\theta.\end{aligned}$$ The untwisted moduli $C_i$, $\bar{C}_j$ are light, non-chiral scalars from the field theory point of view, associated with the D-brane positions and Wilson lines. These fields are not observed in the MSSM, and if present in the low energy spectra they may disrupt the gauge coupling unification. Clearly, these fields must get a large mass through some mechanism. One way to accomplish this is to require the D-branes to wrap rigid cycles, which freezes the open string moduli [@Blumenhagen:2005tn].
For twisted moduli arising from strings stretching between stacks $P$ and $Q$, we have $\sum_j\theta^j_{PQ}=0$, where $\theta^j_{PQ} =
\theta^j_Q - \theta^j_P$ is the angle between the cycles wrapped by the stacks of branes $P$ and $Q$ on the $j^{th}$ torus respectively. Then, for the K"ahler metric in Type IIA theory we find the following two cases:
- $\theta^j_{PQ}<0$, $\theta^k_{PQ}>0$, $\theta^l_{PQ}>0$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K}_{PQ} &=& e^{\phi_4} e^{\gamma_E (2-\sum_{j = 1}^3
\theta^j_{PQ}) }
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(\theta^j_{PQ})}{\Gamma(1+\theta^j_{PQ})}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(1-\theta^k_{PQ})}{\Gamma(\theta^k_{PQ})}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(1-\theta^l_{PQ})}{\Gamma(\theta^l_{PQ})}}
\nonumber \\ && (t^j + \bar{t}^j)^{\theta^j_{PQ}} (t^k +
\bar{t}^k)^{-1+\theta^k_{PQ}} (t^l +
\bar{t}^l)^{-1+\theta^l_{PQ}}.\end{aligned}$$
- $\theta^j_{PQ}<0$, $\theta^k_{PQ}<0$, $\theta^l_{PQ}>0$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K}_{PQ} &=& e^{\phi_4} e^{\gamma_E (2+\sum_{j = 1}^3
\theta^j_{PQ}) }
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(1+\theta^j_{PQ})}{\Gamma(-\theta^j_{PQ})}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(1+\theta^k_{PQ})}{\Gamma(-\theta^k_{PQ})}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(\theta^l_{PQ})}{\Gamma(1-\theta^l_{PQ})}}
\nonumber \\ && (t^j + \bar{t}^j)^{-1-\theta^j_{PQ}} (t^k +
\bar{t}^k)^{-1-\theta^k_{PQ}} (t^l + \bar{t}^l)^{-\theta^l_{PQ}}.\end{aligned}$$
For branes which are parallel on at least one torus, giving rise to non-chiral matter in bifundamental representations (for example, the Higgs doublets), the K“ahler metric is $$\hat{K}=((s+\bar{s})(t^1+\bar{t}^1)(t^2+\bar{t}^2)(u^3+\bar{u}^3))^{-1/2}.
\label{nonchiralK}$$ The superpotential is given by $$W = \hat{W}+ \frac{1}{2}\mu_{\alpha\beta}(M)C^{\alpha}C^{\beta} + \frac{1}{6}Y_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(M)C^{\alpha\beta\gamma}+\cdots$$ while the minimum of the F part of the tree-level supergravity scalar potential $V$ is given by $$V(M,\bar{M}) = e^G(G_M K^{MN} G_N -3) = (F^N K_{NM} F^M-3e^G),$$ where $G_M=\partial_M G$ and $K_{NM}=\partial_N \partial_M K$, $K^{MN}$ is inverse of $K_{NM}$, and the auxiliary fields $F^M$ are given by $$F^M=e^{G/2} K^{ML}G_L. \label{aux}$$ Supersymmetry is broken when some of the F-terms of the hidden sector fields $M$ acquire VEVs. This then results in soft terms being generated in the observable sector. For simplicity, it is assumed in this analysis that the $D$-term does not contribute (see [@Kawamura:1996ex]) to the SUSY breaking. Then the goldstino is absorbed by the gravitino via the superHiggs effect. The gravitino then obtains a mass $$m_{3/2}=e^{G/2},$$ which we will take to be 500 GeV and 700 GeV in the following. The normalized gaugino mass parameters, scalar mass-squared parameters, and trilinear parameters respectively may be given in terms of the K”ahler potential, the gauge kinetic function, and the superpotential as $$\begin{aligned}
M_P &=& \frac{1}{2\mbox{Re}f_P}(F^M\partial_M f_P), \\ \nonumber
m^2_{PQ} &=& (m^2_{3/2} + V_0) - \sum_{M,N}\bar{F}^{\bar{M}}F^N\partial_{\bar{M}}\partial_{N}log(\tilde{K}_{PQ}), \\ \nonumber
A_{PQR} &=& F^M\left[\hat{K}_M + \partial_M log(Y_{PQR}) - \partial_M log(\tilde{K}_{PQ}\tilde{K}_{QR}\tilde{K}_{RP})\right],
\label{softterms}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{K}_M$ is the K"ahler metric appropriate for branes which are parallel on at least one torus, i.e. involving non-chiral matter.
The above formulas for the soft terms depend on the Yukawa couplings, via the superpotential. An important consideration is whether or not this should cause any modification to the low-energy spectrum. However, this turns out not to be the case since the Yukawas in the soft term formulas are not the same as the physical Yukawas, which arise from world-sheet instantons and are proportional to $exp({-A})$, where $A$ is the world-sheet area of the triangles formed by a triplet of intersections at which the Standard Model fields are localized. The physical Yukawa couplings in Type IIA depend on the K"ahler moduli and the open-string moduli. This ensures that the Yukawa couplings present in the soft terms do not depend on either the complex-structure moduli or dilaton (in the supergravity basis). Thus, the Yukawa couplings will not affect the low-energy spectrum in the case of $u$-moduli dominant and mixed $u$ and $s$ dominant supersymmetry breaking.
To determine the SUSY soft breaking parameters, and therefore the spectra of the models, we introduce the VEVs of the auxiliary fields Eq. (\[aux\]) for the dilaton, complex and Kähler moduli [@Brignole:1993dj]: $$\begin{aligned}
&& F^s=2\sqrt{3}C m_{3/2} {\rm Re}(s) \Theta_s e^{-i\gamma_s},
\nonumber \\
&&F^{\{u,t\}^i} = 2\sqrt{3}C m_{3/2}( {\rm Re} ({u}^i) \Theta_i^u
e^{-i\gamma^u_i}+ {\rm Re} ({t}^i) \Theta_i^t
e^{-i\gamma_i^t}).\end{aligned}$$ The factors $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_i$ are the CP violating phases of the moduli, while the constant $C$ is given by $$C^2 = 1+ \frac{V_0}{3 m^2_{3/2}}.$$ The goldstino is absorbed into the gravitino by $\Theta_S$ in $S$ field space, and $\Theta_i$ parameterize the goldstino direction in $U^i$ space, where $\sum (|\Theta_i^u|^2 + |\Theta_i^t|^2) + |\Theta_s|^2 =1$. The goldstino angle $\Theta_s$ determines the degree to which SUSY breaking is being dominated by the dilaton $s$ and/or complex structure ($u^i$) and Kähler ($t^i$) moduli. As suggested earlier, we will not consider the case of $t$-moduli dominant supersymmetry breaking, since in this case the soft terms are not independent of the Yukawa couplings.
Parameter Space and Supersymmetry Spectra
=========================================
The set of soft terms at the unification scale are generated in the same manner as was performed in [@Chen:2007zu] for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking. The soft terms are then input into [MicrOMEGAs 2.0.7]{} [@Belanger:2006is] using [SuSpect 2.34]{} [@Djouadi:2002ze] as a front end to run the soft terms down to the electroweak scale via the Renormalization Group Equations (RGEs) and then to calculate the corresponding relic neutralino density. We take the top quark mass to be $m_t = 172.6$ GeV [@:2008vn], and leave tan $\beta$ as a free parameter while $\mu$ is determined by the requirement of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB). However, we do take $\mu > 0$ as suggested by the results of $g_{\mu}-2$ for the muon. The results are then filtered according to the following criteria:
1. The WMAP 5-year data [@Hinshaw:2008kr] for the cold dark matter density, 0.1109 $\leq \Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 0.1177. We also consider the WMAP 2$\sigma$ results [@Spergel:2006hy], 0.095 $\leq \Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 0.129. In addition, we look at the SSC model [@Antoniadis:1988aa] for the dark matter density, in which a dilution factor of $\cal{O}$(10) is allowed [@Lahanas:2006hf], where $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 1.1. For a discussion of the SSC model within the context of mSUGRA, see [@Dutta:2008ge]. We investigate two cases, one where a neutralino LSP is the dominant component of the dark matter and another where it makes up a subdominant component such that 0 $\leq \Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 0.1177, 0 $\leq \Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 0.129, and 0 $\leq \Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \leq$ 1.1. This allows for the possibility that dark matter could be composed of matter such as axions, cryptons, or other particles.
2. The experimental limits on the Flavor Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) process, $b \rightarrow s\gamma$. The results from the Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) [@Barberio:2007cr], in addition to the BABAR, Belle, and CLEO results, are: $Br(b \rightarrow s\gamma) = (355 \pm 24^{+9}_{-10} \pm 3) \times 10^{-6}$. There is also a more recent estimate [@Misiak:2006zs] of $Br(b \rightarrow s\gamma) = (3.15 \pm 0.23) \times 10^{-4}$. For our analysis, we use the limits $2.86 \times 10^{-4} \leq Br(b \rightarrow s\gamma) \leq 4.18 \times 10^{-4}$, where experimental and theoretical errors are added in quadrature.
3. The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $g_{\mu} - 2$. For this analysis we use the 2$\sigma$ level boundaries, $11 \times 10^{-10} < a_{\mu} < 44 \times 10^{-10}$ [@Bennett:2004pv].
4. The process $B_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ where the decay has a $\mbox{tan}^6\beta$ dependence. We take the upper bound to be $Br(B_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}) < 5.8 \times 10^{-8}$ [@:2007kv].
5. The LEP limit on the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass, $m_{h} \geq 114$ GeV [@Barate:2003sz].
A scan of the parameter space allowed by the aforementioned five experimental constraints was performed for various values of the gravitino mass and tan$\beta$, with the goal to determine the range of the gravitino mass where the upper limit is the mass at which SUSY events become observable at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) above the SM background, and at the lower limit the Higgs mass becomes too light and violates the LEP constraint. We discover the upper limit to be $m_{3/2}$ $\approx$ 700 GeV and the lower limit to be in the range $m_{3/2}$ = 400 $\sim$ 500 GeV. Thus, we calculate the relic density, experimental constraints, and subsequently, the direct detection cross-sections and indirect detection gamma-ray flux for $m_{3/2}$ = 500 GeV and $m_{3/2}$ = 700 GeV. For each of these gravitino masses, the calculations were completed for tan$\beta$ = 10, 25, and 46. Regions of the parameter space satisfying all the experimental constraints exist for five of the six cases; only $m_{3/2}$ = 700 GeV, tan$\beta$ = 10 produced no regions that satisfied the constraints. Additional values of tan$\beta$ were run for $m_{3/2}$ = 700 GeV, though tan$\beta$ = 25 is close to the minimum tan$\beta$ that violates none of the constraints. Thus, we study five cases in this paper: $m_{3/2}$ = 500 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 10, $m_{3/2}$ = 500 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 25, $m_{3/2}$ = 500 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 46, $m_{3/2}$ = 700 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 25, $m_{3/2}$ = 700 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 46.
We plot the parameter space in terms of the goldstino angles $\Theta_{1}$ and $\Theta_{2}$ in Fig. \[fig:D6\_ParamSpace\]. A detailed discussion of the goldstino angles $\Theta_{1}$ and $\Theta_{2}$ and how they relate to the non-universal gaugino masses and scalar masses can be found in [@Chen:2007px] [@Chen:2007zu]. The different shades represent the regions which are allowed or excluded for the reasons noted in the chart legend. These plots focus on the experimental constraints and the dark matter density within the SSC and WMAP regions. Note the small regions excluded by the Higgs mass $m_h$ $<$ 114 GeV satisfy all other constraints, including the SSC dark matter density. All the regions in the allowed parameter space pass the Higgs mass constraint, except as just noted, however, it is not identified on the charts whether the excluded regions meet or fail the higgs mass constraint, though all the excluded regions fail to meet one or more of the remaining constraints. In addition, the regions excluded by $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} >$ 1.1 satisfy all other constraints. The circular region centered at the origin of the plot is excluded for driving $m_{H}^{2}$ to negative values. The region outside the allowed parameter space is excluded since the goldstino angles $\Theta_{1}$, $\Theta_{2}$, and $\Theta_{3}$ do not satisfy the unitary condition $\Theta_{1}^{2} + \Theta_{2}^{2} + \Theta_{3}^{2} = 1$ [@Chen:2007px] [@Chen:2007zu]. For more explicit details of the parameter space regions satisfying the experimental constraints, including potential LHC signatures and experimental observables, see [@JMMN]. In the remainder of this work, we focus only on the direct and indirect detection parameters.
![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace1a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace2a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace3a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace4a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace5a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![Allowed parameter space for $\textit{u}$-moduli dominated SUSY breaking scenario for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The five individual charts represent different gravitino masses and tan$\beta$. The chart legend describes the reasons for inclusion and exclusion of the shaded regions.[]{data-label="fig:D6_ParamSpace"}](D6_ParamSpace6a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
WIMP Detection
==============
Direct detection experiments search for dark matter through an elastic collision of WIMPs with ordinary matter. The lightest neutralino, $\chi_{1}^{0}$, is assumed to be stable, and as such represents the best possible candidate for dark matter, and hence, WIMPs. These WIMPs produce low energy recoils with nuclei. The interaction between the WIMPs and nuclei can be segregated into a spin-independent (SI) part and a spin-dependent(SD) part, where the SI (scalar) interactions are primarily the consequence of elastic collisions with heavy nuclei. First, we consider the SI cross-sections for an intersecting $D$6-brane model, then study the SD interactions.
Both the direct detection cross-sections and the gamma-ray flux are calculated using [MicrOMEGAs 2.1]{} [@Belanger:2008sj]. For the SI calculation, we use the nucleon form factor coefficient values of
$f_{d}^{p} = 0.033,~f_{u}^{p} = 0.023,~f_{s}^{p} = 0.26$
$f_{d}^{n} = 0.042,~f_{u}^{n} = 0.018,~f_{s}^{n} = 0.26$
while for the SD computations, we use the following quark density coefficients
$\Delta_{u}^{p} = 0.842 \pm 0.012,~\Delta_{d}^{p} = -0.427 \pm 0.013,~\Delta_{s}^{p} = -0.085 \pm 0.018$
$\Delta_{u}^{n} = \Delta_{d}^{p},~\Delta_{d}^{n} = \Delta_{u}^{p},~\Delta_{s}^{n} = \Delta_{s}^{p}$
In addition, we use $v_{0} = 220$ km/s for the dark matter velocity distribution in the galaxy rest frame, $v_{E} = 244.4$ km/s for the Earth velocity with respect to the galaxy, and $v_{max} = 600$ km/s for the maximal dark matter velocity in the sun’s orbit with respect to the galaxy.
In Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinIndependent\], we plot the SI cross-sections for an intersecting $D$6-brane model. The cross-sections and flux were calculated only for those regions of the parameter space satisfying all the experimental constraints. Those allowed regions are shown in Fig. \[fig:D6\_ParamSpace\]. The plots in Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinIndependent\] are subdivided by dark matter density, where for clarity we use the 2$\sigma$ WMAP limits. The most recent experimental results for Zeplin-III [@Lebedenko:2008gb], Xenon 10 [@Angle:2007uj], and CDMS II [@Ahmed:2008eu] are shown, in addition to the projected sensitivity of the future SuperCDMS [@Schnee:2005pj] and Xenon-1 Ton [@Aprile:2005mz] experiments. Only for $m_{3/2}$ = 500 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 10 are the cross-sections within the current experimental limits, however, in this case there is only a small region of the allowed parameter space within the latest CDMS results, where these points have a very small dark matter density only allowed since we removed the lower WMAP 2$\sigma$ boundary. Most of the points will be within the experimental limits of the SuperCDMS and Xenon-1 Ton future experiments, potentially providing incentive for the design and development of the next generation of dark matter direct detection experiments. In the SSC region, we allow for a dilution factor of $\cal{O}$(10), resulting in a dark matter density up to $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \sim 1.1$, permitting the inclusion of more points. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinIndependent\], in general, the SSC regions have a smaller cross-section than the WMAP regions. The dark matter density $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2}$ is inversely proportional to the annihilation cross-section $\left\langle \sigma_{\textit{ann}}\textit{v}\right\rangle$, so one expects the points with a higher $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2}$ to possess a smaller annihilation cross-section, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinIndependent\].
![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI1a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI2a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI3a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI4a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI5a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinIndependent"}](D6_SI6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"}
The proton SD cross-sections are shown in Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinDependent\]. The format of the SD charts is similar to the SI charts. For comparison of the intersecting $D$6-brane model cross-sections to the current experimental limits, we show the latest results for COUPP [@COUP], NAIAD [@NAIA], KIMS [@Lee.:2007qn], and SuperK [@Desai:2004pq]. We also calculated the neutron SD cross-sections (not shown), though there was only a slight difference between the proton and neutron SD. The patterns were generally the same, but the neutron SD cross-sections were slightly larger, and the shape of the SD patterns is essentially identical to the SI patterns. None of the intersecting $D$6-brane model points are within the current experimental limits of the SD dark matter detectors, and in fact, they are still three orders of magnitude away from the discovery region. Again, since $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2} \sim \frac{1}{\left\langle \sigma_{\textit{ann}}\textit{v}\right\rangle}$, we see in Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinDependent\] that the SSC points have in general a smaller annihilation cross-section than the WMAP points.
![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD1a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD2a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD3a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD4a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD5a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Proton spin-dependent cross-sections of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_SpinDependent"}](D6_SD6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"}
Indirect Dark Matter Detection
==============================
Indirect detection experiments search for high energy neutrinos, gamma-rays, positrons, and anti-protons emanating from neutralino annihilation in the galactic halo and core, or in the case of neutrinos, in the core of the sun or the earth. In this work, we focus only on the flux of gamma-rays $\Phi_{\gamma}$ in the galactic core or halo. The gamma-ray flux $\Phi_{\gamma}$ for the intersecting $D$6-brane model is shown in Fig. \[fig:D6\_GammaFlux\], including the projected sensitivity of the Fermi experiment [@Morselli:2002nw]. The sensitivity is not constant, but is a function of photon energy, and for this reason, to be precise, we delineate it using a band. Most of the points allowed by the experimental constraints will be within the sensitivity of the Fermi telescope. As mentioned in the Introduction, two possible decay channels where WIMPs can produce gamma-rays in the galactic core and halo are $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow q \overline{q} \rightarrow \pi^{0} \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$. Hence, the flux of gamma-rays is directly dependent upon the annihilation cross-section. Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinIndependent\] and Fig. \[fig:D6\_SpinDependent\] show and we have explained that the SSC points have a smaller annihilation cross-section. Consequently, we expect the SSC points to also exhibit a smaller gamma-ray flux $\Phi_{\gamma}$, and accordingly, this is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:D6\_GammaFlux\].
![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID1a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID2a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID3a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID4a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID5a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Gamma-ray flux of an intersecting $D$6-brane model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints for an explicit gravitino mass and tan$\beta$. The three marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:D6_GammaFlux"}](D6_ID6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"}
It is an intriguing question as to how a model with non-universal soft-supersymmetry breaking terms, such as an intersecting $D$6-brane model, compares to a model with universal soft-supersymmetry breaking terms, for example, mSUGRA. The one-parameter model (OPM) [@Lopez:1993rm; @Lopez:1994fz; @Lopez:1995hg; @Maxin:2008kp] is a highly constrained small subset of mSUGRA, where all the soft-supersymmetry breaking terms may be fixed in terms of the gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$. The OPM has universal soft-supersymmetry breaking terms, so it is ideal to compare to the $D$6-brane model. Details of the phenomenology of the OPM using the most recent measurements of the experimental constraints can be found in [@Maxin:2008kp]. The parameter space of the OPM is quite constrained by the experimental constraints, and this leads to small regions of allowed direct and indirect detection parameters. In Fig. \[fig:OPM\] we plot the direct and indirect detection parameters of the OPM. As described in [@Maxin:2008kp], the range of tan$\beta$ for spectra that satisfy all the experimental constraints in the WMAP region is 35.2 $<$ tan$\beta$ $<$ 38, while the range in the SSC region is 10.2 $<$ tan$\beta$ $<$ 38. Note that the points shown in Fig. \[fig:OPM\] are for all tan$\beta$ within the aforementioned ranges. However, it can be concluded from Fig. \[fig:OPM\] that the points with the same WIMP mass do exhibit the same characteristics as the points in the intersecting $D$6-brane model. For the same WIMP mass, the WMAP spectra have a larger annihilation cross-section, and hence, gamma-ray flux than the SSC points, due to the fact that in the WMAP region, we are not allowing for the $\cal{O}$(10) dilution factor to $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2}$.
![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](OPM_SI.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](D6_SI6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](OPM_SD.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](D6_SD6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](OPM_ID.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"} ![Spin-independent cross-section, proton spin-dependent cross-section, and gamma-ray flux for the one-parameter model. Each marker satisfies all experimental constraints. The different marker colors identify the dark matter density.[]{data-label="fig:OPM"}](D6_ID6a.eps "fig:"){width="44.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
Much advancement has been made in the last few years toward the discovery of dark matter. Current generation direct detection experiments that search for elastic collisions of WIMPs off nuclei have come within shouting distance of the allowed parameter space of models with universal soft-supersymmetry breaking terms such as mSUGRA. Furthermore, the Fermi Gamma-ray space telescope is edging closer to the parameter space of these same models. In light of this experimental progress, it is a good time to start examining the direct and indirect detection parameters of semi-realistic string models. To this end, we began an investigation of the experimental detection parameters for a particular string-derived model with many appealing phenomenological properties. There are various theoretical models currently offered, so our goal is present the phenomenology of a promising new model, in contrast to the usual standard, mSUGRA. In this work, we investigated an intersecting $D$6-brane model on a Type IIA orientifold that overcomes the persistent problems experienced by many Type II string vacua, namely that of gauge coupling unification and the generation of masses for the first two generations of quarks and leptons. This model exhibits automatic gauge coupling unification and allows the correct masses and mixings for all quarks and leptons to be obtained. As a consequence, we presented the spin-independent and proton spin-dependent cross-sections. We find that only a small region of the allowed parameter space is within the current limits of the direct detection experiments. Regions with a larger $\Omega_{\chi^o} h^{2}$ have smaller cross-sections, thus cross-sections for SSC are smaller than those of WMAP. Additionally, we illustrated the galactic gamma-ray flux for this model resulting from neutralino annihilations. We discover that most of the regions of the $D$6-brane model allowed parameter space will be within the sensitivity of the Fermi telescope.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was supported in part by the Mitchell-Heep Chair in High Energy Physics (CMC), by the Cambridge-Mitchell Collaboration in Theoretical Cosmology, and by the DOE grant DE-FG03-95-Er-40917.
[99]{}
0.5mm
J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B [**127**]{}, 233 (1983); J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B [**238**]{}, 453 (1984);
H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1419 (1983).
E. A. Baltz and P. Gondolo, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 052 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0407039\]. J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 095007 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0502001\]. L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and R. Trotta, JHEP [**0707**]{}, 075 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.2012 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and J. O’Farrill, JCAP [**0408**]{}, 005 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405210\]. R. Blumenhagen, M. Cvetic, P. Langacker and G. Shiu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**55**]{}, 71 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0502005\]. R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lust and S. Stieberger, Phys. Rept. [**445**]{}, 1 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0610327\]. B. Kors and P. Nath, Nucl. Phys. B [**681**]{}, 77 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0309167\]. M. Cvetic, T. Li and T. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B [**698**]{}, 163 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0403061\]. C. M. Chen, T. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B [**740**]{}, 79 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0601064\]. C. M. Chen, T. Li, V. E. Mayes and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**665**]{}, 267 (2008) \[arXiv:hep-th/0703280\]. C. M. Chen, T. Li, V. E. Mayes and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 125023 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.0396 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. M. Chen, T. Li, Y. Liu and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**668**]{}, 63 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.2679 \[hep-th\]\]. J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and A. Zichichi, Phys. Lett. B [**319**]{}, 451 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9306226\]. J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and A. Zichichi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**10**]{}, 4241 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9408345\]. J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and A. Zichichi, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 4178 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9502414\]. For a review, see [Searching for the Superworld: A Volume in Honor of Antonino Zichichi on the Occasion of the Sixth Centenary Celebrations of the University of Turin, Italy]{}, Antonino Zichichi, Sergio Ferrara, Rudolf M. M$\ddot{o}$ssbauer, World Scientific (2007), ISBN 9812700188, 9789812700186. J. A. Maxin, V. E. Mayes and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} 066010 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.3200 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Blumenhagen, B. Körs, D. Lüst and T. Ott, Nucl. Phys. B [**616**]{}, 3 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0107138\].
M. Cvetič, P. Langacker and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 066004 (2002); Nucl. Phys. B [**642**]{}, 139 (2002). D. Cremades, L. E. Ibáñez and F. Marchesano, JHEP [**0207**]{}, 009 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0201205\].
G. Shiu and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 106007 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9805157\].
D. Lüst and S. Stieberger, \[arXiv:hep-th/0302221\].
I. Antoniadis, E. Kiritsis and T. N. Tomaras, Phys. Lett. B [**486**]{}, 186 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004214\]; R. Blumenhagen, D. Lust and S. Stieberger, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 036 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0305146\].
D. Cremades, L. E. Ibáñez and F. Marchesano, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 038 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0302105\].
M. Cvetič and I. Papadimitriou, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 046001 (2003) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**70**]{}, 029903 (2004)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/0303083\].
D. Lüst, P. Mayr, R. Richter and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B [**696**]{}, 205 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404134\].
J. F. G. Cascales and A. M. Uranga, JHEP [**0305**]{}, 011 (2003).
F. Marchesano and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 011701 (2005); JHEP [**0411**]{}, 041 (2004). M. Cvetič and T. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**610**]{}, 122 (2005).
M. Cvetič, T. Li and T. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 106008 (2005). J. Kumar and J. D. Wells, JHEP [**0509**]{}, 067 (2005). C.-M. Chen, V. E. Mayes and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{}, 618 (2006). R. Blumenhagen, M. Cvetic, F. Marchesano and G. Shiu, JHEP [**0503**]{}, 050 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0502095\]. Y. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi and T. Komatsu, Phys. Lett. B [**400**]{}, 284 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9609462\].
A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B [**422**]{}, 125 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**436**]{}, 747 (1995)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9308271\]; \[arXiv:hep-ph/9707209\].
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**176**]{}, 367 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607059\]; Comput. Phys. Commun. [**174**]{}, 577 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405253\]; Comput. Phys. Commun. [**149**]{}, 103 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0112278\]. A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**176**]{}, 426 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0211331\]. Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF Collaboration and D0 Collab, \[arXiv:0808.1089 \[hep-ex\]\]. G. Hinshaw [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**180**]{}, 225 (2009) \[arXiv:0803.0732 \[astro-ph\]\]. D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**148**]{}, 175 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0302209\]; Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**170**]{}, 377 (2007) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0603449\]. I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas, J. R. Ellis and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**211**]{}, 393 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B [**328**]{}, 117 (1989); Phys. Lett. B [**257**]{}, 278 (1991); J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, Lectures given at International Workshop on Recent Advances in the Superworld, Woodlands, TX, 13-16 Apr 1993, Published in Woodlands Superworld 1993:3-26 (QCD161:I966:1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9311148\]; J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**10**]{}, 1685 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9503162\]; Phys. Lett. B [**619**]{}, 17 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0412240\]; D. V. Nanopoulos and D. Xie, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 044038 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.2312 \[hep-th\]\]. A. B. Lahanas, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, PMC Phys. A [**1**]{}, 2 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0608153\]; Phys. Lett. B [**649**]{}, 83 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612152\]. B. Dutta, A. Gurrola, T. Kamon, A. Krislock, A. B. Lahanas, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, \[arXiv:0808.1372 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) Collaboration\], \[arXiv:0704.3575 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Misiak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 022002 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609232\]. G. W. Bennett [*et al.*]{} \[Muon g-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 161802 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0401008\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 101802 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.1708 \[hep-ex\]\]. R. Barate [*et al.*]{} \[LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches and ALEPH Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**565**]{}, 61 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0306033\]; W. M. Yao *et al* (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G [**33**]{}, 1 (2006).
J. Maxin, V. E. Mayes, and D. V. Nanopoulos, In preparation
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, \[arXiv:0803.2360 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. N. Lebedenko [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:0812.1150 \[astro-ph\]\]. J. Angle [*et al.*]{} \[XENON Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 021303 (2008) \[arXiv:0706.0039 \[astro-ph\]\]. Z. Ahmed [*et al.*]{} \[CDMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 011301 (2009) \[arXiv:0802.3530 \[astro-ph\]\]. R. W. Schnee [*et al.*]{} \[The SuperCDMS Collaboration\], \[arXiv:astro-ph/0502435\]. E. Aprile \[The XENON Collaboration\], \[arXiv:astro-ph/0502279\]. E. Behnke *et al*, Science [**319**]{}, 933 (2008)
G. J. Alner *et al*, Phys. Lett. B [**616**]{}, 17 (2005)
H. S. Lee. [*et al.*]{} \[KIMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 091301 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.0423 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. Desai [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083523 (2004) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**70**]{}, 109901 (2004)\] \[arXiv:hep-ex/0404025\]. A. Morselli, A. Lionetto, A. Cesarini, F. Fucito and P. Ullio \[GLAST Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**113**]{}, 213 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0211327\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For each integer $n\geq 2$, we study linear relations among weight $n$ double zeta values and the $n$th power of the Carlitz period over the rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_
{q}(\theta)$. We show that all the ${\mathbb{F}}_q(\theta)$-linear relations are induced from the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]
$-linear relations among certain explicitly constructed special points in the $n$th tensor power of the Carlitz module. We then establish a principle of Siegel’s lemma for computing and determining the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear relations mentioned above, and thus obtain an effective criterion for computing the dimension of weight $n$ double zeta values space.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City 30042, Taiwan R.O.C.'
author:
- 'Chieh-Yu Chang'
date: 'July 6, 2016'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Classical theory
----------------
Classical multiple zeta values (abbreviated as MZV’s) are defined by the series: for ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ with $s_{1} \geq2$, $$\zeta({\mathfrak{s}}):=\sum_{n_{1}>\cdots>n_{r}\geq
1} \frac{1}{n_{1}^{s_{1}}\cdots n_{r}^{s_{r}} } \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\times }.$$ Here ${\rm{wt}}({\mathfrak{s}}):=\sum_{i=1}^{r}s_{i}$ is called the weight and $r$ is called the depth of the presentation $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$. MZV’s have many connections with various research topics. For example, see [@Z93; @Z94; @Cart02; @Andre04; @B12; @Zh16].
Let $\mathrm{Z}_{0}:={\mathbb{Q}}$, $\mathrm{Z}_{1}:=\left\{ 0\right\}$ and $\mathrm{Z}_{n}$ be the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-vector space spanned by the weight $n$ MZV’s for integers $n\geq 2$. Putting $\mathrm{Z}:=\sum_{n\geq 0} \mathrm{Z}_{n}$. It is well known that $\mathrm{Z}_{m}\mathrm{Z}_{n}\subseteq \mathrm{Z}_{m+n}$, and so $\mathrm{Z}$ has a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra structure. The Goncharov’s direct sum conjecture [@G97] asserts that $\mathrm{Z}$ is a graded algebra (graded by weights). Therefore, understanding the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebraic relations among MZV’s boils down to understanding the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s. However, to date computing the dimension of $\mathrm{Z}_{n}$ for each $n$ is out of reach. Note that Zagier’s dimension conjecture predicts that $d_{n}:=\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{Z}_{n}$ satisfies the recursive relation $$d_{n}=d_{n-2}+d_{n-3}\hbox{ for }n\geq3,$$ and one knows by Goncharov and Terasoma that $\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{Z}_{n}\leq d_{n}$ for each $n$ (see [@Te02; @DG05]).
Now, we focus on depth two MZV’s, which are called double zeta values. It is a natural question to ask how to compute the dimension of the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-vector space $$\mathrm{DZ}_{n}:= {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}} \left\{(2\pi \sqrt{-1})^{n},\zeta(2,n-2),\zeta(3,n-3),\cdots,\zeta(n-1,1)\right\}$$ for $n\geq 3$. This is still a very difficult problem in the classical theory as $\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{DZ}_{n} $ is only known for $n=3,4$. Zagier (cf. [@Z94]) gave a conjectural formula for $d_{n}$ in terms of the dimension of weight $n$ cusp forms.
[[(Zagier)]{}]{}\[Conj1\] For $n\geq 3$, we put $$s_{n}:=\begin{cases}
\frac{n}{2}-1-\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}S_{n}({\rm{SL}}_{2}({\mathbb{Z}}))& \hbox{ if }n\hbox{ is even} , \\
\frac{n+1}{2} &\hbox{ if }$n$\hbox{ is odd}, \\
\end{cases}$$ where $S_{n}(\operatorname{SL}_{2}({\mathbb{Z}}))$ is space of weight $n$ cusp forms for $\operatorname{SL}_{2}({\mathbb{Z}})$. Then we have $$\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{DZ}_{n}=s_{n}.$$
The best known result toward this conjecture is due to Gangl, Kaneko and Zagier [@GKZ06], who showed that $\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{DZ}_{n}\leq s_{n}$ for each $n\geq 3$. One of their approaches is to introduce and study the double Eisenstein series to explain the relation between double zeta values and cusp forms for $\operatorname{SL}_{2}({\mathbb{Z}})$. The main result of this paper is to establish an effective criterion for computing the analogue of $\dim_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathrm{DZ}_{n}$ in the positive characteristic function field setting.
The main result
---------------
Let $A:={\mathbb{F}}_{q}[\theta]$ be the polynomial ring in the variable $\theta$ over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$ of $q$ elements with characteristic $p$, and $k$ be its quotient field. Denote by $\infty$ the infinite place of $k$. Let $k_{\infty}:= {{{\mathbb{F}}_{q} (\!( \frac{1}{\theta} )\!)}}$ be the $\infty$-adic completion of $k$, and $\overline{k_{\infty}}$ be a fixed algebraic closure of $k_{\infty}$. Denote by ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ the $\infty$-adic completion of $\overline{k_{\infty}}$. Finally, we let $A_{+}$ be the set of all monic polynomials in $A$. We then have the following comparisons: $$A_{+}\leftrightarrow {\mathbb{N}}, \hbox{ } A\leftrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}},\hbox{ } k\leftrightarrow {\mathbb{Q}}, \hbox{ } k_{\infty}\leftrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}, \hbox{ } {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\leftrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}.$$
For any $r$-tuple of positive integers ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$, Thakur [@T04] introduced the multiple series $$\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}) := \sum \frac{1}{a_1^{s_1} \cdots
a_r^{s_r}} \in k_{\infty},$$ where the sum is taken over $r$-tuples $(a_1, \dots, a_r)\in A_{+}^{r}$ satisfying the strict inequalities $\deg_{\theta} a_1 > \cdots > \deg_{\theta} a_r$. In analogy with the classical MZV’s, $r$ is called the depth and $\rm{wt}({\mathfrak{s}}):=s_1+\cdots+s_r$ is called the weight of the presentation $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$. These special values $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$ are called multizeta values (abbreviated as MZV’s too) and each of them is non-vanishing by [@T09a]. Moreover, these MZV’s have a $t$-motivic interpretation in the sense that they occur as periods of certain mixed Carlitz-Tate $t$-motives by the work of Anderson and Thakur [@AT09].
In [@T10], Thakur showed that the product of two MZV’s can be expressed as an ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$-linear combination of some MZV’s with the same weight, which is regarded as a kind of shuffle product relation (cf. ), and so the ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$-vector space spanned by MZV’s has a ring structure. Further, an analogue of Goncharov’s direct sum conjecture was shown by the author [@C14], that the $k$-algebra generated by all MZV’s is a graded algebra (graded by weights). In other words, all $k$-linear relations among MZV’s are generated by those $k$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s.
In the classical theory of MZV’s, (regularized) double shuffle relations give rise to rich ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s (see [@IKZ06]). Unlike the classical situation, there is no natural total order on $A_{+}$ and so far a nice analogue of the iterated integral expression for MZV’s is not developed yet. To date there is no different expression for the product of two MZV’s other than Thakur’s relation mentioned above, and hence we do not have the analogue of double shuffle relations to produce $k$-linear relations among MZV’s naturally. In his Ph.D. thesis, Todd \[To15\] tried to produce $k$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s using power sums and used lattice reduction methods to give a conjecture on the dimensions in question.
Let $\tilde{\pi}$ be a fixed fundamental period of the Carlitz ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module ${\mathbf{C}}$, which plays the analogous role of $2\pi \sqrt{-1}$, and let ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$ be the $n$th tensor power of the Carlitz module ${\mathbf{C}}$ for a positive integer $n$ (see §§ \[sec:t-modules\] for the definitions). The main result of this paper gives a new point of view to completely determine the $k$-linear relations among weight $n$ double zeta values together with $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$. It is stated as follows and its proof is given in Corollary \[C:ReMainThm1\] and Theorem \[T:Siegel\].
\[T:MainThmIntroduction\] Let $n\geq 2$ be a positive integer. Put $$\mathcal{V}:=\left\{ (s_{1},s_{2})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}; s_{1}+s_{2}=n\hbox{ and }(q-1)|s_{2} \right\} .$$
1. For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathcal{V}}$, we explicitly construct a special point $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ so that $$\begin{array}{rl}
& \dim_{k}{\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}(1,n-1),\zeta_{A}(2,n-2),\cdots,\zeta_{A}(n-1,1) \right\} \\
&\\
=& n- \lfloor \frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor+\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}. \\
\end{array}$$
2. We establish an effective algorithm for computing the rank $$\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}.$$
In other words, we relate the $k$-linear relations among double zeta values to the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear relations among the special points $\left\{ \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathcal{V}}}$, and which can be effectively computed and determined.
We mention that although Todd [@To15] provided some ways of producing $k$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s, it is not clear how to derive $k$-linear relations among weight $n$ double zeta values together with $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$ from Todd’s relation. When the given weight $n\geq 2$ is $A$-even, ie., $(q-1)| n$ (as $q-1$ is the cardinality of the unit group $A^{\times}$), one can use the following formula to produce linear relations. For two positive $A$-even integers $r$ and $s$ with $r+s=n$, one has $$\label{E:Chen}
\begin{aligned}\zeta_{A}(r) \zeta_{A}(s)&= \zeta_{A} (r,s) + \zeta_{A} (s,r) + \zeta_{A} (r+s) \\
&+ \sum_{i+j =n \atop (q-1) | j} \left[(-1)^{s-1}\binom{j-1}{s-1}+(-1)^{r-1}\binom{j-1}{r-1} \right] \zeta_{A} (i, j)\ \ \ \
\end{aligned}$$ (see [@T10] for the existence of such relations and [@Chen15] for the explicit formula). By work of Carlitz [@Ca35], we know that $$\zeta_{A}(r)/\tilde{\pi}^{r}\in k,\hbox{ } \zeta_{A}(s)/\tilde{\pi}^{s}\in k,\hbox{ } \zeta_{A}(n)/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\in k,$$ and so (\[E:Chen\]) gives rise to a nontrivial linear relation among $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$ and weight $n$ double zeta values. As all the coefficients of the double zeta values are in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$, Thakur call it an ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$-linear reation. Our effective algorithm based on Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] is able to find all the independent $k$-linear relations in question. As observed by Thakur [@T09b], those ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$-linear relations produced by (\[E:Chen\]) can not generate all the $k$-linear relations, and our computational data can capture the difference precisely. We refer the reader to the end of this paper.
We mention that there is a difference between Conjecture \[Conj1\] and our results, and refer the reader to Remark \[Rem:comparison\] about the detailed comparison. We further mention that in [@Chen16], Drinfeld double Eisenstein series are introduced. Since double zeta values occur as the constant terms of Drinfeld double Eisenstein series, one naturally expects that Drinfeld cusps forms [@Go80; @Ge88] can have connections with double zeta values if they can be shown to be a subspace of the space of Drinfeld double Eisenstein series (cf. [@GKZ06]).
Methods of proof
----------------
Let notation and hypothesis be given as in Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\]. We outline the major steps in the proof of Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\].
1. $\underline{\hbox{A necessary condition}}$. We show that all the $k$-linear relations among the set $$\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n}\right\}\cup \left\{\zeta_{A}(1,n-1),\ldots,\zeta_{A}(n-1,1)\right\}$$ are those coming from the $k$-linear relations among $\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n}\right\}\cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}) \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathcal{V}}}$, and so we are reduced to studying the $k$-linear relations among $\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n} \right\}\cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}) \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathcal{V}}}$. This result is Corollary \[C:NecCondDepth2\].
2. $\underline{\hbox{Logarithmic interpretion}}$. Let $r\geq 2$. For any ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ with $\zeta_{A}(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})$ Eulerian, ie., $$\zeta_{A}(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})/\tilde{\pi}^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}\in k,$$ we relate $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$ to the last coordinate of the logarithm of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes (s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r})}$ at an explicit integral point. This result is Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\].
3. $\underline{\hbox{The identity}}$. Using the results in (I) and (II), we establish the equality in Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (1) by appealing to Yu’s transcendence theory [@Yu91] for the last coordinate of the logarithm of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$ at algebraic points. This result is Corollary \[C:ReMainThm1\].
4. $\underline{\hbox{A Siegel's Lemma}}$. We establish a principle of Siegel’s lemma for integral points in ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$ to achieve Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (2). This result is Theorem \[T:Siegel\].
The four steps laid out above give an approach toward producing $k$-linear relations among the same weight MZV’s of arbitrary depths. Actually, for weight $n\geq 2$ combining the ideas of (II), (III) and (IV) above one determine all the $k$-linear relations among the set $$\left\{ \zeta_{A}(n)\right\}\cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\},$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{n}$ is the set consisting of all ${\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ with $r\geq2$ and ${\rm{wt}}({\mathfrak{s}})=n$ satisfying that $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}')$ is Eulerian, where ${\mathfrak{s}}'=(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})$ for ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})$. This result is Corollary \[C:DimHigherDepth\] together with Theorem \[T:Siegel\]. In [@CPY14] an effective criterion for Eulerian MZV’s is established, and conjecturally one can describe the set $\mathcal{E}_{n}$ precisely (see [@CPY14 § 6.2]). We note that assuming Todd’s dimension conjecture [@To15], for weight $n\geq 2$ the $k$-linear relations among the set $\left\{ \zeta_{A}(n)\right\}\cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\}$ are not enough to generate all the $k$-linear relations among weight $n$ MZV’s.
The idea of proving (I) above is to construct a suitable system of Frobenius difference equations for each $k$-linear relation among the double zeta values and $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$, and then use ABP-criterion [@ABP04 Thm. 3.1.1] in the study of certain $\operatorname{Ext}^{1}$-modules. For the proof of (II) above, we need an explicit formula for the bottom row of each coefficient matrix of the logarithm of ${{\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}}$ due to Papanikolas [@P14]. Combining with the period interpretation of MZV’s given by Anderson-Thakur [@AT09], one is able to relate $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$ for those ${\mathfrak{s}}\in {\mathcal{V}}$ in Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] to the last coordinate of the logarithm of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$. The proof of (III) is to use the functional equation of the exponential function of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$ and apply Yu’s theory [@Yu91]. To achieve (IV), we translate the effectiveness question to a question of the type of Siegel’s lemma for certain difference equations, and we prove it directly.
Outline of this paper
---------------------
In order to let the present paper be self-contained, in §§ 2 we give some preliminaries about some major results in [@AT90; @Yu91; @CPY14]. We then give proofs of (I)-(IV) above in §§ 3-6 respectively. The proof of Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] is given in Corollary \[C:ReMainThm1\] and Theorem \[T:Siegel\]. In §§ \[sec:algorithm\], we give an effective algorithm for implementing Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\], and at the end of this paper we provide some data of this computation using Magma.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I am very grateful to M. Kaneko and J. Yu for their helpful conversations that inspire this project, and to M. Papanikolas for sharing his formula with me, and to Y.-H. Lin for writing the Magma code to compute the dimensions, and to W. D. Brownawell, D. Goss and D. Thakur for helpful comments. I further thank H.-J. Chen, H. Furusho, Y.-L. Kuan, Y. Mishiba, K. Tasaka, A. Tamagawa, S. Yasuda and J. Zhao for many useful discussions and comments. Part of this work was carried out when I visited Beijing Tsing Hua University. I particularly thank Prof. L. Yin for his kind invitation and support during his lifetime. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the referee for providing many helpful comments that greatly improve the exposition of this paper.
Preliminaries
=============
Notation
--------
We adopt the following notation.
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathbb{F}}_q$ the finite field with $q$ elements, for $q$ a power of a prime number $p$.
$\theta$, $t$ independent variables.
$A$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q[\theta]$, the polynomial ring in the variable $\theta$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
$A_{+}$ set of monic polynomials in A.
$k$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q(\theta)$, the fraction field of $A$.
$k_\infty$ ${{{\mathbb{F}}_q (\!( 1/\theta )\!)}}$, the completion of $k$ with respect to the infinite place $\infty$.
$\overline{k_\infty}$ a fixed algebraic closure of $k_\infty$.
${\overline{k}}$ the algebraic closure of $k$ in $\overline{k_\infty}$.
${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$ the completion of $\overline{k_\infty}$ with respect to the canonical extension of $\infty$.
$|\cdot|_{\infty}$ a fixed absolute value for the completed field ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ so that $|\theta|_{\infty}=q$.
${{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty [\![ t ]\!]}}$ ring of formal power series in $t$ over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$.
${{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty (\!( t )\!)}}$ field of Laurent series in $t$ over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$.
${\mathbb{T}}$ the ring of power series in ${{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty [\![ t ]\!]}}$ convergent on the closed unit disc.
$\tilde{\pi}$ a fixed fundamental period of the Carlitz module ${\mathbf{C}}$.
${\mathbb{G}}_{a}$ the additive group scheme over $A$.
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson t-modules revisited {#sec:t-modules}
----------------------------
We let $\tau:=(x\mapsto x^{q})$ be the $q$th power endomorphism of ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$, and define ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{\tau\}$ to be the twisted polynomial ring in the variable $\tau$ over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ subject to the relation $$\tau \alpha=\alpha^{q}\tau\hbox{ for }\alpha\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}.$$ It follows that we have the matrix ring $\operatorname{Mat}_{n}\left( {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{\tau\}\right)$ with entries in ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{\tau\}$ and any element in this ring can be expressed as $$\varphi=\sum_{i\geq 0}a_{i}\tau^{i}$$ with $a_{i}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})$ and $a_{i}=0$ for $i\gg 0$. We denote by $\partial \varphi:=a_{0}$, the constant matrix of $\varphi.$ For convenience, we still denote by $\tau$ the operator on ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ which raises each component to the $q$th power. We denote by ${\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}$ the $n$-dimensional additive group scheme over $A$ and note that $\operatorname{Mat}_{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{\tau\})$ can be identified with $\operatorname{End}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}\left({\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})\right)$, the ring of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-linear endomorphisms of the algebraic group ${\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})={\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$. Via this identification $\partial \varphi$ is the tangent map of the morphism $\varphi:{\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})\rightarrow {\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})$ at the identity.
By an [*[$n$-dimensional $t$-module]{}*]{} we mean a pair $E=({\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n},\phi)$, where the underlying space of $E$ is ${\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})$, which is equipped with an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module structure via the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-linear ring homomorphism $$\phi: {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t] \rightarrow \operatorname{Mat}_{n}\left({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{\tau\}\right)$$ so that $\left(\partial \phi_{t}-\theta I_{n}\right)$ is a nilpotent matrix. For such a $t$-module, Anderson [@A86] showed that there is a unique $n$-variable power series $\exp_{E}$ defined on the whole ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$, called the [*[exponential]{}*]{} of the $t$-module $E$, for which:
1. $\exp_{E}:\operatorname{Lie}\left( {\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})\right)= {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}\rightarrow E({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}) $ is ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-linear.
2. $\exp_{E}$ is of the form $ I_{n} +\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\alpha_{i}\tau^{i}$ with $\alpha_{i}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})$.
3. $\exp_{E}$ satisfies the functional identity: for all $a\in{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, $$\exp_{E} \circ \partial \phi_{a} =\phi_{a}\circ \exp_{E}.$$
One typical example of a nontrivial $t$-module is the [*[$n$th tensor power of the Carlitz module]{}*]{} denoted by ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}=({\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{n},[\cdot]_{n})$ for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ (see [@AT90]). Here $[\cdot]_{n}$ is the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-linear ring homomorphism $[\cdot]_{n}:{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]\rightarrow \operatorname{Mat}_{n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[\tau])$ determined by $$[t]_{n}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\theta & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
& \theta & \ddots & \vdots \\
& & \ddots & 1 \\
& & & \theta \\
\end{array}
\right)+ \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & & & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\tau
.$$ When $n=1$, ${\mathbf{C}}:={\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes 1}$ is called the Carlitz ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module.
We denote by $\exp_{n}:=\exp_{{\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}}$ the exponential of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$. We define $\log_{n}:=\log_{{\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}}$ to be the unique power series of $n$ variables, called the [*[logarithm]{}*]{} of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$, for which:
1. $\log_{n}$ is of the form $\log_{n}= I_{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P_{i} \tau^{i}$ with $P_{i}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{n}(k)$.
2. $\log_{n}$ satisfies the functional identity: for any $a\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, $$\log_{n}\circ [a]_{n}=\partial [a]_{n}\circ \log_{n} .$$
As formal power series we note that $\exp_{n}$ and $\log_{n}$ are inverses of each other: $$\exp_{n}\circ\log_{n}={\rm{identity}}=\log_{n}\circ\exp_{n} .$$ In the case of $n=1$, $\exp_{{\mathbf{C}}}$ and $\log_{{\mathbf{C}}}$ are called the Carlitz exponential and Carlitz logarithm respectively, and these two functions can be written down explicitly as follows. Putting $D_{0}=1$ and $D_{i}:=\prod_{j=0}^{i-1}(\theta^{q^{i}}-\theta^{q^{j}})$ for $i\in {\mathbb{N}}$, then $$\exp_{{\mathbf{C}}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{D_{i}} \tau^{i} .$$ We further put $L_{0}:=1$ and $L_{i}:=(\theta-\theta^{q})\cdots (\theta-\theta^{q^{i}})$ for $i\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and then $$\log_{{\mathbf{C}}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{L_{i}}\tau^{i}.$$ For the details, see [@Go96; @T04].
Review of the theories of Anderson-Thakur and Yu
------------------------------------------------
### Theory of Anderson-Thakur
In their seminal paper [@AT90], Anderson and Thakur first showed that for each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\exp_{n}:{\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}\rightarrow {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty})$ is surjective and its kernel is of rank one over $A$ in the sense that $$\operatorname{Ker}\exp_{n}=\partial [{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]]_{n} \lambda_{n},$$ where $\lambda_{n}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ is of the form $$\lambda_{n}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
* \\
\vdots \\
\tilde{\pi}^{n} \\
\end{array}
\right)
.$$ The $\tilde{\pi}$ above is a fundamental period of the Carlitz module ${\mathbf{C}}$ in the sense that $\operatorname{Ker}\exp_{{\mathbf{C}}}=A\tilde{\pi}$, and it is fixed throughout this paper.
For a non-negative integer $n$, we express $n$ as $$n=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} n_{i}q^{i} \quad \textnormal{($0\leq n_{i}\leq q-1$, $n_{i}=0$ for $i\gg 0$)}.$$Then the Carlitz factorial is defined by $$\Gamma_{n+1}:=\prod_{i=0}^{\infty} D_{i}^{n_{i}}\in A.$$One of the major results in [@AT90] is to relate $\zeta_{A}(n)$ to the last coordinate of the logarithm of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$. It is stated as follows.
[[(Anderson-Thakur [@AT90 Thm. 3.8.3])]{}]{}\[T:AT90\] For each positive integer $n$, one explicitly constructs an integral point ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ so that there exists a vector $Y_{n}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ of the form $$Y_{n}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
* \\
\vdots \\
\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n) \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ satisfying $$\exp_{n}(Y_{n})={\mathbf{v}}_{n}.$$
For an integer $m$, we define $m$-fold Frobenius twisting by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty (\!( t )\!)}} & \rightarrow & {{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty (\!( t )\!)}},\\
f:=\sum_{i}a_{i}t^{i} & \mapsto & f^{(m)}:=\sum_{i}{a_{i}}^{q^{m}}t^{i}. \\
\end{array}$$ We extend this to matrices with entries in ${{{\mathbb{C}}_\infty (\!( t )\!)}}$ by twisting entry-wise.
We put $G_{0}(y):=1$ and define polynomials $G_{n}(y)\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t,y]$ for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ by the product $$G_{n}(y)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\left( t^{q^{n}}-y^{q^{i}} \right).$$ For $n=0,1,2,\ldots$, we define the sequence of Anderson-Thakur polynomials $H_{n}\in A[t]$ by the generating function identity $$\left( 1-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{ G_{i}(\theta) }{ D_{i}|_{\theta=t}} x^{q^{i}} \right)^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{H_{n}}{\Gamma_{n+1}|_{\theta=t}} x^{n}.$$
We put $$\Omega(t):=(-\theta)^{\frac{-q}{q-1}} \prod_{i=1}^{\infty} \biggl(
1-\frac{t}{\theta^{q^{i}}} \biggr)\in {{{\mathbb{C}}_{\infty} [\![ t ]\!]}},$$ where $(-\theta)^{\frac{1}{q-1}}$ is a suitable choice of $(q-1)$-st root of $-\theta$ so that $\frac{1}{\Omega(\theta)}=\tilde{\pi}$ (cf. [@ABP04] and [@AT09]). The function $\Omega$ satisfies the difference equation $\Omega^{(-1)}=(t-\theta)\Omega $. One important identity established in [@AT90; @AT09] is the following: for any positive integer $n$ and non-negative integer $i$, we have $$\label{E:OmegaHn}
\left(\Omega^{n} H_{n-1}\right)^{(i)}|_{t=\theta}= \frac{\Gamma_{n} S_{i}(n)}{\tilde{\pi}^{n}},$$ where $S_{i}(n)$ is the partial sum $$S_{i}(n):=\sum_{a\in A_{+,i}}\frac{1}{a^{n}}\in k.$$ Here $A_{+,i}$ denotes by the set of all monic polynomials in $A$ with degree $i$. For any $(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ we define the following series $$\label{E:Lsi}
{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}(t):=\sum_{i_{1}> \cdots> i_{r}\geq 0}\left( \Omega^{s_{1}}H_{s_{1}-1} \right)^{(i_{1})}\cdots \left(\Omega^{s_{r}}H_{s_{r}-1} \right)^{(i_{r})}.$$ Then by (\[E:OmegaHn\]), specialization at $t=\theta$ of ${\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}$ gives $${\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}(\theta)= \sum_{i_{1}> \cdots> i_{r}\geq 0}S_{i_{1}}(s_{1})\cdots S_{i_{r}}(s_{r})=\Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})/\tilde{\pi}^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} .$$
We single out the following useful lemma, which is rooted in [@C14 Lem. 5.3.5] (see also [@CPY14 Prop. 2.3.3]).
\[L:L theta qN\] For any $(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ and any nonnegative integer $N$, we have $${\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}(\theta^{q^{N}})=\left(\Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})/\tilde{\pi}^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} \right)^{q^{N}} .$$
### Yu’s theory
In [@Yu91], Yu proved the transcendence of $\zeta_{A}(n)$ for each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. The key ingredient in Yu’s proof is to establish the following theorem.
[[(Yu [@Yu91 Thm. 2.3])]{}]{}\[T:Yu’s thm\] Let $n$ be a positive integer, and $Y=(y_{1},\ldots,y_{n})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ be a nonzero vector satisfying that $\exp_{n}(Y)\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$. Then $y_{n}$ is transcendental over $k$.
\[Rem:TorsionEven\] Combining Theorems \[T:AT90\] and \[T:Yu’s thm\], one can show (see [@Yu91 Thm. 3.2]):
1. $\zeta_{A}(n)/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\in k$ if and only if ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-torsion point in ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$.
2. ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-torsion point if and only if $n$ is divisible by $q-1$.
Review of the CPY criterion for Eulerian MZV’s
----------------------------------------------
In what follows, by a [*[Frobenius]{}*]{} module we mean a left ${\overline{k}}[t,\sigma]$-module that is free of finite rank over ${\overline{k}}[t]$, where ${\overline{k}}[t,\sigma]:={\overline{k}}[t][\sigma]$ is the twisted polynomial ring generated by $\sigma$ over ${\overline{k}}[t]$ subject to the relation $\sigma f =f^{(-1)}\sigma$ for $f\in {\overline{k}}[t]$. Morphisms of Frobenius modules are defined to be left ${\overline{k}}[t,\sigma]$-module homomorphisms and we denote by ${\mathcal{F}}$ the category of Frobenius modules.
In what follows, an object $M$ in ${\mathcal{F}}$ is said to be defined by a matrix $\Phi\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\overline{k}}[t])$ if $M$ is free of rank $r$ over ${\overline{k}}[t]$ and the $\sigma$-action on a given ${\overline{k}}[t]$-basis of $M$ is represented by the matrix $\Phi$. We denote by ${\bf{1}}$ the [*[trivial]{}*]{} object in ${\mathcal{F}}$, where the underlying space of ${\bf{1}}$ is ${\overline{k}}[t]$ and on which $\sigma$ acts as $\sigma f=f^{(-1)}$ for $f\in {\bf{1}}$. We further denote by $C^{\otimes n}$ the $n$th tensor power of the Carlitz motive for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. The underlying space of $C^{\otimes n}$ is ${\overline{k}}[t]$, and on which $\sigma$ acts by $\sigma f:=(t-\theta)^{n} f^{(-1)}$ for $f\in C^{\otimes n}$.
By an [*[Anderson $t$-motive]{}*]{} we mean an object $M'\in {\mathcal{F}}$ that possesses the following properties.
1. $M'$ is also a free left ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$-module of finite rank.
2. $\sigma M'\subseteq (t-\theta)^{n}M'$ for all sufficiently large integers $n$.
Here we follow the terminology of Anderson $t$-motives in [@P08] (cf. [@A86; @ABP04]).
For a fixed Anderson $t$-motive $M'$ of rank $d$ over ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$, we are interested in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},M' \right)$, the set of equivalence classes of Frobenius modules $M$ fitting into a short exact sequence of Frobenius modules $$0\rightarrow M' \hookrightarrow M \twoheadrightarrow {\bf{1}}\rightarrow 0 ,$$ and we denote by $[M]$ the equivalence class of $M$ in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},M' \right)$. Since ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ is contained inside the center of ${\overline{k}}[t,\sigma]$, left multiplication by any element of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ on $M'$ is a morphism and hence $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},M' \right)$ has a natural ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module structure coming from Baer sum and pushout of morphisms of $M'$. The following is a review of the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module isomorphisms established by Anderson $$\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}({\bf{1}},M')\cong M'/(\sigma-1)M'\cong E'({\overline{k}}),$$where $$\label{E:E',rho}
E'=({\mathbb{G}}_{a}^{d},\rho)$$ is the $t$-module over ${\overline{k}}$ associated to $M'$ in the sense that the ${\overline{k}}$-valued points of $E'$ is isomorphic to $M'/(\sigma-1)M'$ as ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-vector spaces and the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module structure on $E'$ via $\rho$ is induced by the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-action on $M'/(\sigma-1)M'$. For a detailed description of the isomorphisms above, see [@CPY14 § 5.2]. We also refer the reader to [@S97; @PR03; @HP04; @Ta10; @BP; @CP12; @HJ16] for related discussions.
For example, let $n$ be a positive integer. Then the $n$th tensor power of Carlitz motive $C^{\otimes n}$ has a ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$-basis $\left\{ (t-\theta)^{n-1},\ldots,(t-\theta),1\right\}$ and every $f\in C^{\otimes n}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes n}$ has a unique representative polynomial (with degree $\leq n-1$) of the form $u_{1}(t-\theta)^{n-1}+\cdots+u_{n}\in {\overline{k}}[t]$. Then the maps above can be characterized as $$\label{E:Isom C otimes n}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}({\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n}) &\cong & C^{\otimes n}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes n} & \cong & {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}}) \\
\left[M_{f}\right] &\mapsto & f & \mapsto & (u_{1},\ldots,u_{n})^{{\mathrm{tr}}},\\
\end{array}$$ where $M_{f}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is defined by the matrix
$$\label{E:Phi f}
\Phi_{f}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{Mat}_{2}({\overline{k}}[t] ).$$
\[Rem:special point\] For $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we note that $H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}=H_{n-1}+(\sigma-1)H_{n-1}$ in $C^{\otimes n}$ and so $$H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}\equiv H_{n-1}\in C^{\otimes n}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes n}.$$ The special point ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}$ given in Theorem \[T:AT90\] is defined to be the image of $H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}$ under the isomorphism $C^{\otimes n}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes n}\cong {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$. For the details, see [@CPY14 p. 26].
Let $Z$ be an MZV of weight $w$. Following [@T04], we say that $Z$ is [*[Eulerian]{}*]{} if the ratio $Z/\tilde{\pi}^{w}$ is in $k$. In [@CPY14], an effective criterion for Eulerian MZV’s is established and we describe it as follows. Let $r$ be a positive integer and fix an $r$-tuple ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$. We define the matrix $\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r+1}({\overline{k}}[t])$, $$\label{E:Phi s}
\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} :=
\begin{pmatrix}
(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0 \\
H_{s_{1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & (t-\theta)^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 &H_{s_{2}-1}^{(-1)} (t-\theta)^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}} & \ddots& &\vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & (t-\theta)^{s_{r}} & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & H_{s_{r}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{r}} & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Define $ \Phi'_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\overline{k}}[t])$ to be the square matrix of size $r$ cut off from the upper left square of $\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$: $$\label{E:Phi s'}
\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}' :=
\begin{pmatrix}
(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & & \\
H_{s_{1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & (t-\theta)^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & H_{s_{r-1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{r-1}+s_{r}} & (t-\theta)^{s_{r}} \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Define $$\label{E:Psi}
\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\Omega^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & & & & \\
\Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{s_{1}} & \Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & & & \\
\Omega^{s_{3}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},s_{2})} &\Omega^{s_{3}+\cdots+s_{r}} {\mathcal{L}}_{s_{2}} & \ddots & & & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \Omega^{s_{r-1}+s_{r}} & & \\
\Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r-1})} & \Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r-1})} & & \Omega^{s_{r}} {\mathcal{L}}_{s_{r-1}}& \Omega^{s_{r}} & \\
{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})} & {\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})} & \cdots &{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{r-1},s_{r})} & {\mathcal{L}}_{s_{r}} & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\mathbb{T}})$$ and let
$$\label{E:Psi'}
\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}':=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\Omega^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & & & \\
\Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{s_{1}} & \Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}} & & & \\
\Omega^{s_{3}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},s_{2})} &\Omega^{s_{3}+\cdots+s_{r}} {\mathcal{L}}_{s_{2}} & \ddots & & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \Omega^{s_{r-1}+s_{r}} & \\
\Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r-1})} & \Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r-1})} & & \Omega^{s_{r}} {\mathcal{L}}_{s_{r-1}}& \Omega^{s_{r}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in \operatorname{GL}_{r}({\mathbb{T}})$$
be the square matrix cut off from the upper left square of $\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$. Then we have that $$\label{E:DiffPsiPsi'}
\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'^{(-1)}=\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}' \Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'\hbox{ and }\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}^{(-1)}=\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$$ (see [@AT09; @C14; @CPY14]).
We let $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ (resp. $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$) be the Frobenius module defined by the matrix $\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ (resp. $\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$). Then $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ represents a class in $ \operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}' \right)\cong M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'/(\sigma-1)M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'\cong E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'({\overline{k}})$ and we define ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'({\overline{k}})$ to be the image of $[M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]$ under the composition of the isomorphisms above. Note that it is shown in [@CPY14 Thm. 5.3.4] that actually $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ is defined over $A$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is an integral point in $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(A)$.
The criterion of Chang-Papanikolas-Yu for Eulerian MZV’s is as follows.
[[[@CPY14 Thms. 5.3.5 and 6.1.1]]{}]{}\[T:CPY-criterion\] For each $r$-tuple ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$, let $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ be defined as above. Then we explicitly construct a polynomial $a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ so that $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$ is Eulerian if and only if ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is an $a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$-torsion point in $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(A)$.
Step I: A necessary condition
=============================
The formulation
---------------
In this section, our main goal is to show the following necessary condition, which will be applied to compute the dimension of double zeta values.
\[T:NecCond\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an integer and for $i=1,\ldots,m$, let ${\mathfrak{s}}_{i}=(s_{i1},s_{i2})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}$ be chosen with $s_{i1}+s_{i2}=n$. Suppose that we have $$\label{E:c_i}
c_{0} \zeta_{A}(n)+ \sum_{i=1}^{m} c_{i}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{i})=0\hbox{ for some }c_{0},c_{1},\ldots,c_{m}\in k.$$ If the coefficient $c_{j}$ is nonzero for some $1\leq j\leq m$, then we have that $(q-1)|s_{j2}$. In other words, all $k$-linear relations among $\left\{\zeta_{A}(n), \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{1}),\ldots,\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{m})\right\}$ are those coming from the $k$-linear relations among $\left\{\zeta_{A}(n)\right\} \cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{j}); (q-1)|s_{j2} \right\}$.
Note that each double zeta value $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{i})$ is associated to the system of Frobenius difference equations $$\label{E:DiffPhi_i}
\Psi_{i}^{(-1)}=\Phi_{i} \Psi_{i},$$ where $$\Phi_{i}:=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 & 0 \\
H_{s_{i1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & (t-\theta)^{s_{i2}} & 0 \\
0 & H_{s_{i2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{i2}} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\Psi_{i}:=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\Omega^{n}&0&0 \\
\Omega^{s_{i2}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[i]}& \Omega^{s_{i2}}&0 \\
{\mathcal{L}}_{31}^{[i]}& {\mathcal{L}}_{32}^{[i]} &1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$Here for each $1\leq i\leq m$, $${\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[i]}:={\mathcal{L}}_{s_{i1}} =\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \left( \Omega^{s_{i1}} H_{s_{i1}-1} \right)^{(\ell)}\in {\mathbb{T}}$$ and $${\mathcal{L}}_{31}^{[i]}:={\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{i1},s_{i2})}:=\sum_{\ell_{1}>\ell_{2}\geq 0}\left( \Omega^{s_{i2}}H_{s_{i2}-1} \right)^{(\ell_{2})}\left(\Omega^{s_{i1}}H_{s_{i1}-1} \right)^{(\ell_{1})} \in {\mathbb{T}},$$which satisfy for any integer $N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, $$\label{E:formulaL21L31}
{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[i]}(\theta^{q^{N}})=\left(\zeta_{A}(s_{i1})/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\right)^{q^{N}} {\hbox{ and }} {\mathcal{L}}_{31}^{[i]}(\theta^{q^{N}})=\left(\zeta_{A}(s_{i1},s_{i2})/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\right)^{q^{N}}\hbox{ (see~Lemma~\ref{L:L theta qN})} .$$
Moreover, $\zeta_{A}(n)$ is associated to the system of Frobenius difference equations
$$\label{E:DiffZeta(n)}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\Omega^{n} \\
{\mathcal{L}}_{n} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{(-1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\Omega^{n} \\
{\mathcal{L}}_{n} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$
where $${\mathcal{L}}_{n}:=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\Omega^{n}H_{n-1} \right)^{(i)}\in {\mathbb{T}}$$ has the property that for $N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, $${\mathcal{L}}_{n}(\theta^{q^{N}})=\left(\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n)/\tilde{\pi}^{n} \right)^{q^{N}} {\hbox{(see~Lemma~\ref{L:L theta qN})}} .$$
To prove this theorem, without loss of generality we assume that each coefficient $c_{i}\neq 0$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Multiplying the equation (\[E:c\_i\]) by a suitable element in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[\theta]$, without loss of generality we may assume that $a_{i}:=\frac{c_{i}}{\Gamma_{s_{i1}}\Gamma_{s_{i2}}}|_{\theta=t}$ and $a_{0}:=\frac{c_{0}}{\Gamma_{n}}|_{\theta=t}$ are in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Note that $a_{1}\neq 0,\ldots,a_{m}\neq 0$. So we have that $$a_{0}(\theta)\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n)+ \sum_{i=1}^{m} a_{i}(\theta)\Gamma_{s_{i1}}\Gamma_{s_{i2}} \zeta({\mathfrak{s}}_{i})=0.$$ Define $$\Phi:=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & & & & \\
H_{s_{11}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & (t-\theta)^{s_{12}} & & & \\
\vdots & & \ddots & & \\
H_{s_{m1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & & & (t-\theta)^{s_{m2}} & \\
a_{0}H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & a_{1}H_{s_{12}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{12}} & \cdots & a_{m}H_{s_{m2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{m2}} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{Mat}_{m+2}({\overline{k}}[t])$$ and $$\psi:= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\Omega^{n} \\
\Omega^{s_{12}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[1]} \\
\vdots \\
\Omega^{s_{m2}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[m]} \\
a_{0}{\mathcal{L}}_{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_{i}{\mathcal{L}}_{31}^{[i]} \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{Mat}_{(m+2)\times 1}({\mathbb{T}})
.$$ Using (\[E:DiffPhi\_i\]) and (\[E:DiffZeta(n)\]) one has $\psi^{(-1)}=\Phi \psi$.
By hypothesis we have $$\left( a_{0}{\mathcal{L}}_{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_{i}{\mathcal{L}}_{31}^{[i]}\right) (\theta)= \frac{c_{0}\zeta_{A}(n)+\sum_{i=1}^{m}c_{i}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{i}) }{ \tilde{\pi}^{n} } =0.$$It follows from the ABP-criterion [@ABP04 Thm. 3.1.1] that there exists ${\bf{f}}=(f_{0},f_{1},\ldots,f_{m},f_{m+1})\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times (m+2)}({\overline{k}}[t])$ so that $${\bf{f}}\psi=0\hbox{ and }{\bf{f}}(\theta)=(0,\ldots,0,1) .$$ Put $\tilde{\bf{f}}:=\frac{1}{f_{m+1}}{\bf{f}}$ and note that $\tilde{\bf{f}}\psi=0$. We take the $(-1)$-fold Frobenius twist of the equation $\tilde{\bf{f}}\psi=0$ and then subtract it from itself, and then we have that $$(\tilde{\bf{f}}-\tilde{\bf{f}}^{(-1)}\Phi)\psi=0.$$ Note that the last coordinate of the vector $\tilde{\bf{f}}-\tilde{\bf{f}}^{(-1)}\Phi$ is zero. Define $$(R_{0},R_{1},\ldots,R_{m},0):=\tilde{\bf{f}}-\tilde{\bf{f}}^{(-1)}\Phi$$ and note that $$\label{E:Ri}
\begin{array}{rl}
R_{0}:= & \tilde{f_{0}}-\tilde{f_{0}}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}-\sum_{i=1}^{m}\tilde{f_{i}}^{(-1)} H_{s_{i1}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}-a_{0}H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}\\
R_{1}:= & \tilde{f_{1}}-\tilde{f_{1}}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{12}}-a_{1}H_{s_{12}}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{12}} \\
\vdots& \\
R_{m}:= & \tilde{f_{m}}-\tilde{f_{m}}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{m2}}-a_{m}H_{s_{m2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{m2}}, \\
\end{array}$$ where $(\tilde{f_{1}},\cdots,\tilde{f_{m}},0):=\tilde{\bf{f}}$. We claim that $R_{0}=R_{1}=\cdots=R_{m}=0$.
Assume this claim first. Put $$\gamma:= \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & & & & \\
& 1 & & & \\
& & \ddots & & \\
& & & 1 & \\
\tilde{f_{0}} & \tilde{f_{1}} &\ldots & \tilde{f_{m}} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and note that the claim above implies the following difference equations $$\gamma^{(-1)} \Phi=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
& 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\gamma
,$$ where $\Phi'$ is the square matrix of size $m+1$ cut off from the upper left square of $\Phi$.
By [@CPY14 Prop. 2.2.1] the rational functions $\tilde{f_{0}},\ldots,\tilde{f_{m}}$ have a (nonzero) common denominator $b\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ so that $b\tilde{f_{i}}\in {\overline{k}}[t]$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,m$. Since $b^{(-1)}=b$, multiplication by $b$ on the both sides of (\[E:Ri\]) shows that if we put $$\delta:= \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & & & & \\
& 1 & & & \\
& & \ddots & & \\
& & & 1 & \\
b \tilde{f_{0}} & b\tilde{f_{1}} &\ldots & b\tilde{f_{m}} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $\nu:=(ba_{0}H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n},ba_{1}H_{s_{12}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{12}},\ldots,ba_{m}H_{s_{m2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{m2}})\in \operatorname{Mat}_{(m+1)\times 1}({\overline{k}}[t])$, then we have
$$\label{E:delta nu}
\delta^{(-1)}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
\nu & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
& 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \delta.$$
Let $M'$ (resp. $M$) be the Frobenius module defined by $\Phi'$ (resp. $\Phi$) and note that $[M]\in \operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)$. One checks directly that $M'$ is an Anderson $t$-motive (cf. the proofs of [@P08 Prop. 6.1.3] and [@CY07 Lem. A.1]). So the action of $b$ on $M$ denoted by $b*M\in {\mathcal{F}}$, is defined by the matrix $$b*\Phi:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
\nu & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ (see [@CPY14 §§ 2.4]). So the system of difference equations (\[E:delta nu\]) implies that $b*M$ represents the trivial class in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)$. Furthermore, if we let $\left\{x_{0},x_{1},\ldots,x_{m}\right\}$ be a ${\overline{k}}[t]$-basis of $M'$ on which the action of $\sigma$ is represented by $\Phi'$, then we have the isomorphism of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-modules (see [@CPY14 Thm. 5.2.1]): $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right) & \cong & M'/(\sigma-1)M' \\
\left[ b*M \right] & \mapsto & \widetilde{b*M}:= ba_{0}H_{n-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}x_{0}+ \sum_{i=1}^{m}b a_{i}H_{s_{i2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{i2}}x_{i} +(\sigma-1)M' .\\
\end{array}$$
Note that $M'$ fits into the short exact sequence of Frobenius modules $$0\rightarrow C^{\otimes n}\rightarrow M' \twoheadrightarrow \oplus_{i=1}^{m} C^{\otimes s_{i2}}\rightarrow 0 ,$$ where the projection map $\pi: M' \twoheadrightarrow \oplus_{i=1}^{m} C^{\otimes s_{i2}}$ is given by $\pi:=\left( \sum_{i=0}^{m}g_{i}x_{i}\mapsto (g_{1},\ldots,g_{m}) \right)$. However, since the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear map $(\sigma-1):\oplus_{i=1}^{m} C^{\otimes s_{i2}}\rightarrow \oplus_{i=1}^{m} C^{\otimes s_{i2}} $ is injective, the snake lemma shows that we have the following short exact sequence of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-modules: $$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
0 &\rightarrow & C^{\otimes n}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes n} & \rightarrow & M'/(\sigma-1)M' & \twoheadrightarrow & \oplus_{i=1}^{m}\left( C^{\otimes s_{i2}}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes s_{i2}}\right) & \rightarrow & 0 .\\
& & & & \widetilde{b* M} &\mapsto & \left( ba_{i}H_{s_{i2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{i2}} \right)_{i} & & \\
\end{array}$$
For any $s\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we recall the identification $C^{\otimes s}/(\sigma-1)C^{\otimes s}\cong {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes s}({\overline{k}})$, which is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module isomorphism and under which $H_{s-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s}$ is mapped to the special point ${\mathbf{v}}_{s}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes s}(A)$ (by Remark \[Rem:special point\]), itself associated to $\zeta_{A}(s)$. It follows that $(ba_{i}H_{s_{i2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{i2}} )_{i}$ is mapped to $([ba_{i}]_{s_{i2}} {\mathbf{v}}_{s_{i2}} )_{i}\in \oplus_{i=1}^{m}{\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes s_{i2}}(A)$. Since $b*M$ represents the trivial class in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)$, $\widetilde{b*M}$ is also trivial in $M'/(\sigma-1)M'$ and hence $[ba_{i}]{\mathbf{v}}_{s_{i2}}={\bf{0}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes s_{i2}}(A)$ for each $1\leq i\leq m$. That is, each ${\mathbf{v}}_{s_{i2}}$ is $ba_{i}$-torsion as $ba_{i}$ is nonzero. It follows by Remark \[Rem:TorsionEven\] that $s_{i2}$ must be divisible by $q-1$ for each $1\leq i \leq m$.
To finish the proof, it suffices to prove the claim above. Since $s_{i1}+s_{i2}=n$ for each $1\leq i\leq m$, without loss of generality we may assume that $s_{12}>s_{22}>\cdots>s_{m2}$. From the equation $(\tilde{\bf{f}}-\tilde{\bf{f}}^{(-1)}\Phi)\psi=0$ we have that $$\label{E:RL}
R_{0}\Omega^{n}+R_{1}\Omega^{s_{12}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[1]}+\cdots+R_{m}\Omega^{s_{m2}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[m]}=0.$$ Dividing the equation above by $\Omega^{s_{m2}}$ one has $$\label{E:RL2}
R_{0}\Omega^{s_{m1}}+R_{1}\Omega^{s_{12}-s_{m2}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[1]}+\cdots+R_{m}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[m]}=0.$$ Note that $\Omega$ has simple zero at each $t=\theta^{q^{N}}$ for each $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Since each $R_{i}$ is a rational function having only finitely many poles, we can pick a sufficiently large integer $N$ so that $R_{i}$ is regular at $t=\theta^{q^{N}}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Specializing both sides of the equation (\[E:RL2\]) at $t=\theta^{q^{N}}$ and using the formula (\[E:formulaL21L31\]) show that $$R_{m}(\theta^{q^{N}})\left(\zeta_{A}(s_{m2})/\tilde{\pi}^{s_{m2}} \right)^{q^N}=0 .$$ Since each MZV is non-vanishing by [@T09a] and the equality above is valid for $N\gg 0$, $R_m$ has to be zero as it has only finitely many zeros.
We turn back to the equation (\[E:RL\]) and repeat the arguments above. We then eventually have $R_{m}=\cdots=R_{2}=0$ and so obtain $$R_{0}\Omega^{n}+R_{1}\Omega^{s_{12}}{\mathcal{L}}_{21}^{[1]}=0 .$$ Again, by dividing $\Omega^{s_{12}}$, the arguments above show that $R_{1}=0$ and hence $R_{0}=0$.
\[C:NecCondDepth2\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an integer and for $i=1,\ldots,m$, let ${\mathfrak{s}}_{i}=(s_{i1},s_{i2})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}$ be chosen with $s_{i1}+s_{i2}=n$. Suppose that we have $$c_{0} \tilde{\pi}^{n}+ \sum_{i=1}^{m} c_{i}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{i})=0\hbox{ for some }c_{0},c_{1},\ldots,c_{m}\in k.$$ If the coefficient $c_{j}$ is nonzero for some $1\leq j\leq m$, then we have that $(q-1)|s_{j2}$. In other words, all $k$-linear relations among $\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n}, \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{1}),\ldots,\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{m})\right\}$ are those coming from the $k$-linear relations among $\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n}\right\} \cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{j}); (q-1)|s_{j2} \right\}$.
If $n$ is $A$-even, then $\zeta_{A}(n)/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\in k$ by Carlitz [@Ca35]. So the result follows from Theorem \[T:NecCond\]. If $n$ is [*[$A$-odd]{}*]{} (ie., $n$ is not divisible by $q-1$), then $\tilde{\pi}^{n}\notin k_{\infty}$ and hence $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$ is $k$-linearly independent from all MZV’s as each MZV is in $k_{\infty}$. Therefore, we can put $c_{0}=0$ in Theorem \[T:NecCond\] and the desired result follows.
The result above shows that the set $\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n}\right\} \cup \left\{ \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}_{j}); (q-1)\nmid s_{j2} \right\}$ is linearly independent over $k$. It verifies the parity conjecture of Thakur [@T09b] in this depth two setting.
\[Rem:comparison\] For an even integer $n>2$, Gangl, Kaneko and Zagier [@GKZ06 Thms. 1 and 2] showed that $$\mathcal{O}:=(2\pi \sqrt{-1})^{n}\cup \left\{\zeta(3,n-3),\zeta(5,n-5),\ldots,\zeta(n-3,3) \right\}$$ is a set of generators for the vector space $\mathrm{DZ}_{n}$. Our point of view is that the set $\mathcal{O}$ is generated by $(2\pi\sqrt{-1})^{n}$ and weight $n$ double zeta values $\zeta(odd,odd)$, but excluding $\zeta(n-1,1)$ ($\zeta$ is not defined at $1$ and so the odd $1$ is special). Note that $\frac{n}{2}-1$ is the cardinality of $\mathcal{O}$ and hence Conjecture \[Conj1\] in the case of even $n> 2$ is equivalent to that there are $\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}S_{n}(SL_{2}({\mathbb{Z}}))$ independent ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear relations among the set $\mathcal{O}$.
When the given weight $n\geq 2$ is $A$-even, we consider the set $$\mathcal{O}_{A}:=\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n}\right\}\cup\left\{\zeta_{A}(s_{1},s_{2})|s_{1}+s_{2}=n\hbox{ and }(q-1)\nmid s_{2} \right\},$$ which is the analogue of the set $\mathcal{O}$ since each $\zeta_{A}(s_{1},s_{2})\in \mathcal{O}_{A}$ has the property that $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ are both $A$-odd. So it is not analogous to Conjecture \[Conj1\] as $\mathcal{O}_{A}$ is $k$-linearly independent by Corollary \[C:NecCondDepth2\].
Step II: Logarithmic Interpretation
===================================
The formulation
---------------
In this section, our goal is to establish the following result.
\[T1:LogMZV\] Let $r\geq 2$ be an integer and let ${\mathfrak{s}}:=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ with $n:=\sum_{i=1}^{r}s_{i}$. Put ${\mathfrak{s}}':=(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})$ and suppose that $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}')$ is Eulerian, ie., $\zeta_{A}(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})/\tilde{\pi}^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}\in k$. Let $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=a_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ be given in Theorem \[T:CPY-criterion\]. Then we explicitly construct an integral point $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ so that there exists a vector $Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{ n}$ of the form $$Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
* \\
\vdots \\
\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta)\Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r}) \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ satisfying $$\exp_{ n}(Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}})=\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}.$$
We divide the proof into the following steps.
Difference equations arising from algebraic points of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each positive integer $n$, we denote by $\log_{n}$ the logarithm of ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}$. We first recall the convergence domain $\mathbb{D}_{n}$ of $\log_{n}$ (see [@AT90 Prop. 2.4.3]):
$$\mathbb{D}_{n}:= \left\{ {\mathbf{z}}:=\left(z_1,\ldots,z_n \right)^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\mathbb{C}}_{\infty});\hbox{ } |z_{i}|_{\infty}< |\theta|_{\infty}^{i-n+\frac{nq}{q-1}}\hbox{ for }i=1,\ldots,n. \right\}$$ For a fixed nonzero point ${\mathbf{u}}=(u_{1},\ldots,u_{n})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})\cap \mathbb{D}_{n}$, we define the following polynomial associated to ${\mathbf{u}}$: $$\label{E:fu}
f:=f_{{\mathbf{u}}}:=u_{1}(t-\theta)^{n-1}+\cdots+u_{n-1}(t-\theta)+u_{n} \in {\overline{k}}[t] .$$ We let $M_{f}$ be the Frobenius module defined by the matrix $\Phi_{f}$ in and note that $[M_{f}]\in \operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n} \right)$.
Now we define the series $$\label{E:Lf}
{\mathcal{L}}_{f}:=f+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{f^{(i)} }{ (t-\theta^{q})^{n}\ldots(t-\theta^{q^{i}})^{n} } \in {{{\overline{k}}[\![ t ]\!]}} ,$$ and note that this kind of series was introduced by Papanikolas [@P08] and later on studied in [@CY07; @C14; @M14; @CPY14].
Let notation and assumptions be as above. Then there exists $\Psi_{f}\in \operatorname{GL}_{2}({\mathbb{T}})$ so that $\Psi_{f}^{(-1)}=\Phi_{f} \Psi_{f}$. So $M_{f}$ is a $t$-motive in the sense of [@P08].
Note that by the definition of ${\mathcal{L}}_{f}$ we have $${\mathcal{L}}_{f}^{(-1)}=f^{(-1)}+\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{f^{(i)}}{ (t-\theta)^{n}\cdots(t-\theta^{q^{i}})^{n}}=f^{(-1)}+\frac{{\mathcal{L}}_{f}}{(t-\theta)^{n}},$$ and hence $$\label{E:OmegaLf}
\left( \Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f} \right)^{(-1)}=f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} \Omega^{n} +\Omega^{n} {\mathcal{L}}_{f}.$$
It follows that if we put $$\label{Def:Psif}
\Psi_{f}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Omega^{n} & 0 \\
\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ then we have $$\Psi_{f}^{(-1)}=\Phi_{f}\Psi_{f}.$$
The hypotheses of ${\mathbf{u}}$ imply that $\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f}$ satisfies the condition of [@C14 Lemma 5.3.1], whence $\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f}$ is an entire function and therefore $M_{f}$ is a $t$-motive ( cf. [@P08 Prop. 6.1.3] and [@CY07 §§ 3.2]).
Some Lemmas
-----------
\[L:LogPeriod\] Let ${\mathbf{u}}$ be a nonzero point in ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})\cap\mathbb{D}_{n}$, and let $y$ be the last coordinate of $\log_{n}({\mathbf{u}})$. Let $f\in {\overline{k}}[t]$ be the polynomial associated to ${\mathbf{u}}$ given in (\[E:fu\]) and $\Psi_{f}$ be defined in . Then we have $$\Psi_{f}(\theta)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1/\tilde{\pi}^{n} & 0 \\
y/\tilde{\pi}^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
.$$
To prove Lemma \[L:LogPeriod\], we need the following formula due to Papanikolas.
[[(Papanikolas [@P14])]{}]{}\[T:CoeffPi\] We write $\log_{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}P_{i}\tau^{i}$, where $P_{0}=I_{n}$ and $P_{i}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{n}(k)$. For each positive integer $i$, the bottom row vector of $P_{i}$ is given by $$\left( \frac{(-1)^{n-1}(\theta^{q^{i}}-\theta)^{n-1} }{ L_{i}^{n}},\ldots, \frac{(-1)^{n-\ell}(\theta^{q^{i-\ell}}-\theta)^{n-\ell} }{ L_{i}^{n}} ,\ldots,\frac{1}{L_{i}^{n}} \right) .$$
[*[Proof of Lemma \[L:LogPeriod\]]{}*]{}. As we know that $\Omega^{n}(\theta)=1/\tilde{\pi}^{n}$, by (\[Def:Psif\]) it suffices to show that $${\mathcal{L}}_{f}(\theta)=y.$$ We interpret ${\mathcal{L}}_{f}$ as $${\mathcal{L}}_{f}= \left( u_{1}(t-\theta)^{n-1}+\cdots+u_{n-1}(t-\theta) +u_{n}\right) +\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{(t-\theta^{q^{i}})^{n-1}u_{1}^{q^{i}}+\cdots+(t-\theta^{q^{i}})u_{n-1}^{q^{i}}+u_{n}^{q^{i}} }{ (t-\theta^{q})^{n}\ldots(t-\theta^{q^{i}})^{n} } .$$ By specializing at $t=\theta$ we have $${\mathcal{L}}_{f}(\theta)=u_{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1} (\theta^{q^{i}}-\theta)^{n-1}u_{1}^{q^{i}}+\cdots+ (-1)(\theta^{q^{i}}-\theta)u_{n-1}^{q^{i}}+u_{n}^{q^{i}} }{ L_{i}^{n} } .$$ Hence by Proposition \[T:CoeffPi\] we obtain that $y={\mathcal{L}}_{f}(\theta)$.
\[L:DivisionPoint\] Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $\Xi\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$ be an algebraic point. Then there exists a positive integer $m$ and an algebraic point ${\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$ (depending on $m$) satisfying
1. $[t^{m}]_{n}( {\mathbf{u}})=\Xi$ (ie., ${\mathbf{u}}$ is a $t^{m}$-division point of $\Xi$),
2. $\log_{n}({\mathbf{u}})$ converges.
We recall that $\exp_{n}$ is an entire function on ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ and is of the form $\exp_{n}=I_{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}Q_{i}\tau^{i}$. By the inverse function theorem, there exists open subsets $U,V\subset {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ so that $\exp_{n}:U\rightarrow V$ is one to one and its inverse is also continuous. Note that as formal power series $\log_{n}$ is inverse to $\exp_{n}$ and so $\log_{n}$ is defined on $V$. Since $\exp_{n}$ is surjective, there exists a vector $X\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ for which $\exp_{n}\left( X\right)=\Xi$.
For each positive integer $m$, $\partial [t^{m}]_{n}$ is an upper triangular matrix with $\theta^{m}$ down to the diagonals, and the other nonzero entries off the diagonals have degrees in $\theta$ strictly less than $m$. It follows that if we define $\parallel \partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} \parallel$ to be the maximum of the absolute values of entries of $\partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} $, then we have $$\parallel \partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} \parallel< |\theta|_{\infty}^{-m} .$$ Hence, we can pick a sufficiently large integer $m$ for which $$\partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} \left( X\right)\in U .$$ Put ${\mathbf{u}}:=\exp_{n}\left( \partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} \left( X\right) \right)\in V$, at which $\log_{n}$ converges. By the functional equation of $\exp_{n}$, we observe that $$[t^{m}]_{n}\left( {\mathbf{u}}\right)=[t^{m}]_{n}\left( \exp_{n}\left( \partial[t^{m}]_{n}^{-1} \left( X\right) \right) \right)=\exp_{n}\left(X \right)=\Xi .$$
Proof of Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]
------------------------------
Put $n:=s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}$ and ${\mathfrak{s}}':=(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r-1}$. We let $(E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}',{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}},a_{{\mathfrak{s}}})$ (resp. $(E_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}',{\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}'},a_{{\mathfrak{s}}'})$) be given in Theorem \[T:CPY-criterion\] corresponding to ${\mathfrak{s}}$ (resp. ${\mathfrak{s}}'$). Note that in this setting we have the following exact sequence of $t$-modules defined over $A$: $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r] & {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(\bar{k}) \ar[r] & E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(\bar{k}) \ar@{->>}[r]^{\pi} & E_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}'(\bar{k}) \ar[r] & 0,
}$$ and note that the projection $\pi$ maps ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ to ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}$ (see the proof [@CPY14 Thm. 6.1.1]).
To simplify the notation, we drop the subscript and put $\alpha:=\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=a_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}$. Since by hypothesis $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}')$ is Eulerian, Theorem \[T:CPY-criterion\] shows that ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}$ is an $\alpha$-torsion point in $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}'}'$. It follows that $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\rho_{\alpha} ({\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})\in \operatorname{Ker}\pi$, and so we identify $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ as a point in ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$. Recall that $\rho$ is the map defining the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module structure on $E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ (see (\[E:E’,rho\])).
We write $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}=(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ and let $g$ be the polynomial in $A[t]$ associated to $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ in (\[E:fu\]). By Lemma \[L:DivisionPoint\] there exists a positive integer $m$ and ${\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$ (depending on $m$) so that $[t^{m}]_{n}( {\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})=\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ and $\log_{n}({\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})$ converges. We write ${\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}=(u_{1},\ldots,u_{n})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$ and let $f$ be the polynomial in ${\overline{k}}[t]$ associated to ${\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ in (\[E:fu\]).
We recall the isomorphism $\Delta_{n}:\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n} \right)\cong {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}})$ and note that $\Delta_{n}$ maps $[M_{f}]$ (resp. $[M_{g}]$) to ${\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ (resp. $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$) by , where $M_{f}$ (resp. $M_{g}$) is Frobenius module defined by the matrix $$\Phi_{f}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
{\rm{(}}\hbox{ resp. } \Phi_{g}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
g^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) {\rm{)}}.$$
Note that $$\Delta_{n}\left( [t^{m}*M_{f}] \right)=[t^{m}]_{n}\left(\Delta_{n}( [M_{f}])\right)=[t^{m}]_{n}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right)=\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} ,$$ where $t^{m}*M_{f}$ is the Frobenius module defined by $$t^{m}* \Phi_{f}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
t^{m}f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ (see [@CPY14 §§ 2.4]). It follows that $\Phi_{g}$ and $t^{m}*\Phi_{f}$ define the same class of Frobenius modules in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left( {\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n} \right)$ since the classes of their defining Frobenius modules are mapped to same point $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ under $\Delta_{n}$. In other words, there exists a polynomial $h\in {\overline{k}}[t]$ satisfying the following Frobenius difference equations $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
h & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{(-1)} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
g^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
t^{m}f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
h & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
,$$ from which we derive the following identity $$\label{E:DiffE g tmg}
\begin{array}{rl}
& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & \\
h^{(-1)},0,\ldots,0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
g^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n},0,\ldots, 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
= & \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
t^{m} f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n},0,\ldots, 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & \\
h,0,\ldots,0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), \\
\end{array}$$ where $\Phi':=\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ is given in (\[E:Phi s’\]).
We define the following two matrices $$\widetilde{\Phi}_{g}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
g^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n},0,\ldots, 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\hbox{ and }\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
t^{m} f^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n},0,\ldots, 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Let $\Psi':= \Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'\in \operatorname{GL}_{r}({\mathbb{T}})$ (resp. $\Psi:= \Psi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\mathbb{T}})$) be given in (\[E:Psi’\]) (resp. (\[E:Psi\])) and note that $\Psi$ is of the form $$\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Psi' & \\
\mu & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
,$$ where $$\mu=\left({\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})},\ldots,{\mathcal{L}}_{s_{r}} \right) .$$ We further put $$\widetilde{\Psi}_{t^{m}f}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Psi' & \\
t^{m}\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f},0,\ldots, 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and note that using (\[E:DiffPsiPsi’\]) we have $$\widetilde{\Psi}_{t^{m}f}^{(-1)}= \widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f} \widetilde{\Psi}_{t^{m}f} .$$
[**[Claim]{}**]{}: There exists a matrix $\nu$ of the form $$\nu=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & \\
\nu_{1},\ldots,\nu_{r} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\overline{k}}[t])$$ so that $$\nu^{(-1)} \left( \alpha *\Phi \right)=\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}\cdot \nu ,$$ where $$\Phi:=\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
\varphi & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\hbox{ given in }\eqref{E:Phi s},$$ and $$\alpha*\Phi:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & \\
\alpha \varphi & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
.$$
We first assume the claim above to finish the proof. Define $$\alpha*\Psi:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Psi' & \\
\alpha \mu & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{GL}_{m+1}({\mathbb{T}}).$$ Since $\alpha\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, using (\[E:DiffPsiPsi’\]) we have $$\left( \alpha*\Psi\right)^{(-1)}= \alpha*\Phi \cdot \alpha*\Psi .$$ Note that the claim above implies $$\left( \nu \cdot \alpha*\Psi \right)^{(-1)} =\nu^{(-1)}\cdot \alpha*\Phi \cdot \alpha*\Psi=\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}\left( \nu\cdot \alpha*\Psi \right).$$ In other words, $\nu\cdot \alpha*\Psi $ is also a [*[fundamental matrix]{}*]{} for $\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}$ in the sense of [@P08 §§ 4.1.6] and hence by [@P08 § 4.1.6] that there exists a matrix $\gamma\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\mathbb{F}}_{q}(t))$ of the form $$\gamma=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & \\
\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{r} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ so that $$\nu \cdot \alpha*\Psi=\widetilde{\Psi}_{t^{m}f}\cdot \gamma .$$ By comparing with the $(r+1,1)$-entries of both sides of the equation above we obtain the following identity $$\label{E:Key Identity}
\nu_{1}\Omega^{n}+\nu_{2}\Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{s_{1}}+\cdots+\nu_{r}\Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r-1})}+\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}=t^{m} \Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f}+\gamma_{1}.$$ By Lemma \[L:L theta qN\] we have that for each $N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}(\theta^{q^{N}})={\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})}(\theta)^{q^{N}}=\left( \Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})/ \tilde{\pi}^{n} \right)^{q^{N}} ,$$ and by Lemma \[L:LogPeriod\] and [@CPY14 Prop. 2.3.3] we have that for each $N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, $$\left(\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f}\right)(\theta^{q^{N}})= \left(\Omega^{n}{\mathcal{L}}_{f}\right)(\theta)^{q^{N}}=\left( y/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\right)^{q^{N}} ,$$ where $y$ is the last coordinate of $\log_{n}({\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})$ as $f$ is the polynomial associated to ${\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$. We mention that $\gamma_{1}$ must be in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ since all other terms of are in the Tate algebra ${\mathbb{T}}$. Note that $\Omega$ has a simple zero at $t=\theta^{q^{N}}$ for each $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and hence by Lemma \[L:L theta qN\] $$\Omega^{s_{2}+\cdots+s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1})} (\theta^{q^{N}})=\cdots=\Omega^{s_{r}}{\mathcal{L}}_{(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r-1})} (\theta^{q^{N}})=0 .$$ It follows that specializing (\[E:Key Identity\]) at $t=\theta^{q^{N}}$ for a positive integer $N$ and taking the $q^{N}$-th root we obtain the following identity $$\alpha(\theta)\Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})=\theta^{m}y+\gamma_{1}(\theta)\tilde{\pi}^{n} .$$ Now we put $$Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\partial[t^{m}]_{n}\cdot \log_{n}({\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})+\partial[\gamma_{1}]_{n} \lambda_{n}$$ and note that the last coordinate of $Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is $ \theta^{m}y+\gamma_{1}(\theta)\tilde{\pi}^{n}=\alpha(\theta)\Gamma_{s_{1}}\cdots\Gamma_{s_{r}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$. Since $\partial[\gamma_{1}]_{n} \lambda_{n}\in \Lambda_{n}$, by the functional equation of $\exp_{n}$ we see that $\exp_{n}(Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}})=[t^{m}]_{n}\left( {\mathbf{u}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right) =\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$, whence completing the proof of Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\].
The rest task is to prove the claim above. We recall that $M'$ is the Frobenius module defined by the matrix $\Phi'$ with respect to a ${\overline{k}}[t]$-basis $\left\{ m_{1},\ldots,m_{r}\right\}$ of $M'$, and we have the following isomorphism as ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-modules $$\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)\cong E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'({\overline{k}})$$ and note that $[M]$ is mapped to ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$. Hence $[\alpha* M]$ is mapped to $$\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\rho_{\alpha}( {\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)\hookrightarrow E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(A).$$
We note that $M'$ is a free left ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$-module with a natural ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$-basis: $$\label{E:basis}
\left\{(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}-1}m_{1},\cdots,(t-\theta)m_{1},m_{1},\ldots,(t-\theta)^{s_{r}-1}m_{r},\ldots,(t-\theta)m_{r},m_{r} \right\}$$ (see [@CPY14 Proof of Thm. 5.2.1]). We recall that $g\in A[t]$ is the polynomial associated to $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ and hence via the isomorphism $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)\cong E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'({\overline{k}})$, the class of the Frobenius module defined by the matrix $\widetilde{\Phi}_{g}$ is mapped to $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)\hookrightarrow E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(A)$ via the basis $(\ref{E:basis})$ (see [@CPY14 (5.2.2)]). In other words, the two matrices $\widetilde{\Phi}_{g}$ and $$\alpha* \Phi=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi' & {\bf{0}} \\
0,\ldots,\alpha H_{s_{r}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{r}} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ define the same class of Frobenius modules in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},M' \right)$. Therefore there exists a matrix $$\delta=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & \\
\delta_{1},\ldots,\delta_{r} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\overline{k}}[t])$$ so that $$\label{E:DiffE delta Phig}
\delta^{(-1)} \cdot \alpha*\Phi=\widetilde{\Phi}_{g}\cdot \delta .$$
Put $$\eta:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{r} & {\bf{0}} \\
h,0,\ldots,0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\overline{k}}[t])$$ and note that by (\[E:DiffE g tmg\]) we have $\eta^{(-1)}\cdot \widetilde{\Phi}_{g}=\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}\cdot \eta$. Putting $\nu:=\eta \delta\in \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}({\overline{k}}[t])$ and using (\[E:DiffE delta Phig\]) and (\[E:DiffE g tmg\]) we have the desired identity $$\nu^{(-1)}\cdot \alpha*\Phi= \eta^{(-1)}\delta^{(-1)} \cdot \alpha*\Phi =\eta^{(-1)}\cdot \widetilde{\Phi}_{g}\cdot \delta= \widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f}\cdot \eta \delta =\widetilde{\Phi}_{t^{m}f} \cdot \nu.$$ From the explicit forms of $\delta$ and $\eta$ we see that $\nu$ has the desired form, whence proving the claim above.
Step III: The Identity
======================
The dimension formula
---------------------
In this section, we will give a proof of Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (1). Combining Theorems \[T1:LogMZV\] and \[T:Yu’s thm\], we first prove the following.
\[T:DimHigherDepth\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an integer and let ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ be the special point given in Theorem \[T:AT90\]. For ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}$ with $r\geq 2$, we denote by ${\mathfrak{s}}':=(s_{2},\ldots,s_{r})$. Put $$\mathcal{E}_{n}:=\left\{{\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{r}; r\geq 2, \operatorname{wt}({\mathfrak{s}})=n \hbox{ and }\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}')\hbox{ is Eulerian} \right\}.$$ For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}$, let $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$ be given in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]. Then we have $$\dim_{k}{\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}(n),\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}\right\} = 1+{\mathrm{rank}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{{\mathbf{v}}_{n}\right\}\cup_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\left\{ \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\} .$$
To prove the theorem, it suffices to prove the following equivalent statements: $$\begin{array}{rl}
& \left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}(n), \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\}{\hbox{ are linearly dependent over }}k \\
& \\
\Leftrightarrow & \left\{ {\mathbf{v}}_{n}\right\}\cup_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}} \left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\} {\hbox{ are linearly dependent over }}{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]. \\
\end{array}$$
Proof of ($\Rightarrow$). Suppose that there exist polynomials (not all zero) $\left\{\eta \right\}\cup \left\{\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}} \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ for which $$[\eta]_{n}({\mathbf{v}}_{n})+ \sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} \left( \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right)={\bf{0}}.$$ By Theorem \[T:AT90\], there exists a vector $Y_{n}$ of the form $$Y_{n}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
* \\
\vdots \\
\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n) \\
\end{array}
\right)\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$$ for which $\exp_{n}(Y_{n})={\mathbf{v}}_{n}$. For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}$, by Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\] there exists vectors $Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ satisfying the property in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]. We define the vector $$Y:=\partial[\eta]_{n}Y_{n}+ \sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in\mathcal{E}_{n}}\partial[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$$ and note that $$\exp_{n}(Y)=[\eta]_{n}\left(\exp_{n}(Y_{n})\right) + \sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n}\left( \exp_{n}(Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}})\right)=[\eta]_{n}({\mathbf{v}}_{n}) +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}} [\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n}\left( \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right)={\bf{0}},$$ whence $$Y\in \operatorname{Ker}\exp_{n}=\partial[{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]]_{n} \lambda_{n} .$$ Note that the last coordinate of $\lambda_{n}$ is $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$ and that for each $a\in{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, $\partial[a]_{n}$ is an upper triangular matrix with $a(\theta)$ down the diagonals. Taking the last coordinates from both sides of the equality above gives the desired result.
Proof of ($\Leftarrow$). We suppose that there exist polynomials $\left\{ \delta_{0},\delta, \delta_{{\mathfrak{s}}};{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\}\in A$ (not all zero) so that $$\delta_{0}\tilde{\pi}^{n}+\delta \zeta_{A}(n) +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\delta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}) =0,$$ which can be also written as $$\delta_{0}\tilde{\pi}^{n} + \frac{\delta}{\Gamma_{n}}\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n) +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}} \frac{\delta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}}{\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta)\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}} }\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta)\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}) =0 ,$$ where $\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=\Gamma_{s_{1}}\ldots\Gamma_{s_{r}}$ for ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},\ldots,s_{r})$ and $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ is given in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]. Multiplying a common denominator of the coefficients of the equation above shows that there exist polynomials $\left\{\eta_{0},\eta, \zeta_{{\mathfrak{s}}};{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\}\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ (not all zero) so that $$\eta_{0}(\theta)\tilde{\pi}^{n}+\eta(\theta)\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n) +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta) \alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})=0 .$$ For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}$, let $Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{n}$ be given in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\] and note that its last coordinate is $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta)\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$. So the last coordinate of $$Y:= \partial[\eta_{0}]_{n}\lambda_{n}+\partial[\eta]_{n}Y_{n} +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\partial[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$$ is zero by the equation above. Since $$\exp_{n}(Y)=\exp_{n}\left( \partial[\eta_{0}]_{n}\lambda_{n}+\partial[\eta]_{n}Y_{n} +\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\partial[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} Y_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right)=[\eta]_{n}\left({\mathbf{v}}_{n} \right)+ \sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} \left(\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right)\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A),$$ Theorem \[T:Yu’s thm\] implies that $Y$ has to be zero, and hence $$[\eta]_{n}\left({\mathbf{v}}_{n} \right)+ \sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} \left(\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right)={\bf{0}} .$$
For a positive integer $n$, we recall that $\zeta_{A}(n)/\tilde{\pi}^{n}\in k$ for $A$-even $n$ by [@Ca35] and in which case ${\mathbf{v}}_{n}$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-torsion point by Remark \[Rem:TorsionEven\]. When $n$ is $A$-odd, we have $\tilde{\pi}^{n}\notin k_{\infty}$ and so $\tilde{\pi}^{n}$ is $k$-linearly independent from MZV’s, whence from the proof above we derive that $$[\eta]_{n}({\mathbf{v}}_{n})+\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}[\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{n} (\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}})={\bf{0}}$$ if and only if $$\eta(\theta)\Gamma_{n}\zeta_{A}(n)+\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(\theta)\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})=0$$ for $\left\{\eta\right\}\cup_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}}\left\{\eta_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t] $.
By this remark, we immediately obtain the following two consequences.
\[C:DimHigherDepth\] For an integer $n \geq2$, we continue with the notation in Theorem \[T:DimHigherDepth\]. Then we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
&
\dim_{k} {\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{\zeta_{A}(n),\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n}\right\} \\
& \\
= & \begin{cases}
& 1+{\mathrm{rank}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{ \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}; {\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\} \hbox{ if }n\hbox{ is }A\hbox{-even}, \\
&{\mathrm{rank}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{{\mathbf{v}}_{n}, \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}; {\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{E}_{n} \right\} \hbox{ if }n\hbox{ is }A\hbox{-odd}. \\
\end{cases} \\
\end{array}$$
\[T:DimZetaEven\] Let $n\geq 2$ be a positive integer. Put $$\mathcal{V}:=\left\{ (s_{1},s_{2})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}; s_{1}+s_{2}=n\hbox{ and }(q-1)|s_{2} \right\} .$$ For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}$, let $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ be given in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]. Then we have $$\dim_{k}{\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V} \right\} = 1+{\mathrm{rank}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}{\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}} .$$
Proof of Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (1)
----------------------------------------------
Here we give a proof for part (1) of Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\], which is addressed as the following result.
\[C:ReMainThm1\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an integer. Put $$\mathcal{S}:=\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}(1,n-1),\zeta_{A}(2,n-2),\ldots,\zeta_{A}(n-1,1) \right\} ,$$ and $$\mathcal{V}:=\left\{ (s_{1},s_{2})\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}; s_{1}+s_{2}=n\hbox{ and }(q-1)|s_{2} \right\} .$$ For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}$, let $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ be given in Theorem \[T1:LogMZV\]. Then we have $$\dim_{k} {\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\mathcal{S} =n- \lfloor \frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor+\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}} .$$
Note that we have the following equalities $$\begin{array}{rl}
\dim_{k} {\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\mathcal{S} = & |\mathcal{S}\backslash \left\{\tilde{\pi}^{n}, \zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}}); {\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V} \right\}| +\dim_{k} {\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}});{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V} \right\} \\
= & \left(n-1-\lfloor \frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor \right)+\left(1+\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}} \right) \\
= &n- \lfloor \frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor+\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}, \\
\end{array}$$where the first equality comes from Corollary \[C:NecCondDepth2\], and the second equality comes from Corollary \[T:DimZetaEven\].
Recently, some algebraic independence results of certain MZV’s are obtained by Mishiba [@M14], but the coordinates of those MZV’s are restricted to be $A$-odd with other hypotheses. Concerning this issue, we refer the reader to [@M14].
Step IV: A Siegel’s Lemma
=========================
The main result
---------------
The primary result in this section is the following theorem, which implies Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (2) and so allows us to compute the exact quantity in Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\] (1).
\[T:Siegel\] Let $n$ be a positive integer and ${\mathbf{v}}_{1},\ldots,{\mathbf{v}}_{m}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$. Then we have an effective algorithm to compute the following rank $$r_{m}:={\mathrm{rank}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]} {\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{ {\mathbf{v}}_{1},\ldots,{\mathbf{v}}_{m} \right\} .$$
We let ${\mathbf{v}}_{i}:=(v_{i1},\ldots,v_{in})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$, and let $f_{i}:=v_{i1}(t-\theta)^{n-1}+\cdots+v_{in}\in A[t]$ be its associated polynomial. Note that the class $[M_{i}]\in \operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n}\right)\cong {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}({\overline{k}}) $ is mapped to ${\mathbf{v}}_{i}$, where $M_{i}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is defined by the matrix $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
f_{i}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
.$$
Fix $m$ polynomials $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ and put $F:=\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_{i}f_{i}$. Then the class $[M_{F}]\in \operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},C^{\otimes n} \right)$ is mapped to the integral point $\sum_{i=1}^{m}[a_{i}]_{n}{\mathbf{v}}_{i}$ (see [@CPY14 §§ 2.4]), where $M_{F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is defined by the matrix $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
F^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
.$$ It follows that $\sum_{i=1}^{m}[a_{i}]_{n}{\mathbf{v}}_{i}={\bf{0}}$ if and only if $M_{F}$ presents the trivial class in $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{1}\left({\bf{1}},{\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n} \right)$. Therefore, we have the following equivalence:
1. $\sum_{i=1}^{m}[a_{i}]_{n}{\mathbf{v}}_{i}={\bf{0}}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$.
2. there exists a polynomial $\delta\in {\overline{k}}[t]$ for which $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\delta & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{(-1)}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
F^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(t-\theta)^{n} & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\delta & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{E:deltaF}
\delta^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}+F^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{n}=\delta.$$
$\underline{\bf{Step~I}}$. Assume that there exist $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ for which $\sum_{i=1}^{m}[a_{i}]_{n}{\mathbf{v}}_{i}={\bf{0}}$, ie., the equation (\[E:deltaF\]) holds. Then the $\delta$ in (\[E:deltaF\]) must be in $A[t]$.
$\underline{\hbox{Proof of Step~I}}$. Note that the equation (\[E:deltaF\]) is equivalent to $\delta (t-\theta^{q})^{n}+F (t-\theta^{q})^{n}=\delta^{(1)}$. Then the result follows from H.-J. Chen’s formulation in the proof of [@KL15 Thm. 2 (a)].
For a polynomial $h=\sum_{i}u_{i}t^{i}\in A[t]$, we define its sup-norm by $\parallel h\parallel:=\max_{i}\left\{|u_{i}|_{\infty} \right\}$. Note that for $h_{1},h_{2}\in A[t]$ we have:
1. $\parallel h_{1}h_{2}\parallel=\parallel h_{1}\parallel \cdot \parallel h_{2}\parallel$.
2. $\parallel h_{1}+h_{2}\parallel \leq \max \left\{\parallel h_{1}\parallel, \parallel h_{2}\parallel\right\} $.
For each ${\mathbf{v}}_{i}$, we define $\parallel {\mathbf{v}}_{i}\parallel:={\rm{max}}_{1\leq j\leq n}\left\{ |v_{ij}|_{\infty} \right\}$, and note that $$\parallel f_{i}\parallel\leq \parallel{\mathbf{v}}_{i}\parallel \cdot |\theta|_{\infty}^{n-1} .$$ Put $$D:={\rm{max}}_{1\leq i \leq m}\left\{ \parallel{\mathbf{v}}_{i}\parallel\right\}\cdot |\theta|_{\infty}^{n-1}$$ and so $$\parallel F\parallel\leq D .$$
$\underline{\bf{Step~II}}$. Let hypotheses be given as in [**[Step I]{}**]{}. Define $$\ell:={\rm{max}}\left\{ \log_{|\theta|_{\infty}}D+1,\frac{nq}{q-1}+1 \right\} .$$ Then $\deg_{\theta}\delta< \ell$ when we regard $\delta$ as a polynomial in the variable ${\theta}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$.
$\underline{\hbox{Proof of Step~II}}$. Suppose on the contrary that $\deg_{\theta}\delta \geq \ell$, ie., $\parallel \delta\parallel\geq |\theta|_{\infty}^{\ell}$. Note that by the definition of $\ell$ we have $$\label{E:equa1}
\parallel F(t-\theta^{q})^{n}\parallel< |\theta|_{\infty}^{\ell}\cdot |\theta|_{\infty}^{qn}\leq \parallel \delta (t-\theta^{q})^{n}\parallel.$$ Therefore, and the equality $$\delta (t-\theta^{q})^{n}+F(t-\theta^{q})^{n}=\delta^{(1)}$$ imply that $$\parallel \delta(t-\theta^{q})^{n} \parallel =\parallel \delta^{(1)}\parallel .$$ In other words, we have that $$\deg_{\theta} \delta+ nq= q \deg_{\theta}\delta,$$ whence $$\deg_{\theta}\delta=\frac{nq}{q-1}<\ell,$$ a contradiction.
$\underline{\hbox{\bf{Step~III: End of proof}}}$. Now we write $$\label{E:formdeltaF}
\delta:=c_{1}\theta^{\ell-1}+\cdots+c_{\ell}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t][\theta] \hbox{ and }F=d_{1}\theta^{\ell-1}+\cdots+d_{\ell}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t][\theta]$$ and note that the coefficients $d_{1},\ldots,d_{\ell}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear combinations of $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$. We recall that solving $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$ in the equation $$\sum_{i=1}^{m} [a_{i}]_{n}({\mathbf{v}}_{i})={\bf{0}}$$ is equivalent to solving for $\delta$ and $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$ satisfying $$\delta(t-\theta^{q})^{n}+F(t-\theta^{q})^{n} =\delta^{(1)} .$$ However, putting the forms of $\delta$ and $F$ (\[E:formdeltaF\]) into the equation above and comparing the coefficients of each $\theta^{i}$ for $i=0,\ldots,\ell-1$ we obtain a system of linear equations in $c_{1},\ldots,c_{\ell},a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$. Using Gauss elimination we can solve for solutions $c_{1},\ldots,c_{\ell},a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$ effectively, and particularly obtain the rank of the solutions $a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}$, whence establishing the desired result.
We mention that in [@De91; @De92] Denis studied the question of Siegel’s lemma type for $t$-modules. For integral points ${\mathbf{v}}_{1},\ldots,{\mathbf{v}}_{m}\in {\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)$, Denis showed that there exists a constant $c$ (depending on $n$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{1},\ldots,{\mathbf{v}}_{m}$) so that the degrees of the coefficients of any ${\mathbb{F}}_q[t]$-linear relations among ${\mathbf{v}}_{1},\ldots,{\mathbf{v}}_{m}$ can be bounded by $c$. However, the value of $c$ is not explicit in Denis’ results, and our approach is entirely different from his.
The algorithm {#sec:algorithm}
-------------
For weight $n\geq 2$, we provide the following algorithm to compute the dimension $$d_{n}:=\dim_{k} {\mathrm{Span}}_{k}\left\{ \tilde{\pi}^{n},\zeta_{A}(1,n-1),\zeta_{A}(2,n-2),\ldots,\zeta_{A}(n-1,1) \right\} .$$ Let $\mathcal{V}$ be given in Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\]. The algorithm is basically divided into two parts (most of the first part was given in [@CPY14 § 6.1.1]).
\(I) $\underline{\hbox{\bf{Computing the integral points }}\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}}$: Fix an ${\mathfrak{s}}=(s_{1},s_{2})\in \mathcal{V}$.
1. Compute the Anderson-Thakur polynomials $H_{s_{1}-1},H_{s_{2}-1}$.
2. Let $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ be the Frobenius module defined by $\Phi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ as in (\[E:Phi s’\]) with ${\overline{k}}[t]$-basis $\left\{ m_{1},m_{2} \right\}$. Put $d=(s_{1}+s_{2})+s_{2}$ and let $\left\{\nu_{1},\ldots,\nu_{d} \right\}$ be the ${\overline{k}}[\sigma]$-basis of $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ given by $$(t-\theta)^{s_{1}+s_{2}-1}m_{1},\dots,(t-\theta)m_{1},m_{1},(t-\theta)^{s_{2}-1}m_{2},\ldots,(t-\theta)m_{2},m_{2} .$$ Identify $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'/(\sigma-1)M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$ with $\operatorname{Mat}_{d\times 1}({\overline{k}})$ via $\nu_{1},\ldots,\nu_{d}$ in [@CPY14 (5.2.2)].
3. Write down the $t$-action on $M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'/(\sigma-1)M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$, and so give a $t$-module structure on $\operatorname{Mat}_{d\times 1}({\overline{k}})$, which we denote by $(E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}',\rho)$.
4. Consider $H_{s_{2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{2}}m_{2}\in M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'/(\sigma-1)M_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'$, which corresponds to an integral point ${\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}}=(a_{1},\ldots,a_{d})^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in E'(A)$ from the decomposition $H_{s_{2}-1}^{(-1)}(t-\theta)^{s_{2}}m_{r}\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{d} a_{i} \nu_{i}$ (mod $\sigma-1$). See [@CPY14 §§ 5.2].
5. Decompose $s_{2} = p^{\ell} n_1\left(q^h-1\right)$ where $p\nmid n_1$ and $h$ is the greatest integer such that $(q^h-1) \mid s_{2}$. Define the polynomial $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:=(t^{q^{h}}-t)^{p^{\ell}}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, and then compute $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}:= \rho_{\alpha_{{\mathfrak{s}}}}({\mathbf{v}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}})$, which is identified in ${\mathbf{C}}^{\otimes n}(A)\hookrightarrow E_{{\mathfrak{s}}}'(A)$.
\(II) $\underline{\hbox{\bf{Computing the dimension }}d_{n}}$:
1. For each ${\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}$, define $\parallel \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\parallel$ to the maximum of the absolute values of components of $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ and put $D:={\rm{max}}\left\{ \parallel \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\parallel; {\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V} \right\} \cdot |\theta|_{\infty}^{n-1}$. Compute
$$\ell:={\rm{max}}\left\{\log_{|\theta|_{\infty}}D +1,\frac{nq}{q-1}+1 \right\} .$$
2. Let $f_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\in A[t]$ be the polynomial associated to $\Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ given in (\[E:fu\]). Let $\left\{ a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ be [*[parameters]{}*]{}, and put $F:=\sum_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}f_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$.
3. Let $c_{1},\ldots,c_{\ell}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$ be [*[parameters]{}*]{} and put $\delta:=c_{1}\theta^{\ell-1}+\cdots+c_{\ell}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t][\theta]$. Write $ F=d_{1}\theta^{\ell-1}+\cdots+d_{\ell}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t][\theta] $ and note that the coefficients $d_{1},\ldots,d_{\ell}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear combinations of $\left\{a_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in\mathcal{V}}$.
4. Comparing the coefficients of $\theta^{i}$ from the equation $\delta (t-\theta^{q})^{n}+F(t-\theta^{q})^{n}=\delta^{(1)}$, we obtain a system of linear equations in $c_{1},\ldots,c_{\ell}$ and $\left\{ a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$. Using Gaussian elimination we solve for solutions $c_{1},\ldots,c_{\ell}$ and $\left\{ a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}$, and particularly solve for rank $\tilde{r}_{n}$ of the solutions $[a_{{\mathfrak{s}}}]_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}$, which is the number of independent ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-linear relations among $\left\{ \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}} \right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}}$.
5. Compute $r_{n}:=\lfloor\frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor - \tilde{r}_{n}$, which is the rank of the ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$-module $${\mathrm{Span}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]}\left\{ \Xi_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\right\}_{{\mathfrak{s}}\in \mathcal{V}} .$$ Compute $d_{n}:=n- \lfloor\frac{n-1}{q-1} \rfloor +r_{n}$, which is the exact dimension we want by Theorem \[T:MainThmIntroduction\].
Computational data
------------------
In this section, we list some data of implementing the algorithm above using Magma. We thank Yi-Hsuan Lin for providing the code. In what follows, Weight means the weight $n$, and Dimension means $d_{n}$ above, and ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$-linear means the number of independent linear relations arising from (\[E:Chen\]). When the weight $n$ is $A$-odd (ie., $(q-1)\nmid n$) the author does not know whether (\[E:Chen\]) can produce a linear relation as $\zeta_{A}(r)\zeta_{A}(s)$ is a monomial for one at least of $r, s$ being $A$-odd. So we let the position of $A$-odd weight be blank. Zeta-like means the number of weight $n$ double zeta values $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})$ for which $\zeta_{A}({\mathfrak{s}})/\zeta_{A}(n)\in k$. We list the computation data below only for $q=2$ and $q=3$, although we have run the program for other $q$ up to $11$ with weight up to $150$.
For $q=2$, we have: $$
[>p[1.9cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}]{} Weight&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12&13&14&15\
Dimension&1&2&2&3&3&3&3&4&4&4&4&5&5&5\
${\mathbb{F}}_p$-linear&0&1&1&1&2&2&2&3&3&3&4&4&4&5\
Zeta-like&1&1&1&0&0&2&1&0&0&0&0&0&0&2\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 16&17&18&19&20&21&22&23&24&25&26&27&28&29&30\
5&6&6&6&6&7&7&7&7&8&8&8&8&8&8\
5&5&6&6&6&7&7&7&8&8&8&9&9&9&10\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 31&32&33&34&35&36&37&38&39&40&41&42&43&44&45\
8&8&9&9&9&9&10&10&10&10&11&11&11&11&11\
10&10&11&11&11&12&12&12&13&13&13&14&14&14&15\
2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 46&47&48&49&50&51&52&53&54&55&56&57&58&59&60\
11&11&11&12&12&12&12&12&12&12&12&13&13&13&13\
15&15&16&16&16&17&17&17&18&18&18&19&19&19&20\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 61&62&63&64&65&66&67&68&69&70&71&72&73&74&75\
13&13&13&13&14&14&14&14&15&15&15&15&16&16&16\
20&20&21&21&21&22&22&22&23&23&23&24&24&24&25\
0&0&2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 76&77&78&79&80&81&82&83&84&85&86&87&88&89&90\
16&16&16&16&16&17&17&17&17&17&17&17&17&18&18\
25&25&26&26&26&27&27&27&28&28&28&29&29&29&30\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 91&92&93&94&95&96&97&98&99&100&101&102&103&104&105\
18&18&18&18&18&18&19&19&19&19&19&19&19&19&20\
30&30&31&31&31&32&32&32&33&33&33&34&34&34&35\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 106&107&108&109&110&111&112&113&114&115&116&117&118&119&120\
20&20&20&20&20&20&20&21&21&21&21&21&21&21&21\
35&35&36&36&36&37&37&37&38&38&38&39&39&39&40\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$
For $q=3$, we have: $$
[>p[1.9cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}|>p[0.4cm]{}]{} Weight&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12&13&14&15&16\
Dimension&3&4&5&5&7&7&8&9&10&10&12&12&13&13\
${\mathbb{F}}_p$-linear& &0& &0& &1& &1& &1& &1& &2\
Zeta-like&1&0&1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 17&18&19&20&21&22&23&24&25&26&27&28&29&30&31\
14&14&16&16&17&17&18&18&19&19&20&21&22&22&24\
&2& &2& &2& &3& &3& &3& &3&\
2&0&0&0&0&0&2&0&3&2&2&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 32&33&34&35&36&37&38&39&40&41&42&43&44&45&46\
24&25&25&26&26&28&28&29&29&30&30&31&31&32&33\
4& &4& &4& &4& &5& &5& &5& &5\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 47&48&49&50&51&52&53&54&55&56&57&58&59&60&61\
34&34&35&35&36&36&37&37&39&39&40&40&41&41&42\
&6& &6& &6& &6& &7& &7& &7&\
0&0&0&0&0&0&2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 62&63&64&65&66&67&68&69&70&71&72&73&74&75&76\
42&43&44&45&45&46&46&47&47&48&48&50&50&51&51\
7& &8& &8& &8& &8& &9& &9& &9\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&2&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 77&78&79&80&81&82&83&84&85&86&87&88&89&90&91\
52&52&53&53&54&55&56&56&58&58&59&59&60&60&62\
&9& &10& &10& &10& &10& &11& &11&\
4&0&3&2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 92&93&94&95&96&97&98&99&100&101&102&103&104&105&106\
62&63&63&64&64&65&65&66&67&68&68&69&69&70&70\
11& &11& &12& &12& &12& &12& &13& &13\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 107&108&109&110&111&112&113&114&115&116&117&118&119&120&121\
71&71&73&73&74&74&75&75&76&76&77&78&79&79&80\
&13& &13& &14& &14& &14& &14& &15&\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 122&123&124&125&126&127&128&129&130&131&132&133&134&135&136\
80&81&81&82&82&84&84&85&85&86&86&87&87&88&89\
15& &15& &15& &16& &16& &16& &16& &17\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$$$
[>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}|>p[0.5cm]{}]{} 137&138&139&140&141&142&143&144&145&146&147&148&149&150\
90&90&91&91&92&92&93&93&95&95&96&96&97&97\
&17& &17& &17& &18& &18& &18& &18\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
$$
[999999]{}
G. W. Anderson, *$t$-motives*, Duke Math. J. **53** (1986), no. 2, 457–502.
G. W. Anderson, W. D. Brownawell and M. A. Papanikolas, *Determination of the algebraic relations among special $\Gamma$-values in positive characteristic*, Ann. of Math. (2) **160** (2004), no. 1, 237–313.
G. W. Anderson and D. S. Thakur, *Tensor powers of the Carlitz module and zeta values*, Ann. of Math. (2) **132** (1990), no. 1, 159–191.
G. W. Anderson and D. S. Thakur, *Multizeta values for ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$, their period interpretation, and relations between them*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2009), no. 11, 2038–2055.
Y. André, *Une introduction aux motifs (motifs purs, motifs mixtes, périodes)*, Panoramas et Synthéses, **17**. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 2004.
F. Brown, *Mixed Tate motives over ${\mathbb{Z}}$*, Ann. of Math. (2) **175** (2012), no. 2, 949–976.
W. D. Brownawell and M. A. Papanikolas, *A rapid introduction to Drinfeld modules, $t$-modules, and $t$-motives*, available at http://www.math.tamu.edu/$\sim$map/BanffSurvey.pdf, 2011.
L. Carlitz, *On certain functions connected with polynomials in a Galois field*, Duke Math. J. **1** (1935), no. 2, 137-168.
P. Cartier, *Fonctions polylogarithmes, nombres polyzêtas et groupes pro-unipotents*, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 2000/2001. Astérisque No. 282 (2002), Exp. No. 885, viii, 137-173.
C.-Y. Chang, *Linear independence of monomials of multizeta values in positive characteristic*, Compos. Math. **150** (2014), no. 11, 1789-1808.
C.-Y. Chang and M. A. Papanikolas, *Algebraic independence of periods and logarithms of Drinfeld modules. With an appendix by Brian Conrad.* J. Amer. Math. Soc. **25** (2012), no. 1, 123–150.
C.-Y. Chang, M. A. Papanikolas and J. Yu, *An effective criterion for Eulerian multizeta values in positive characteristic*, arXiv:1411.0124.
C.-Y. Chang and J. Yu, *Determination of algebraic relations among special zeta values in positive characteristic*, Adv. Math. **216** (2007), no. 1, 321-345.
H.-J. Chen, *On shuffle of double zeta values for ${\mathbb{F}}{q}[t]$*, J. Number Theory, **148** (2015), 153-163.
H.-J. Chen, *On shuffle of double Eisenstein series in positive characteristic*, in preparation.
P. Deligne, A. B. Goncharov, *Groupes fondamentaux motiviques de Tate mixte*, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) **38** (2005), no. 1, 1-56.
L. Denis, *Géométrie diophantienne sur les modules de Drinfel’d*, The arithmetic of function fields (Columbus, OH, 1991), 285-302, Ohio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ., 2, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1992.
L. Denis, *Hauteurs canoniques et modules de Drinfeld*, Math. Ann. [**294**]{}, 213-223 (1992).
H. Gangl, M. Kazeko and D. Zagier, *Double zeta values and modular forms*, Automorphic forms and zeta functions, 71-106, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2006.
E.U. Gekeler, *On the coefficients of Drinfeld modular forms*, Invent. Math. **93** (1988), no. 3, 667-700.
A. B. Goncharov, [*[The double logarithm and Manin’s complex for modular curves]{}*]{}, Math. Res. Lett., [**4**]{} (1997), 617-636.
D. Goss, *Modular forms for ${\mathbb{F}}_{r}[T]$*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **317** (1980), 16-39.
D. Goss, [*[ Basic structures of function field arithmetic]{}*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
U. Hartl and A.-K. Juschka, *Pink’s theory of Hodge structures over function fields*, available at www.math.uni-muenster.de/u/urs.hartl/Publikat/Hodge2.pdf, 2016.
U. Hartl and R. Pink, *Vector bundles with a Frobenius structure on the punctured unit disc*, Compos. Math. **140** (2004), no. 3, 689–716.
L. Ihara, M. Kaneko and D. Zagier, *Derivation and double shuffle relations for multiple zeta values*, Compos. Math.**142** (2006), no. 2, 307-338.
Y.-L. Kuan and Y.-H. Lin, *Criterion for deciding zeta-like multizeta values in positive characteristic*, Exp. Math. **25** (2016), no. 3, 246–256.
J. A. Lara Rodríguez and D. S. Thakur, *Zeta-like multizeta values for $\mathbb{F}_{q}[t]$*, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 45 (5), 785-798 (2014).
Y. Mishiba, *On algebraic independence of certain multizeta values in characteristic $p$*, arXiv:1401.3628.
M. A. Papanikolas, *Tannakian duality for Anderson-Drinfeld motives and algebraic independence of Carlitz logarithms*, Invent. Math. **171** (2008), no. 1, 123–174.
M. A. Papanikolas, *Log-algebraicity on tensor powers of the Carlitz module and special values of Goss L-function*, in preparation.
M. A. Papanikolas and N. Ramachandran, *A Weil-Barsotti formula for Drinfeld modules*, J. Number Theory **98** (2003), no. 2, 407–431.
S. K. Sinha, *Periods of $t$-motives and transcendence*, Duke Math. J. **88** (1997), no. 3, 465–535.
L. Taelman, *$1$-$t$-motifs*, arXiv:0908.1503, 2010.
T. Terasoma, *Mixed Tate motives and multiple zeta values*, Invent. Math. **149** (2002), no. 2, 339-369.
D. S. Thakur, *Function field arithmetic*, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge NJ, 2004.
D. S. Thakur, *Power sums with applications to multizeta and zeta zero distribution for ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[t]$*, Finite Fields Appl. **15** (2009), no. 4, 534-552.
D. S. Thakur, *Relations between multizeta values for ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}[T]$*, Int. Math. Res. Notices IMRN (2009), no. 12, 2318–2346
D. S. Thakur, *Shuffle relations for function field multizeta values*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2010), no. 11, 1973-1980.
G. Todd, *Linear relations between multizeta values*, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona (2015).
J. Yu, *Transcendence and special zeta values in characteristic $p$*, Ann. of Math. (2) **134** (1991), no. 1, 1–23.
D. Zagier, *Periods of modular forms, traces of Hecke operators, and multiple zeta values*, Research into automorphic forms and L functions (Japanese) (Kyoto, 1992). Sūrikaisekikenkyūsho Kōkyūroku No. 843 (1993), 162–170.
D. Zagier, *Values of zeta functions and their applications*, First European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Paris, 1992), Progress in Math. 120, Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, (1994) 497-512.
J. Zhao, *Multiple zeta functions, multiple polylogarithms and their special values*, Series on Number Theory and its Applications, 12. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2016.
[^1]: The author was partially supported by a Golden-Jade fellowship of the Kenda Foundation and MOST Grant 102-2115-M-007-013-MY5. He thanks NCTS for offering a center scientist position, which is very helpful to research.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Photonic soliton and its relevance to radiative neutrino pair emission**
M. Yoshimura$^{\dagger}$ and N. Sasao$^{\ddagger}$,
$^{\dagger}$Center of Quantum Universe, Okayama University,\
Tsushima-naka 3-1-1, Okayama, 700-8530 Japan\
$^{\ddagger}$Department of Physics, Kyoto University,\
Kitashirakawa, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8502 Japan
[**ABSTRACT**]{}
We consider atomic system of $\Lambda-$type 3-level coupled to 2 mode fields, and derive an effective Maxwell-Bloch equation designed for two photon emission between two lower levels. We find axially symmetric, topologically stable soliton solutions made of condensed fields. Immediate implication of soliton formation to radiative neutrino pair emission is to enhance its rate, larger than the usual $\propto N^2$ factor of target number dependence, along with another merit of increasing the signal to the background photon emission.
Superfluorescence(SF) (also called superradiance) is a phenomenon of cooperative photon emission triggered by macroscopic growth of atomic polarization and induced field [@dicke] - [@sr; @review]. The total emission rate at its maximum scales with the number of targets $N$ as $\propto N^2$ compared to the spontaneous decay rate $\propto N$. SF has been observed in a variety of target states, ranging from gas, solid crystals [@sr; @review], to Bose-Einstein condensates [@sf; @in; @bec; @1], [@sf; @in; @bec; @2]. A simplest system of SF may be described by the Dicke model [@dicke] of 2 levels related by E1 transition. Its initial state is excited atomic state prepared for instance by pulsed laser irradiation, with and without further triggering field. SF occurs, in the case of 3 levels, to Raman process, as well [@sf; @in; @bec; @2].
The present work has been initiated by our efforts of finding an enhancement mechanism of radiative neutrino pair emission from an atomic metastable state $| 1 \rangle \rightarrow | 2 \rangle + \gamma + \nu_i\nu_j$ ($\nu_i$ neutrino mass eigenstates) [@my-06], [@nove08], in similar ways to SF. This process is useful to determine all neutrino parameters, 3 masses and 3 mixing angles, and furthermore to distinguish the Majorana neutrino from the Dirac neutrino. After the smallest neutrino mass is experimentally determined, one may proceed to detection of relic neutrino of 1.9 K using the Pauli blocking effect [@my-taka].
After derivation of effective Maxwell-Bloch (MB) equation for related two photon emission process, $| 1 \rangle \rightarrow | 2 \rangle + \gamma + \gamma$, we realized that non-trivial soliton solutions do exist, their stability being assured by the topological winding number associated with SO(2) rotation of fields. With formation of solitons radiative neutrino pair emission is enhanced by $O(10^{4}) N^{2}$ for targets such as noble gas atoms implanted in solid matrix, opening a new way to perform neutrino mass spectroscopy, as envisioned in [@nove08]. Moreover, formation of solitons gives an ideal mechanism of suppressing the background process of two photon emission when radiative neutrino pair emission is measured.
We shall report on this finding of soliton, their fundamental and technological applications, which may be wide ranging. Examples that immediately come in our mind for applications include the memory storage and quantum computing.
Throughout this work we assume the natural unit, $\hbar =1$ and $c= 1$.
A standard method of SF analysis is based on the semi-classical set of Maxwell-Bloch equations [@sr; @review], involving polarization of atomic targets and induced electric fields. We consider a three-level atomic system, $|1 \rangle$ (initial state), $|2 \rangle$ (final state) and $|3 \rangle $, with energy level relation of $\Lambda$ system, $ \epsilon_3 > \epsilon_1
> \epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_2 = 0$ taken for convenience. We take into account effects of two fields corresponding to transitions, $|1 \rangle \leftrightarrow | 3 \rangle $ (pump field ${\cal E}_p$) and $| 3 \rangle \leftrightarrow | 2 \rangle$ (Stokes field ${\cal E}_s$). The interaction Hamiltonian density is ${\cal H}_I = - (d_1 E R_{31} + d_2 E R_{32} )/2 + {\rm h.c.}$ (we assume two E1 transitions with dipoles $d_i$, but extention to M1 transitions should be evident). We may derive MB set of equations from the equation for the density matrix, $\dot{\rho} = -i[H\,, \rho]$ with $H$ the Hamiltonian, by using commutation relations, $[R_{ij}\,, R_{kl}] = \delta_{jk}R_{il} - \delta_{il}R_{kj}$, along with the Maxwell equation in medium. We take the continuum limit so that these transition operators $R_{ij}$ are density functions of time and space coordinates.
When numbers are necessary, we consider two types of examples, the case appropriate for two photon emission such as neutral Ba atom, and the other case suitable for radiative neutrino pair emission such as noble gas atoms. In Ba atom, 3 relevant states are $| 1 \rangle = ^1$D$_2$, $| 3 \rangle = ^1$P$_1$ (6s 6p), $| 2 \rangle = ^1$S$_0$. In this case $d_1 \sim 0.39 \times 10^{-9}$cm, $d_2 \sim 1.9 \times 10^{-9}$cm, and energy differences are $\Delta_{31} \sim 0.83$eV, $\Delta_{32} \sim 2.2$eV. In the case of noble gas atoms $| 1\rangle = ^3$P$_2 \,, |3 \rangle = ^3$P$_1 \,, |2 \rangle = ^1$S$_0$ using the LS coupling scheme (for instance, the more precise configuration for Xe is $| 1\rangle = 5p^5(^2P_{3/2})6s ^2[3/2]_2\,,
|3 \rangle = 5p^5(^2P_{3/2})6s ^2[3/2]_1\,,
|2 \rangle = 5p^6\, ^1S_0$), and Xe example gives $d_2 \sim 2.2 \times 10^{-8}$cm, $\Delta_{31} \sim 0.12 {\rm eV}\,, \Delta_{32} \sim 8.4{\rm eV}$. A precise value of $d_1$ for Xe is not known, but we may infer it of order a typical M1 transition, $O[e/2m_e]$.
We first make an ansatz for field components $E_i$ propagating along z-direction, $\:
E_x + iE_y = i\left(
{\cal E}_p^* e^{-i \omega_p (t \pm z)} +
{\cal E}_s e^{i \omega_s (t \pm z)}
\right) + ({\rm h.c.})
\:$ and for polarization $R_{ij}$, $\:
R_{31} = R_{31\,, p}e^{-i \omega_p (t \pm z)}
\,, \;
R_{32} = R_{32\,, s}e^{i \omega_s (t \pm z)}
\,.
\:$ Unconventional sign mixture $\pm \omega_i \,, i= s\,, p$ in phases here is chosen for convenience of discussing two photon process.
The original Bloch equation for the matter system is $$\begin{aligned}
&&
e^{-i(\Delta_1 - \Delta_2)t}\partial_t R_{21}
=
\frac{1}{2} (d_2 {\cal E}_s^*R_{31\,,p} + d_1 {\cal E}_p^* R_{32\,, s}^*)
\,,
\label{start 1}
\\ &&
e^{-i\Delta_1 t}\partial_t (e^{i\Delta_1 t} R_{31\,,p})
=
- \frac{d_2}{2} e^{-i\epsilon_1 t}
{\cal E}_p^* R_{21} + \frac{d_1}{2} {\cal E}_p^* B
- \frac{\kappa_1}{2}R_{31\,,p}
\,,
\label{start 2}
\\ &&
e^{-i\Delta_2 t}\partial_t (e^{i\Delta_2 t}R_{32\,,s})
=
- \frac{d_1}{2}e^{i\epsilon_1 t}
{\cal E}_s R_{12} + \frac{d_2}{2} {\cal E}_s C
- \frac{\kappa_2}{2}R_{32\,,s}
\,,
\label{start 3}
\\ &&
\partial_t B = -\Re (2d_1 {\cal E}_p^* R_{31\,,p}
+ d_2 {\cal E}_s^* R_{32\,,s})
- \frac{2\kappa_1 + \kappa_2}{6}(B+C+n)
\,,
\label{start 4}
\\ &&
\partial_t C = -\Re (d_1 {\cal E}_p^* R_{31\,,p}
+ 2d_2 {\cal E}_s^* R_{32\,,s})
- \frac{\kappa_1 + 2\kappa_2}{6}(B+C+n)
\,,
\label{start 5}\end{aligned}$$ and the Maxwell equation in medium, $\:
- \partial_t^2 E + \nabla^2 E = \frac{1}{2} \left(
d_1\partial_t^2 R_{31}
+ d_2 \partial_t^2 R_{32}
\right) \,,
\:$ where $B = R_{33} - R_{11}$ and $C = R_{33}- R_{22}$ are population difference, $n = n(\vec{x})$ the local number density of target atoms per unit volume, and $\Delta_1 = \epsilon_3 - \epsilon_1 + \omega_p$ and $\Delta_2 = \epsilon_3 - \omega_s$. For Raman-like processes $\Delta_i$ are taken as detuning parameters, and small. $\kappa_i \propto d_i^2 \Delta_{3i}^3$ are E1 or M1 decay rates corresponding to $| 3 \rangle \rightarrow |i \rangle$.
Description of two photon process $| 1 \rangle \rightarrow | 2 \rangle + \gamma + \gamma$ requires another choice for $\Delta_i$ different from the Raman process; $\Delta_1 =\Delta_2 = \Delta
\sim \Delta_0 \equiv (\epsilon_3 - \epsilon_1 + \epsilon_3 )/2$, or $\omega_s \sim \omega_p$. Rapidly oscillating terms $\propto e^{\pm i \epsilon_1 t}$ are averaged out for a long time behavior of variables, and one may drop these terms. We then make slowly varying envelope approximation (SVEA) by dropping terms $\partial_t R_{3i}$ against $\Delta R_{3i}$, which amounts to balancing equations expressing $R_{3i}\,, i =1\,, 2$ in terms of other quantities; $\;
R_{31\,,p} = (i \Delta + \kappa_1/2)^{-1}d_1B {\cal E}_p^*/2
\,,
R_{32\,,s}= (i \Delta + \kappa_2/2)^{-1} d_2C{\cal E}_s/2
\,.
\; $ MB equation thus derived involves an effective direct interaction of two photon emission, $|1 \rangle \rightarrow |2 \rangle$ via pump and Stokes field emission; frequency dependence indeed gives a correct combination $\propto {\cal E}_p^*{\cal E}_s^* (B-C)$, with strength $d_1 d_2$.
After a transient time of order the lifetime of the upper level $|3\rangle$, populations of levels approach stationary values, namely time independent solution of equations for $B\,, C,$ eq.(\[start 4\]) and eq.(\[start 5\]), giving $\:
B = - n \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2/D
\,, \;
C = - n \Delta_{32}^3 |{\cal E}_p|^2/D
\,, \;
D =
\Delta_{32}^3|{\cal E}_p|^2 + \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2
\,,
\:$ where $d_i |{\cal E}_i| \ll \Delta$ is assumed. The result implies $B + C = - n$, namely $R_{33} = 0 \,({\rm or}\;\ll n)$.
Resulting equations are a closed set for two field amplitudes and $R_{21}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\left(\partial_{t}^2 - \partial_{z}^2 - \vec{\nabla}_2^2
\right){\cal E}_s = - \partial_{t}^2 \frac{1}{4\Delta}n d_1^2
\frac{\Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2{\cal E}_p^* }
{\Delta_{32}^3|{\cal E}_p|^2 + \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2}
\,,
\label{fund eq1}
\\ &&
\left(\partial_{t}^2 - \partial_{z}^2 - \vec{\nabla}_2^2
\right){\cal E}_p = - \partial_{t}^2 \frac{1}{4\Delta}n d_2^2
\frac{\Delta_{32}^3 |{\cal E}_p|^2{\cal E}_s^* }
{\Delta_{32}^3|{\cal E}_p|^2 + \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2}
\,,
\label{fund eq2}
\\ &&
\partial_t R_{21} = i \frac{d_1 d_2 n}{4\Delta}{\cal E}_p^*{\cal E}_s^*
\frac{\Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2 - \Delta_{32}^3 |{\cal E}_p|^2}
{\Delta_{32}^3|{\cal E}_p|^2 + \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2}
\,.
\label{fund eq3}\end{aligned}$$ The field magnitudes are limited by eqs.(\[start 1\]) - (\[start 5\]), and not by eqs.(\[fund eq1\])- (\[fund eq2\]). This argument suggests the maximal magnitudes of fields; $|{\cal E}_s| \leq O[|\partial_t R_{ij}/(R_{ij}d_2 )| ]$ and $|{\cal E}_p| \leq O[|\partial_t R_{ij}/(R_{ij}d_1)|]$, which is later related to the soliton mass ${\cal M}$ by $|\partial_t R_{ij}/R_{ij}| \sim {\cal M}$.
With $\Delta \neq \Delta_0$, these MB equations are also useful for description of radiative neutrino pair emission, $|1 \rangle \rightarrow |2 \rangle + \gamma + \nu_i \nu_j$, with a photon energy set at $\epsilon_3 - \Delta$, when the weak term ${\cal H}_W$ is added to the Hamiltonian density and treated as a small perturbation.
In an axially symmetric case of laser irradiation along z-axis, we may introduce cylindrical coordinates, $(z\,, \rho\,, \theta)$. Spacetime dependence of fields, polarization, population difference $\:
{\cal E}_j \propto e^{im_j \theta}
\,, \; j = s\,, p \,,
R_{32} \propto e^{im_s \theta}
\,,
R_{31} \propto e^{im_p \theta}
\,,
\:$ is further assumed. Consistency of angular dependence in equations (\[fund eq1\]) and (\[fund eq2\]) requires $m_s = - m_p = m$. The requirement of one-valued functions demands that $m$ is an integer. This introduces the topological winding number $m$. The transverse operator is then $\:
\vec{\nabla}_2^2 = \partial_{\rho}(\rho \partial_{\rho})/\rho
- m^2/\rho^2
\,.
\:$ We call this topological object the photonic soliton, in short PS [@soliton].
Fields have polarizations, and we may use this fact to classify chiralities of solitons. There are two types of non-trivial topology of field polarization; (1) TE mode; this is the case explicitly written above, $E \sim E_x + iE_y$ such that for instance, the Stokes field $E_s$ is $ i e^{i{\cal M} (t\pm z) + i m \theta}$ times a function dependent on the transverse distance $\rho$. (2) TM mode; this is the case in which role of the magnetic and the electric field is interchanged from TE mode. $\vec{B} = \vec{e}_z \times \vec{E}$ has the similar structure to TE, hence $E_s = - E_y + iE_x$. Field polarizations are classified by a set of two opposite numbers $(m_s = m\,, m_p = -m)$, the first entry for chirality of the Stokes field and the second for chirality of the pump.
We further set up an ansatz to work out solutions of equations, (\[fund eq1\]) and (\[fund eq2\]); a functional form $F(\rho\,, z\,, t) (G_s(\rho)\,, G_p^*(\rho)\,)$ for $({\cal E}_s \,, {\cal E}_p^*)/e^{im \theta}$, with separation term ${\cal N}^2(\rho) = -(\partial_t^2 F - \partial_z^2 F)/F$ taken more slowly varying with $\rho$ than time variation. Thus, ${\cal N}^2(\rho) = {\cal M}^2 - \kappa^2 (\rho)$ consists of two parts, where time variation ${\cal M} = i \partial_t {\cal E}_s /{\cal E}_s
= - i \partial_t {\cal E}_p /{\cal E}_p $ (soliton mass), and variation along z-direction $\kappa(\rho)$, taken to reflect effect of index of refraction $\nu$; $\kappa^2 (\rho) = \omega_i^s
+ {\cal M}^2 (\nu^2 - 1)n(\rho)/n_0$, with $n_0$ a central density. This assumption amounts to a physical picture of taking field condensates coherently collaborating to propagate with the same index of refraction.
Using dimensionless quantities, $\:
\xi = {\cal M} \rho
\,, \;
X_m = \sqrt{\xi} G_s/\Delta_{32}^2
\,, \;
Y_{-m} = \sqrt{\xi}G_p/\Delta_{31}^2
\,,
\:$ and 2-component notation $\psi^T = (X_m\,, Y_{-m})$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hspace*{-1cm}
(- \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} + \frac{m^2 - 1/4}{\xi^2}
- (\nu^2 -1)f(\xi) - \Omega )\psi (\xi) = f(\xi)
\frac{X_m^* Y_{-m}^*}{|X_m|^2 + \eta |Y_{-m}|^2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha_s \eta^{2} & 0 \\
0 & \alpha_p \eta^{-1}
\end{array}
\right) \psi (\xi)
\,,
\label{xy-eq}\end{aligned}$$ where a diagonal $2 \times 2$ matrix $\Omega$ having $\:
\Omega_{11} = \omega_s^2/{\cal M}^2
\,, \;
\Omega_{22} = \omega_p^2/{\cal M}^2 \,,
\:$ and $\:
\eta = \Delta_{31}/\Delta_{32}
\,, \;
\alpha_s = d_1^2 n_0/(4 \Delta )
\,, \;
\alpha_p = d_2^2 n_0/(4 \Delta )
\,, \;
f(\xi) = n(\xi/{\cal M})/n_0
\,.
\:$ The density profile $f(\xi) = n(\rho)/n_0$ depends on how a dense collection of targets (and fields) is excited. We assume that this profile function has a characteristic length scale $\rho_0$, which is essentially the soliton size to be determined dynamically.
We shall study the case which has the potential of observing radiative neutrino pair emission; noble gas atoms (see below on their large rates) implanted with a fraction $10^{-3}$ in solid para-H$_2$ matrix ($\rho_0/10 \geq $ the lattice constant of matrix $\sim 3.8 \times 10^{-8}$cm). The range of parameters are $\alpha_p/\eta = O[0.8({\rm Ne}) - 8({\rm Xe})]
\times 10^{-9}$ and the other $\alpha_s \eta^2$ much smaller, in the Xe example $\alpha_s \eta^3/\alpha_p = O[10^{-13}]$.
Analogy to quantum scattering problem is useful here. We first note that effect of the right hand side (RHS) of eq.(\[xy-eq\]) is described by an effective, non-linear interaction, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{\cal H}_{{\rm eff}} = \frac{n}{2\Delta}
\frac{d_1^2 \Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2 - d_2^2 \Delta_{32}^3 |{\cal E}_p|^2}
{\Delta_{31}^3 |{\cal E}_s|^2 + \Delta_{32}^3 |{\cal E}_p|^2}
\Im ({\cal E}_s^*{\cal E}_p^*) \,,\end{aligned}$$ giving (non-linear) propagation of Stokes and pump fields, along with their mixing. This gives a Stokes-pump field mixing with effective strength depending on the field ratio $r = |{\cal E}_p/{\cal E}_s|$ itself; its effective strength varies from $n d_1^2/(2\Delta)$ for small $r$ to $- n d_2^2/(2\Delta)$ for large $r$. Since $d_2 \gg d_1$ usually, growth of the field ratio is accelerated by non-linear effect, once it is over a threshold value. We shall mainly consider the case of small field ratio (the case of Stokes field dominance), relevant to radiative neutrino pair emission. In this case the linearized approximation is excellent, and two fields are essentially decoupled.
We work out in detail the linearized approximation for $(X_1\,, Y_{-1})$, using the density profile $f(\xi) = \xi e^{-\xi/\xi_0}/\xi_0$, suitable for the use of the Bessel laser beam of order 1 as a trigger, since it gives an interesting scheme of creating fundamental solitons of chirality $\pm 1$. The potential $\:
V(\xi) = 3/(4\xi^2) - (\nu^2 - 1) f(\xi)
\:$ then has repulsion at the origin, and for a large parameter $(\nu^2 - 1)\xi_0^2$, attraction at intermediate region (and a weak repulsion at infinity). Since for a large soliton mass ${\cal M}$, the energy $\Omega_{ii}$ is negligibly small, our problem is essentially reduced to finding out (nearly) zero energy solutions [@resonance], which exist for discrete set of $\xi_0$, thus forming an eigenvalue problem for this parameter.
For a crude estimate of the eignevalue $\xi_0$ of zero energy solution, one may use the WKB formula for energy levels $E_s(\xi_0)$, namely $\:
2 \int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2} d\xi \sqrt{E_s - V(\xi\,,\; \xi_0)} = 2\pi \hbar s \,,
\:$ ($s$ is an integer) with $\xi_i \,, i=1\,, 2$ turning points, and set the zero energy condition $E_s(\xi_0)=0$ to derive eigenvalues of $\xi_0$. We thus find eigenvalues approximately given by $\xi_0 = \xi_s$, with $\:
\xi_s = s \sqrt{\pi}/\sqrt{2(\nu^2 - 1)} \,.
\:$ The number of nodes for the zero energy solution is of order, $0.8 \sqrt{\nu^2 - 1}\xi_0$. We illustrate in Figure 1 a numerical solution of localized field $(X_1\,, Y_{-1})/\sqrt{\xi} \sim ({\cal E}_s/\Delta_{32}^2\,, {\cal E}_p/\Delta_{31}^2)$. We confirmed that the WKB energy formula is good for large $s \geq O[10]$.
=0.5
Relation between the soliton mass ${\cal M}$ and the soliton size $\rho_0$ is roughly ${\cal M} \rho_0 = O[\xi_s]$, with $\xi_s $ one of the eigenvalues. The soliton size can be anywhere between atomic distance ($\sim$ 1nm in solids) and target size, maximally the transverse size of laser irradiated region, but most likely sizes of order the wavelength of triggering laser are the main component. For numerical estimate below we assume for definiteness ${\cal M} = \xi_s \pi/(2\rho_0)$, often taking $\xi_s = 1$ for crude estimates.
One might characterize the photonic soliton by saying that it is a stable concentration of fields, possibly much below the field wavelength scale, supported by surrounding dense, excited target atoms.
We discuss neutrino pair emission $|1 \rangle \rightarrow
|2 \rangle + \gamma + \nu_i \nu_j$, the pair emission caused by the Hamiltonian density, ${\cal H}_W = g_W j_{\nu}^{\dagger}R_{31} + ({\rm h.c.})$ with $j_{\nu}^{\dagger}$ the neutrino pair emission current. Features of a single photon energy spectrum, angular distribution and distinction from two photon process have been discussed using a different approach in [@nove08]. Here we investigate this problem using MB equations, and examine effect of soliton formation.
The transition amplitude for radiative neutrino pair emission after soliton formation is governed by the following equation written in the interaction picture, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\partial_{t} R_{21} = \frac{d_2 g_W }{4\Delta}
n j_{\nu}^{\dagger}{\cal E}_s \frac{1 - \eta r^2}{1 + \eta r^2}
e^{-i({\cal M} - E_{\nu \nu} - E_{\gamma})(t\pm z)}
\,,
\label{2n eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\nu \nu} (E_{\gamma})$ is the energy going into neutrinos (photons). A large soliton mass of ${\cal M} \gg \Delta $ appears in the exponential factor.
The large time limit for the transition rate per unit volume $d|R_{21}(t)|^2/dt$ can be worked out by using the wave function of soliton ${\cal E}_s(\rho) e^{im \theta}
e^{\pm i({\cal M} - E_{\nu \nu} - E_{\gamma})z}$, resulting in a similar formula to the Fermi golden rule, with a difference of large energy factor ${\cal M} - E_{\nu \nu} - E_{\gamma}$. How the total rate scales with the total number of target atoms is as follows. We may take the maximal magnitude ${\cal E}_s$ of order ${\cal M}/d_2 $, along with $r = 0$. The enhancement factor per unit atom is $\:
K =
|{\cal E}_s/e|^2 (V \Delta^3/2\pi^2)
(2\Delta/{\cal M}) \sim 1/(\pi d_2^2 \rho_0 \Delta^3)\,,
\:$ where $ e \sim \sqrt{\Delta/2V} \sim \Delta^2/\sqrt{2}$ is the field magnitude of a single atom transition, and the inverse of the last factor ${\cal M}/2\Delta$ is the number of events for the soliton decay. One has the entire enhancement factor for $N$ target atoms given by $K N^2$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&&
K \sim 2.4 \times 10^8 \xi_s
(\frac{{\rm nm}}{\rho_0})
(\frac{{\rm eV}}{\Delta})^3 (\frac{10^{-8}{\rm cm}}{d_2})^2
\,.\end{aligned}$$
What happens is formation of soliton of mass ${\cal M}$, which macroscopically decays. This massive soliton goes into many radiative pairs. The microscopic description of this phenomenon is that the rate of elementary radiative neutrino pair emission is enhanced by an extra factor, $O[{\cal M}/(d_2^2 \Delta^3) \sim 1/(d_2^2 \rho_0 \Delta^3) ]$ in addition to the usual coherence factor $N^2$.
The elementary rate $\gamma$ of radiative neutrino pair emission is roughly given by\
$ \:
\gamma_{\gamma \nu \nu} = G_F^2 \Delta_{12}^5 (\gamma_{32}/\Delta_{32})
(\Delta_{12}/\Delta_{31})^2/(15\pi^5)
\sim 3.3 \times 10^{-34} s^{-1}
(\Delta_{12}/{\rm eV})^5
(\gamma_{32}/\Delta_{32})
(\Delta_{12}/\Delta_{31})^2 \,.
\:$ For noble gas atoms implanted with a fraction $10^{-3}$ in solid para-H$_2$ matrix, the maximum rate is $4 \times 10^{-27}s^{-1} N^2 $ for Ar and $2 \times 10^{-28}s^{-1} N^2 $ for Xe, giving the total rate of order (40 - 2)Hz for $N = 10^{14}$ (we took $\xi_s = 1$ for this estimate). Other noble gas atoms in solid matrix give similar rates, somewhat larger for Ne by $O[400 ]$ than Xe. Alkaline earth and other atoms often give much smaller rates. The enhanced rate scales with $\Delta_{12}^4 \Delta_{32}^2/(\Delta_{31}^2 \rho_0)$ of target parameters, which works to give large rates for the $\Lambda-$type noble gas atoms, with large $\Delta_{i2}$ and small $\Delta_{31}$.
The precise angular distribution of photon in radiative neutrino pair emission depends on how the triggering laser irradiation leads to formation of solitons, their number and their size distribution, which is a difficult problem to solve. But, the angular distribution from decay of a single soliton can be worked out from (\[2n eq\]). Without much calculation we may deduce basic features of photon angular distribution by noting combined spatial variation of field and neutrino pair ${\cal E}_s j_{\nu}^{\dagger}$. The phase factor in the exponent, which needs to be canceled, is $ \left ( (\pm {\cal N} + K_{\rho})\rho
+ (\pm \kappa + K_z) z + (m + m_{\nu \nu})\theta \right) $, with $K_i$ the momenta of many neutrino pairs. The correlation to the cylinder axis is evident, and the photon emission is confined to a small angle region of $\theta \leq O[\kappa/{\cal M} = (\nu^2 - 1)n(\xi_0)/n_0 ]$.
On the other hand, two photon process has in RHS of eq.(\[2n eq\]) $\:
d_1 d_2 n {\cal E}_s^* {\cal E}_p^*
(1 - \eta r^2) /(4\Delta (1 + \eta r^2)\,)e^{iE_{\gamma \gamma}(t\pm z)}
\,,
\:$ in which the soliton mass ${\cal M}$ is missing in the exponent. Thus, two photon emission from solitons do not occur. The two photon process however can occur from amplified pump and Stokes field not related to soliton formation, to give a rate simply proportional to $N^2$. Thus, the rate for radiative neutrino pair emission, is more enhanced, at least by the factor $r^{-2}{\cal M}/(d_2^2 \Delta^3) \sim r^{-2}/(d_2^2 \rho_0 \Delta^3)$, than for two photon emission, which is of order $10^5 r^{-2}$ or more for noble gas atoms in solid matrix. Incidentally, the elementary rate for two photon emission from a single atom is estimated $O[1] {\rm sec}^{-1}$ for noble gas atoms.
Controled two photon emission, however, becomes possible by using a systematic destruction of coherence, such as abrupt modulation of dielectric constant. It should also be noted that stability, and possibility of controled coherence breaking, of PS gives an ideal mechanism of enhancing the signal to the 2 photon background ratio in measurement of forbidden processes.
The potential background of multi-photon (more than 2 photon) emission is not enhanced at all by soliton formation, thus when the elementary rate of multi-photon QED process is smaller than the enhanced rate of radiative neutrino pair emission, say $O[1]$Hz, the multi-photon emission does not become the major background.
Here we briefly discuss some possible technological applications using two photon emission caused by controled destruction of stable PS’s.
Topological solitons, both stable or unstable (the case of resonance), are likely to be created in the region of high dielectric constant $\epsilon$. One may use for preparation the photonic crystal type of medium [@photonic; @crystals] doped by target atoms of long-lived $\Lambda-$type level such as Ba D-levels. Many photonic solitons of small size may be created when an array disk made of rectangular shaped high $\epsilon$ material is irradiated by the Bessel laser beam of chirality 1 for the trigger. This might serve for the memory storage. On the other hand, when a cylinder made of many high $\epsilon$ tubes is irradiated by a Bessel beam of large aperture, one may expect creation of many PS’s of long size, which might serve for efficient light transportation. From energetic reasons we expect that PS’s of size of order the laser wavelength are more likely to be created at its formation.
Correlation of emitted two pulsed lights after controled coherence breaking is excellent, in direction, energy, and chirality. Correlated emission of strong light pulses after PS destruction may thus be useful for quantum information.
What is pressing is experimental confirmation of the basic idea in the present work, and is to clarify how easy or how difficult it is to creat many PS’s using material technologically available at present. On theoretical side calculation of dynamical time evolution is left to further work.
We should like to thank for our collaborators of SPAN group, A. Fukumi, K. Nakajima, I. Nakano, and H. Nanjo for enlightening discussions on this and related subjects.
[99]{} R.H. Dicke, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**93**]{}, 99(1954).
J.C. MacGillivray and M.S. Feld, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**A 14**]{}, 1169(1976).
F. Haake, H. King, G. Schroeder, J. Haus, and R. Glauber, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**A 20**]{}, 2047(1979).
For a review of superradiance, M. Benedict, A.M. Ermolaev, V.A. Malyshev, I.V. Sokolov, and E.D. Trifonov, [*Super-radiance Multiatomic coherent emission*]{}, Informa (1996).
S. Inouye et al., [*Science*]{}[**285**]{}, 571 (1999).
Y. Yoshikawa et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}[**94**]{}, 083602(2005); [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**A 69**]{}, 041603(R) (2004).
M. Yoshimura, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**D75**]{}, 113007(2007).
M. Yosimura, C.Ohae, A.Fukumi, K. Nakajima, I. Nakano, H. Nanjo, and N. Sasao, [*Macro-coherent two photon and radiative neutrino pair emission*]{}, arXiv 805.1970\[hep-ph\](2008).
M. Yoshimura, [*Neutrino Spectroscopy using Atoms (SPAN)*]{}, in Proceedings of 4th NO-VE International Workshop, edited by M. Baldo Ceolin(2008).
T. Takahashi and M. Yoshimura, [*Effect of Relic Neutrino on Neutrino Pair Emission from Metastable Atoms*]{}, hep-ph/0703019.
To the best of our knowledge, the terminology of photonic soliton has been used in the literature in rahter imprecise ways. Our terminology is based on the topological winding number and solutions of MB equation, and has no direct connection to the ones used in literature.
For non-zero $\Omega_{ii} > 0$ there may exist, for a large $\sqrt{\nu^2-1}\xi_0$, resonance solutions in their energy vicinity. They are time dependent solutions of the form, $\psi (x\,, t) = e^{- iE_* t - \gamma_* t/2}u(x)$, where $\:
\left( - d^2/dx^2 + V(x) \right) u(x) = (E_* - i \gamma_*/2)u(x)
\:$ with resonance parameters, real $E_*\,, \gamma_* > 0$. Their presence implies instability when we consider time evolution towards soliton formation. Unstable resonances, if their lifetimes are large enough, are however useful to initiate two photon emission.
J.D. Joannopoulos et al., [*Photonic Crystals* ]{}, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive an explicit expression for the functional derivative of the subleading term in the strong interaction limit expansion of the generalized Levy–Lieb functional for the special case of two electrons in one dimension. The expression is derived from the zero point energy (ZPE) functional, which is valid if the quantum state reduces to strongly correlated electrons in the strong coupling limit. The explicit expression is confirmed numerically and respects the relevant sum-rule. We also show that the ZPE potential is able to generate a bond mid-point peak for homo-nuclear dissociation and is properly of purely kinetic origin. Unfortunately, the ZPE diverges for Coulomb systems, whereas the exact peaks should be finite.'
author:
- Juri Grossi
- Michael Seidl
- 'Paola Gori-Giorgi'
- 'Klaas J. H. Giesbertz'
bibliography:
- 'bib\_clean.bib'
title: Functional Derivative of the Zero Point Energy Functional from the Strong Interaction Limit of Density Functional Theory
---
Introduction
============
Kohn-Sham (KS) density functional theory (DFT) is the workhorse of electronic structure calculations in physics and chemistry, thanks to its good compromise between accuracy and computational cost. Although exact in principle, KS DFT must rely in practice on approximations for the exchange-correlation () functional, which, despite their many successes, have still problems in describing strongly correlated systems, whose physics is very different than the one of the non-interacting KS reference system [@MarHea-MP-17; @CohMorYan-CR-12; @Bur-JCP-12; @Bec-JCP-14].
The strong interaction limit [@Sei-PRA-99; @SeiGorSav-PRA-07; @GorSei-PCCP-10] () of the universal part of the ground-state energy density functional [@Lev-PNAS-79; @Lev-PRA-82; @Lie-IJQC-83] is a semi-classical limit in which the electron-electron energy dominates over the kinetic energy, and it is the first term of an expansion of the generalized Levy–Lieb functional in the form of an asymptotic series for the electronic coupling constant $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. This same expansion also determines the asymptotic behaviour of the exact functional of KS DFT [@MalGor-PRL-12; @MalMirCreReiGor-PRB-13; @MenMalGor-PRB-14] at strong coupling. In specific cases, the solution reduces to a particular simple form of strictly correlated electrons (), in which the position of one electron dictates the position of all other electrons [@SeiGorSav-PRA-07; @Sei-PRA-99; @GorSei-PCCP-10]. In more general cases, the search over -type solutions yields the exact as an infimum [@ColDiM-INC-13]. The solution unveils how the exact functional mathematically transforms the information on the electronic density into an expectation value of the electron-electron repulsion, even if only in the case of its $\lambda\to\infty$ asymptotic expansion. Its investigation lead to the construction of new non-local density functionals, based on particular integrals of the density [@WagGor-PRA-14; @ZhoBahErn-JCP-15; @VucGor-JPCL-17] rather than on the traditional ingredients of standard approximations (local density and gradients, occupied and unoccupied KS orbitals).
The first subleading term for -type solutions introduces kinetic energy in the form of zero-point oscillations (). It has been first evaluated in 2009 [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09] and received numerical confirmations only recently [@CorKarLanLee-PRA-17; @GroKooGieSeiCohMorGor-JCTC-17]. Little is known yet on the third leading term, for which scaling arguments suggest it to be of purely kinetic nature [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09; @YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16]. This third term should incorporate exact pieces of information on the ionization energy of the system under exam [@GiaVucGor-JCTC-18].
Besides the functional itself, another quantity that plays an important role in KS DFT is its functional derivative with respect to the density, which determines the potential entering in the KS equations. The exact (or very accurate) potential has been studied for small systems in several works, using various reverse-engineering procedures [@OspRyaSta-JCP-17; @CueAyeSta-JCP-15; @CueSta-MP-16]: these works have shown that for strongly-correlated systems the potential must display very peculiar features, such as “peaks” and “steps” [@BaeGri-JPCA-97; @HodRamGod-PRB-16; @LeeGriBae-ZPD-95]. While the functional derivative of the leading term has been evaluated and used as an approximation for the potential in the self-consistent KS equations in various works [@MalGor-PRL-12; @MalMirCreReiGor-PRB-13; @MenMalGor-PRB-14; @MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14], the potential associated to the next leading term has never been investigated in an exact manner (only very recently, a semi-local approximation for the has been used to look at KS potentials coming from functionals that interpolate between the weak- and strong-coupling limits of the functional [@FabSmiGiaDaaSalGraGor-ArXiv-18]). It is the purpose of this paper to fill this gap, by starting an investigation of the exact functional derivative. The functionals have a density dependence that is rather complicated and unusual, making it actually difficult to evaluate functional derivatives. The reason why the functional derivative of the leading term (the term) could be easily computed is that it can be obtained from an exact shortcut [@MalGor-PRL-12; @MalMirCreReiGor-PRB-13], which seems to be missing at the next leading order. For this reason, our investigation starts from a simple, yet non trivial, case: two electrons confined in one dimension (1D). Similar 1D models have been widely used to investigate features in exact KS DFT, proving to provide a good qualitative description of the relevant features of their 3D counterparts [@MorCoh-JPCL-18; @TemMarMai-JCTC-09; @BenPro-PRA-16; @MagBur-PRA-04; @HodRamGod-PRB-16; @HelTokRub-JCP-09].
Besides its interest as an potential at strong coupling, the functional derivative that we compute here is also a crucial ingredient to analyze the third term in the large-$\lambda$ expansion of the exact Levy–Lieb functional. This next term, in fact, requires solving a hierarchy of Schrödinger equations for which knowledge of the asymptotic expansion at strong coupling of $v^{\lambda}$ (the 1-body potential that keeps the density fixed at each $\lambda$) is needed; the potential $v^{\lambda}$ at orders $\lambda^{1/2}$ should be given by minus the functional derivative [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09].
The paper is organized as follows: we first briefly cover the key concepts of and formalism in section \[SectionOverview\]. The core of the paper, section \[papermain\], hosts an analytical expression of the functional derivative of the functional . Its features are discussed and numerical calculation is provided to verify the consistency of our results. Last, in section \[conclusions\] we draw our conclusions and outline future steps.
Theoretical Overview {#SectionOverview}
====================
Let us consider the universal functional $F_{\lambda}[\rho]$, defined in the Levy constrained search formulation for any $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HFfunctional}
F_{\lambda}[\rho] &= \min_{\Psi\rightarrow\rho}{\langle{\Psi}|{\hat{T}+\lambda\hat{V}_{ee}}|{\Psi}\rangle} \notag \\
&\equiv {\langle{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}|{\hat{T}+\lambda\hat{V}_{ee}}|{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Under the assumption of a ground state $v$-representable density, the minimizing wavefunction $\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]$ in is also a ground state [@LevPer-PRA-85; @Lev-PRA-82] of the $\lambda$-dependent Hamiltonian $$\label{lambdaHam}
\hat{H}_{\lambda}[\rho]\equiv \hat{T} + \lambda\hat{V}_{ee} + \hat{V}^{\lambda}[\rho],$$ where $\hat{T}$ is the familiar kinetic energy operator, and $\hat{V}_{ee}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}^N v_{ee}({\lvert{{\mathbf{r}}}_i-{{\mathbf{r}}}_j\rvert})$ is the electron-electron interaction operator. For realistic electrons in 3D space, $$v_{ee}(x) = \frac{1}{{\lvertx\rvert}} .$$ For the 1D case, see below. Generally, we choose piecewise convex functions $v_{ee}(x)$. The local one body operator $\hat{V}^{\lambda}[\rho]=\sum_{i=1}^Nv^{\lambda}[\rho]({{\mathbf{r}}}_i)$ is the Lagrange multiplier that enforces the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{density constraint}
{\langle{\Psi_{\lambda}}|{\hat{\rho}({{\mathbf{r}}})}|{\Psi_{\lambda}}\rangle}
&= {\langle{\Psi_{\lambda=1}}|{\hat{\rho}({{\mathbf{r}}})}|{\Psi_{\lambda=1}}\rangle}
\equiv \rho({{\mathbf{r}}}) & &\forall\lambda\in {\mathbb{R}}.\end{aligned}$$ The $\lambda$-dependent energy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lambdaE}
E_{\lambda}[\rho]
&\equiv {\langle{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}|{\hat{H}_{\lambda}}|{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}\rangle} \nonumber\\
&= \min_{\tilde{\rho}}\left(F_{\lambda}[\tilde{\rho}] + {\!\int\!{\mathrm{d}}{{{\mathbf{r}}}}\:}\tilde{\rho}({{\mathbf{r}}})v^{\lambda}[\rho]({{\mathbf{r}}})\right)\end{aligned}$$connects and . The minimization over $\tilde{\rho}$ implies that [@DreGro-BOOK-90] $$\label{FunDerlambda}
\frac{\delta F_{\lambda}[\tilde{\rho}]}{\delta\tilde{\rho}({{\mathbf{r}}})}\bigg|_{\crampedrlap{\tilde{\rho}=\rho}}
= -v^{\lambda}[\rho]({{\mathbf{r}}}),$$ modulo a constant. In what follows, we recall the basic ideas needed to apply these concepts to the regime $\lambda\gg 1$.
Strictly Correlated Electrons
-----------------------------
From physical arguments, one suspects that $\lim_{\lambda \to \infty}F_{\lambda}[\rho] / \lambda = {\langle{\Psi_{\lambda\to\infty}[\rho]}|{\hat{V}_{ee}}|{\Psi_{\lambda\to\infty}[\rho]}\rangle}$ [@Sei-PRA-99; @SeiGorSav-PRA-07; @GorVigSei-JCTC-09]; this result was proved rigorously only recently [@CotFriKlu-ARMA-18; @Lew-CRM-18]. As a consequence, to satisfy the density constraint we must have to leading order that in the limit $\lambda \to \infty$ the force exerted by the external potential is of the same order in $\lambda$ as the electron-electron repulsion. In the regime we hence define the local one-body operator $\hat{V}^{{\text{SIL}}}=\sum_{i=1}^Nv^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho]({{\mathbf{r}}}_i)$ $$\label{hamSCE}
\lim_{\lambda\to\infty}\frac{\hat{H}_{\lambda}}{\lambda}
= \lim_{\mathclap{\lambda\to\infty}}\frac{\lambda\hat{V}_{ee} + \hat{V}^{\lambda}}{\lambda}\equiv\hat{V}_{ee}+\hat{V}^{{\text{SIL}}},$$ and the functional $V_{ee}^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HKSCE}
F_{\lambda}[\rho] &\sim \lambda \; \inf_{\mathclap{\Psi\to\rho}}{\langle{\Psi}|{\hat{V}_{ee}}|{\Psi}\rangle}
\equiv \lambda V_{ee}^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho] &&\lambda\gg 1.\end{aligned}$$ These two quantities are connected by , i.e. $$\frac{\delta V_{ee}^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho({{\mathbf{r}}})}\bigg|_{\mathrlap{\rho=\rho_{0}}}
= -v^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho_{0}]({{\mathbf{r}}}).$$ Equation defines a function in configuration space: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{epot}
E_{\text{pot}}({{\mathbf{r}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\mathbf{r}}}_N) \\
\equiv \sum_{i>j} v_{ee}({\lvert{{\mathbf{r}}}_i-{{\mathbf{r}}}_j\rvert}) + \sum_{i=1}^Nv^{{\text{SIL}}}({{\mathbf{r}}}_i).\end{gathered}$$ The minimization problem in can be regarded as an optimal transport problem with repulsive cost [@ButDepGor-PRA-12].
A candidate solution to this problem was first the so-called strictly correlated electrons () ansatz and satisfies $V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]\geq V_{ee}^{{\text{SIL}}}[\rho]$. The SCE ansatz was suggested on physical grounds by Seidl and co-workers [@Sei-PRA-99; @SeiGorSav-PRA-07], and has been proved rigorously to be exact for $D=1$ or $N=2$ in $D>1$, provided the interaction $v_{ee}(x)$ is convex and bounded from below [@ColDepDim-CJM-15]. In the following, we assume that the proposed SCE solution is the exact solution, so we replace by SCE.
The underlying idea of SCE is that the positions of the electrons become strictly correlated, i.e. the position of one electron dictates the whereabouts of all other electrons. This means that the minimizer of is a distribution that is zero in the whole configuration space except for a subset $\Omega_0$ of dimension $D$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PsiSCE}
&{\lvert\Psi_{{\text{SCE}}}({{\mathbf{r}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\mathbf{r}}}_N)\rvert}^2
\equiv{\lvert\Psi_{\lambda\to\infty}({{\mathbf{r}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\mathbf{r}}}_N)\rvert}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{N!}\sum_{\wp}{\!\int\!{\mathrm{d}}{{{\mathbf{s}}}}\:}\prod_{i=1}^N\frac{\rho({{\mathbf{s}}})}{N}\delta({{\mathbf{r}}}_i-{{\mathbf{f}}}_{\wp(i)}({{\mathbf{s}}}))\end{aligned}$$where $\wp$ denotes any permutation of $N$ elements, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{degenerateminimum}
\Omega_0({{\mathbf{s}}})&\equiv\lbrace{{\mathbf{f}}}_1({{\mathbf{s}}}),{{\mathbf{f}}}_2({{\mathbf{s}}}),\dotsc,{{\mathbf{f}}}_N({{\mathbf{s}}})\rbrace &&{{\mathbf{s}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^D.\end{aligned}$$ The optimal maps or *co-motion* functions ${{\mathbf{f}}}_i[\rho]$ are non-local functionals of the density and their physical meaning is to provide the position of $N-1$ electrons as a function of the position of the first electron. Indistinguishability can be guaranteed by requiring the following group properties [@SeiGorSav-PRA-07; @MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14] $$\label{eq:groupprop}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{f}}}_1({{\mathbf{r}}})&\equiv{{\mathbf{r}}},\\
{{\mathbf{f}}}_2({{\mathbf{r}}})&\equiv{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbf{r}}}),\\
{{\mathbf{f}}}_3({{\mathbf{r}}})&\equiv{{\mathbf{f}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbf{r}}})\bigr),\\
&\vdotswithin{=} \\
{{\mathbf{f}}}_N({{\mathbf{r}}})&=\underbrace{{{\mathbf{f}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{f}}}(\ldots{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbf{r}}})\ldots)\bigr)}_{N-1\text{ times}}\\
&\underbrace{{{\mathbf{f}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{f}}}(\ldots{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbf{r}}})\ldots)\bigr)}_{N\text{ times}}={{\mathbf{r}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the density constraint implies the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DifferentialEqComotionFunctions}
\rho({{\mathbf{r}}}){\mathrm{d}}{{\mathbf{r}}}&= \rho\bigl({{\mathbf{f}}}_n({{\mathbf{r}}})\bigr){\mathrm{d}}{{\mathbf{f}}}_n({{\mathbf{r}}}) && n\in[1,N]\subset\mathbb{N}.\end{aligned}$$ The minimum of must be degenerate in $\Omega_0({{\mathbf{s}}})$: a hypothetical minimum in a specific point $\mathbf{s^*}$ would collapse the system into a frozen configuration of positions $\lbrace{{\mathbf{f}}}_1(\mathbf{s^*}),{{\mathbf{f}}}_2(\mathbf{s^*}),\dotsc,{{\mathbf{f}}}_N(\mathbf{s^*})\rbrace$, in violation of the smooth density constraint . Hence we must have $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{pot}}\bigl(\Omega_0({{\mathbf{s}}})\bigr) &\equiv E_{{\text{SCE}}} &&\forall {{\mathbf{s}}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^D.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, with $V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]
&= {\int^{\crampedrlap{}}_{\crampedrlap{{\mathbb{R}}^{DN}}}{\mathrm{d}}{^N{{\mathbf{r}}}}\,}\hat{V}_{ee}{\lvert\Psi_{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]\rvert}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{N}{\int^{\crampedrlap{}}_{\crampedrlap{{\mathbb{R}}^D}}{\mathrm{d}}{{{\mathbf{r}}}}\,}\rho({{\mathbf{r}}})v_{ee}(\vert{{\mathbf{f}}}_i({{\mathbf{r}}})-{{\mathbf{f}}}_j({{\mathbf{r}}})\vert)\nonumber\\&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}{\int^{\crampedrlap{}}_{\crampedrlap{{\mathbb{R}}^D}}{\mathrm{d}}{{{\mathbf{r}}}}\,}\rho({{\mathbf{r}}})v_{ee}({\lvert {{\mathbf{r}}}-{{\mathbf{f}}}_i({{\mathbf{r}}})\rvert}).\end{aligned}$$
Zero Point Energy
-----------------
As anticipated, at finite large $\lambda$ the characterization of the ground state of Hamiltonian departs from the semi-classical picture, as the kinetic energy starts to play a relevant role in the description of the underlying physics in the form of zero-point oscillations performed near $\Omega_0$.
Consider $\mathbb{H}({{\mathbf{s}}})$, the Hessian of $E_{\mathrm{pot}}({{\mathbf{r}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\mathbf{r}}}_N)$ evaluated in $\Omega_0({{\mathbf{s}}})$. This matrix has $D$ zero eigenvalues and $DN-D$ positive ${{\mathbf{s}}}$-dependent eigenvalues, $\omega_{\mu}({{\mathbf{s}}})^2$, $$\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\sqrt{\mathbb{H}({{\mathbf{s}}})}\right) \equiv \sum_{\mathclap{\mu=D+1}}^{DN}\omega_{\mu}({{\mathbf{s}}}).$$ The corresponding eigenvectors induce a set of curvilinear coordinates $u_{\mu}$ in terms of which $\hat{H}^{\lambda}$ can be expanded [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09; @GroKooGieSeiCohMorGor-JCTC-17].
Retaining the leading order in the expansion of the Laplace–Beltrami operator for the kinetic energy, we have argued [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09; @GroKooGieSeiCohMorGor-JCTC-17] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ZPEvext}
v^{\lambda}({{\mathbf{r}}}) &\sim \lambda\,v^{{\text{SCE}}}({{\mathbf{r}}}) + \sqrt{\lambda}\,v^{{\text{ZPE}}}({{\mathbf{r}}}) &&\lambda \gg 1.\end{aligned}$$ This allows one to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HamExp}
\hat{H}_{\lambda} &\sim \lambda\, E_{{\text{SCE}}} + \sqrt{\lambda}\,\hat{H}^{{\text{ZPE}}} &&\lambda\gg 1,\end{aligned}$$ where the operator $\hat{H}^{{\text{ZPE}}}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamZPE}
\hat{H}^{{\text{ZPE}}}={}&\frac{1}{2}\;\sum_{\mathclap{\mu=D+1}}^{ND}\;\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u^2_{\mu}}+\omega_{\mu}({{\mathbf{s}}})^2 u^2_{\mu}\right)\nonumber\\
&{} +\hat{V}^{{\text{ZPE}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{s}}},{{\mathbf{f}}}_2({{\mathbf{s}}}),\dotsc,{{\mathbf{f}}}_N({{\mathbf{s}}})\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ For each fixed ${{\mathbf{s}}}$, $\hat{H}^{{\text{ZPE}}}$ has the structure of a set of harmonic oscillators in the coordinates $u_{\mu}$. The term denoted $\hat{V}^{{\text{ZPE}}}$, depending only on ${{\mathbf{s}}}$, does not affect the harmonic nature of its solution and, by correcting the external potential computed in , keeps the degeneracy of the energy with respect to ${{\mathbf{s}}}$ through order $\sqrt{\lambda}$, provided the following constraint [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09] is imposed $$\begin{aligned}
\label{degeneracyconstraint}
\hat{V}^{{\text{ZPE}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{s}}},{{\mathbf{f}}}_2({{\mathbf{s}}}),\dotsc,{{\mathbf{f}}}_N({{\mathbf{s}}})\bigr)
&=\sum_{i=1}^Nv^{{\text{ZPE}}}\bigl({{\mathbf{f}}}_i({{\mathbf{s}}})\bigr) \nonumber\\
&=-\sum_{\mathclap{\mu=D+1}}^{DN}\frac{\omega_{\mu}({{\mathbf{s}}})}{2} + \text{const}.\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to give an explicit expression for the subleading term of the generalized universal functional in the strong interaction limit $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HKZPE}
F_{\lambda}[\rho] &\sim \lambda\, V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho] + \sqrt{\lambda}\,F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho] &&\lambda \gg 1,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{generalWinfp}
F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]
&={\langle{\Psi_{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}|{\hat{H}^{{\text{ZPE}}}-\hat{V}^{{\text{ZPE}}}}|{\Psi_{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}{\int^{\crampedrlap{}}_{\crampedrlap{{\mathbb{R}}^D}}{\mathrm{d}}{{{\mathbf{s}}}}\,}\frac{\rho({{\mathbf{s}}})}{N}\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\sqrt{\mathbb{H}({{\mathbf{s}}})}\right),\end{aligned}$$and $\vert\Psi_{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]\rangle$ denotes the ground state of . Notice that in previous works [@Sei-PRA-99; @GorVigSei-JCTC-09; @GroKooGieSeiCohMorGor-JCTC-17] $F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ was denoted as $2 W_{\infty}'[\rho]$, in analogy with the linear coefficient in the expansion at small $\lambda$ of $F_{\lambda}[\rho]$ (see also below).
Functional derivative of $F^{\normalfont{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ for $N=2$, $D=1$ {#papermain}
=============================================================================
SCE + ZPE for $N=2$ electrons in 1D {#fundersection}
-----------------------------------
This brief paragraph is devoted to provide the quantities described so far in the case of 2 electrons in $D=1$ , as well as set of useful relations that help to considerably simplify the calculation outlined in the next sections.
Defining $f_1(s)\equiv s$, $f_2(s)\equiv f(s)$, we have [@MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14] $$\label{Seidlmap}
f[\rho](s)=
\begin{cases}
N_e^{-1}\bigl(N_e(s)+1\bigr)&s<N_e^{-1}(1) \\
N_e^{-1}\bigl(N_e(s)-1\bigr)&s>N_e^{-1}(1) ,
\end{cases}$$ where $$\label{cumulant}
N_e(s)\equiv {\int^{\crampedrlap{s}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{x}\,}\rho(x) .$$ The comotion function is such that the integral of the density between $x$ and $f(x)$ always integrates to 1 independently of $x$. Therefore, when $x<0$, for a symmetric density $f(x)$ must necessarily be positive, and vice versa. As the reference electron approaches $0$ from the left, the second electron is pushed towards $+\infty$. When the reference electron crosses the origin, the second electron must “jump” to $-\infty$.
The only non-zero frequency (eigenvalue of the $2\times 2$ matrix $\mathbb{H}(s)$) is given by [@MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14] $$\label{explicitomega}
\omega(s)\equiv \omega_2[\rho](s)
=\sqrt{v_{ee}''\bigl(s-f(s)\bigr)\left(f'(s)+\frac{1}{f'(s)}\right)}.$$ Notice that $v_{ee}(x)$ is convex, $v''_{ee}(x)>0$, and that $f'(x)>0$, see below. Equation reads explicitly $$\label{fzpeexpll}
F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]=\frac{1}{4}{\int^{\crampedrlap{+\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{s}\,}\rho(s)\omega(s) .$$ Moreover, equations and read
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{fprime}
f\bigl(f(s)\bigr) &= s \implies f'\bigl(f(s)\bigr) = \frac{1}{f'(s)} \\
\label{eq:usefulref}
f'(s) &=\frac{\rho(s)}{\rho\bigl(f(s)\bigr)}\end{aligned}$$
implying $\omega\bigl(f(s)\bigr)=\omega(s)$.
Explicit expression {#papermain1}
-------------------
Inserting and in and comparing the terms proportional to $\sqrt{\lambda}$, we have $$\label{vonehalffunder}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)} = -v^{{\text{ZPE}}}(x).$$ The derivation of an explicit form for $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ starts from noticing that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beginning}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}
&=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta}{\delta\rho(x)}{\int^{\crampedrlap{+\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\omega(y) \nonumber\\
&=\frac{\omega(x)}{4} + \frac{1}{4}{\int^{\crampedrlap{+\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta\omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ The frequency function $\omega(x)$ is an implicit functional of the density, via the co-motion function and its derivative. Even for 2 electrons in $D=1$, computing the functional derivatives of $f(x)$ can be delicate, as it changes sign when $N_e(s)=1$: perturbing the density in this point implies taking into account a step function, for which the chain rule does not apply (see Appendix in [@LanDiMGerLeeGor-PCCP-16] for further details). Step functions are also expected whenever there is a step in $\rho(x)$ or a difference in the values of the density at the boundaries in a compact support. This is not our case however, since we assume $\rho(x)$ to be a continuous integrable function defined on the whole real axis. As a consequence, $\lim_{x\rightarrow N_e^{-1}(1)\uparrow}\omega(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow N_e^{-1}(1)\downarrow}\omega(x)$, there is no step to be taken into account. Hence, we can simply apply the chain rule and write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{omegadifferentiation}
\frac{\delta\omega\bigl[f[\rho],f'[\rho]\bigr](y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
&=\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial f}\frac{\delta f[\rho](y)}{\delta\rho(x)} +
\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial f'}\frac{\delta f'[\rho](y)}{\delta\rho(x)},\end{aligned}$$ which reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{omegadifferentiation2}
\frac{\delta\omega\bigl[f[\rho],f'[\rho]\bigr](y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
= \frac{\omega(x)(f'(x)^2-1)}{2(f'(x)+f'(x)^3)}\frac{\delta f'[\rho](y)}{\delta\rho(x)} \\
{}+
\frac{\Bigl(f'(x)+\frac{1}{f'(x)}\Bigr)v_{ee}'''\bigl( x-f(x)\bigr)}{2\omega(x)}\frac{\delta f[\rho](y)}{\delta\rho(x)} .\end{gathered}$$ For the chain rule, only the regular part of the functional derivative of $f(x)$, which can be found in [@LanDiMGerLeeGor-PCCP-16], is relevant, and reads in 1D $$\label{funderco-motion}
\frac{\delta f[\rho](y)}{\delta\rho(x)}=\frac{\Theta\bigl(y-x\bigr)-\Theta\bigl(f(y)-x\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)},$$ $\Theta(x)$ being the Heaviside step function.
![\[integrando\]$\Lambda(y)$ for the densities in below. Hartree atomic units.](integrando.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
For the functional derivative of $f'[\rho](x)$, we make use of , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivative}
\frac{\delta f'(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
={}& \frac{\delta}{\delta\rho(x)}\left(\frac{\rho(y)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\right) \nonumber \\
={}& \frac{\delta(y-x) - f'(y)\delta(f(y)-x)}{\rho(f(y))} \notag \\
&{} - f'(y)\frac{\rho'(f(y))}{\rho(f(y))}\frac{\delta f(y)}{\delta\rho(x)} .\end{aligned}$$ In the appendix, we show that, using and in and inserting the result in , $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ can be expressed as (see Appendix for details) $$\label{explicitfunder}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}
= \frac{\omega(x)}{4} +\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}{\int^{\crampedrlap{f(x)}}_{\crampedrlap{x}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\Lambda(y)}_{= I(x)} ,$$ where $\Lambda(y)$ is an odd, well behaved function (see also Fig. \[integrando\]) and reads explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(y)&=\frac{v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)} +\nonumber\\&\frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)}\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\frac{3f'(y)^2 + 1}{f'(y)^2 +1}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation implies a sum rule on $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} /\delta\rho(x)$. Inserting in , and remembering that $\omega(s)=\omega\bigl(f(s)\bigr)$, we see that we must have $$\label{expanfunder}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(s)} +
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho\bigl(f(s)\bigr)} = \frac{\omega(s)}{2}.$$ Since $I\bigl(f(x)\bigr)=-I(x)$, this is consistent with our result .
Numerical results for selected densities {#numcon}
----------------------------------------
In this section, we are going to verify numerically, using the effective convex Coulomb interaction renormalized at the origin $$\label{effectiCoulomb}
v_{ee}(x)=\frac{1}{1+\vert x\vert}.$$ (See [@GroKooGieSeiCohMorGor-JCTC-17] for a brief discussion on the importance of convexity of the interaction in -DFT.) We pick 3 test densities, peaked at $x=0$
\[eq:rhoused\] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1(x) &= \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}{\mathrm{e}}^{-x^2} & x &\in {\mathbb{R}}, \\
\rho_2(x) &= \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{1}{\cosh(x)} & x &\in {\mathbb{R}}, \\
\rho_3(x) &= \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{1}{1+x^2} & x &\in {\mathbb{R}}.\end{aligned}$$
All the respective co-motion functions can be evaluated analytically since the inverse function of can be written explicitly. In Fig. \[funderatoms\], we provide the profile of $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ for the test densities . The plots show that the shape of the curve can vary drastically depending on the density chosen. In particular, in all the densities we chose (excluding $\rho_3$) the functional derivative shows divergences both in the origin and in the large $x$ limit. The nature of this divergences shall be investigated deeper in Sec. \[Properties\].
![\[funderatoms\]Functional derivative as from for the first three densities . Hartree atomic units. ](funcder1.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![\[funderatoms\]Functional derivative as from for the first three densities . Hartree atomic units. ](funcder2.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![\[funderatoms\]Functional derivative as from for the first three densities . Hartree atomic units. ](funcder3.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Since the derivation of was cumbersome, we decided to verify it numerically to exclude any possible error. We thus simply use the definition of functional derivative $$\begin{gathered}
\label{numercheck}
F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho+\epsilon\phi]-F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho] \\
\sim \epsilon{\!\int\!{\mathrm{d}}{x}\:}\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}\phi(x) \qquad \epsilon \ll 1 .\end{gathered}$$ If our expression for the functional derivative is correct, we should have that the slope of the l.h.s. of at $\epsilon=0$ coincides with the straight line on the r.h.s. of . For the numerical verification, we consider the following perturbations
\[perturbations\] $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_1(x)&={\mathrm{e}}^{-3x^2}\biggl(x^2-\frac{5}{36}\biggr)\cos(x),\\
\phi_2(x)&={\mathrm{e}}^{-3x^4}\bigl(x^2-0.171617\bigr)\cos(x).\end{aligned}$$
The shape of these functions has been chosen arbitrarily, though they are symmetric, integrate to 0 (thus not changing the number of particles) and, thanks to their fast decay at large $x$, are such that $\rho_i(x)+\epsilon\phi(x)>0\quad\forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}$, for at least $\epsilon\in[-0.5,0.5]$ for the chosen densities. In Fig. \[numercheckplot\] we show the l.h.s. of as a function of $\epsilon$ and the corresponding r.h.s., linear in $\epsilon$. In all cases the tangent of the l.h.s. of shows an excellent agreement with .
Divergencies of $\delta F^{\normalfont{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ in 1D {#Properties}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what follows, we study the behaviour of the functional derivative at large $x$. The same behaviour can be deduced for small $x$, due to the fact that $\omega(x)=\omega\bigl(f(x)\bigr)$ and that $\lim_{x\to 0^\pm}f(x)=\mp\infty$ (see text after ). Keeping in mind that $\lim_{x\to\infty}I(x)=\mathrm{const}$, it is clear from that for $x\gg 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asymfunder}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}
&\sim\frac{\omega(x)}{4} &&\Rightarrow & v^{{\text{ZPE}}}(x)&\sim - \frac{\omega(x)}{4} .\end{aligned}$$ The behaviour of $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ at large $x$ is dominated by $\omega(x)$, which in turn is determined by the interplay between the electron-electron interaction and the density decay at large $x$, cf. . With interaction $v''_{ee}(x)\sim x^{-3}$ at large $x$, hence the frequency will diverge whenever $\rho(x) = o(x^{-3})$ for $ x\gg1$. This is the case for densities $\rho_{1,2}$ in which both decay exponentially (or faster). Such a divergence of $\omega(x)$ makes the interpretation of the expansion of $v^\lambda$ less straightforward: for what just stated in , at large distances, its asymptotic expansion reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{externalpotexp}
v^{\lambda}[\rho](x) &\sim \lambda\,v^{{\text{SCE}}}(x) - \sqrt{\lambda}\,\frac{\omega(x)}{4} && x\gg 1.\end{aligned}$$ At first glance, it seems that the expansion at large $\lambda$ for $v^{\lambda}$ is not consistent with the requirement $v^{\lambda}\in L^{3/2}+L^{\infty}$: if $\omega(x)$ diverges to $+\infty$ then, for every fixed $\lambda$, there is a point $x$ after which the second term in becomes dominant and the minimum of $v^{\lambda}(x)$ is at $x=\pm\infty$ (since $v^{{\text{SCE}}}(x)\sim -(N-1)/{\lvertx\rvert}$ for large $x$ for the chosen interaction). To make sense of , one has to be careful in taking the correct order of limits: what we mean here is that for each *fixed* $x$ the expansion of $v^{\lambda}$ as a function of $\lambda$ follows .
On the other hand, 1D models often assume an effective electron-electron interaction depending on the physics they aim to describe, often leading to short range interactions. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that a short-range interaction should lead to a better behaviour of $\omega(x)$ and hence, the behaviour of $v^{{\text{ZPE}}}$. We have tried two different short range interactions, namely a modified Yukawa potential
$$\label{interyuk}
v^{\mathrm{Yuk}}_{ee}(x)=\frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{-\alpha {\lvertx\rvert}}}{1+{\lvertx\rvert}}$$
and a purely exponential one, popular in DMRG calculations [@BakStoMilWagBurSte-PRB-15], $$\label{interkieron}
v^{\mathrm{exp}}_{ee}(x) = A {\mathrm{e}}^{-\kappa {\lvertx\rvert}} ,$$ with $\kappa^{-1}=2.385345$ and $A=1.071295$.
As an example, in Fig. \[yuk\] we plot how the profile of $\omega[\rho_2](x)$ varies as we pick different interactions. If we pick a sufficiently high $\alpha$, $\omega(x)$ is damped (and consequently the functional derivative $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$). We choose $\alpha=2$, since $\alpha\geq 1$ leads to a convergent frequency ($\omega[\rho_2](x) \sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi}\alpha}{2}x^{-\frac{1}{2}}{\mathrm{e}}^{(1-\alpha)x}$).
![Different frequency-profile for $\rho_2$ with the regularized Coulomb interaction ($\omega_{\text{Coul}}$), the Yukawa interaction with $\alpha=2$ ($\omega_{\text{Yuk}}$) and the exponential interaction ($\omega_{\text{exp}}$). Hartree atomic units.[]{data-label="yuk"}](yukawa2.pdf){width="49.50000%"}
Notice that neither nor would provide a finite $\omega(x)$ when using density $\rho_1$, as the Gaussian decay would prevail on both interactions with any choice of parameters. A faster decaying interaction would be needed, e.g. $\sim {\mathrm{e}}^{-x^2}$.
Exchange-correlation potential for a 1D dimer
=============================================
It is known [@BuiBaeSni-PRA-89; @GriBae-PRA-96; @BaeGri-JPCA-97; @LeeBae-IJQC-94; @HelTokRub-JCP-09; @YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16] that the exact exchange-correlation () potential of a homo-nuclear dimer builds a peak in the mid-bond region that, in the dissociating limit, must be proportional in height to the ionization potential of each fragment. Although some GGA functionals build peak-like features in the bond mid-point [@LeeBae-IJQC-94], they miss its peculiar scaling properties [@YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16] which in general are not recovered by local, semilocal or hybrid functionals [@YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16]. Using only $-v^{{\text{SCE}}}$ as an approximation to the true correlation potential does not allow to recover exactly this feature, which is of purely kinetic nature [@YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16; @MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14; @GiaVucGor-JCTC-18]. It is the purpose of this section to investigate whether the expression obtained so far can help in reproducing, at least qualitatively, this characteristic.
Consider the density $\rho_D$ $$\label{dimerdensity}
\rho_{D}(R;x)=\frac{1}{2}\left({\mathrm{e}}^{-{\lvert x-\frac{R}{2}\rvert}} + {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\lvert x+\frac{R}{2}\rvert}}\right).$$ Having two equal maxima located at $\pm\frac{R}{2}$, $\rho_D$ can be considered as a 1D model for a homo-nuclear dimer whose density profile is parametrically dependent on the internuclear distance $R$. This model has been used several times [@TemMarMai-JCTC-09; @BakStoMilWagBurSte-PRB-15; @HelTokRub-JCP-09; @HodRamGod-PRB-16; @BenPro-PRA-16] since it has been proved to mimic many exact features of the exact KS potential for real molecules; in particular, it gives us the opportunity to model the bond stretching and analyse the kinetic contributions to the potential.
![\[funderdimer\]The SCE potential (solid) and the effect of the ZPO correction (dashed) for $R=15$. Inset: functional derivative of $F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ as from for $\rho_D(R;x)$ calculated numerically at different internuclear distances $R$. Hartree atomic units.](dimertest.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
To write an expression for the potential, we start from the adiabatic connection formalism [@Har-PRA-84]. The energy can be written exactly in terms of an integral over the coupling $\lambda$ $$E_{{\text{XC}}}[\rho] = {\int^{\crampedrlap{1}}_{\crampedrlap{0}}{\mathrm{d}}{\lambda}\,}W_{\lambda}[\rho] ,$$ where $$W_{\lambda}[\rho] = {\langle{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}|{\hat{V}_{ee}}|{\Psi_{\lambda}[\rho]}\rangle} - {U_{\text{H}}}[\rho],$$ ${U_{\text{H}}}[\rho]$ being the Hartree functional. Using the large $\lambda$ expansion of the adiabatic connection integrand [@GorSei-PCCP-10] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WinfApp}
W_{\lambda}[\rho] &\sim V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho] - {U_{\text{H}}}[\rho] + \frac{F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}
&&\lambda\gg 1,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\label{exzpe}
E_{{\text{XC}}}[\rho] \sim E_{{\text{XC}}}^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho] = V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho] - {U_{\text{H}}}[\rho] + F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho],$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xcpotformula}
v_{{\text{XC}}}[\rho](x) \sim -v^{{\text{SCE}}}(x) - v_{\text{H}}(x) + \frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[funderdimer\] we show the potential in for $R=15$. Via , $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$ indeed introduces a correction in the mid-bond region. In fact, since we have [@LanDiMGerLeeGor-PCCP-16] $$\label{asymcomo}
f[\rho_D](x\rightarrow 0^+)\sim\log(x)-R+\log\left(\frac{2}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{-R}}\right),$$ from our treatment in section \[Properties\], the divergence in the mid-bond region can be readily evaluated inserting in $$\label{asymfunderdimer}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho_D]}{\delta\rho_D(R;x)}\sim\frac{(8 x)^{-1/2}}{\left(1+{\lvert R+\log(1+{\mathrm{e}}^{-R})-\log(2x)\rvert}\right)^{3/2}}.$$ For any fixed $x\neq 0$, we find $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho_D(R;x) \to 0$ as $R \to\infty$ while similarly, due to the fact that $\omega(x)=\omega\bigl(f(x)\bigr)$, a divergence of the potential appears also at large $x$. Thus, the kinetic correlation energy introduced by the ZPE creates a divergence instead of a finite peak in the bond mid-point, and this divergence occurs on a region that shrinks when $R\to\infty$. This divergence is due to the extreme correlation between the two electrons: when, say, electron 1 oscillates around the origin, electron 2 jumps from plus to minus infinity. In the exact wavefunction, when one electron crosses the bond mid-point, the conditional position of the other electron also “jumps” from one atom to the other (which is the origin of the peak [@BuiBaeSni-PRA-89; @HelTokRub-JCP-09; @YinBroLopVarGorLor-PRB-16]), but it is distributed according to the one-electron density on each atom.
![\[interp05\]Functional derivative of $F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ and $F_{\mathrm{ISI}}^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ for $R=0.5$. Hartree atomic units.](interp05.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
![\[interp5\]Functional derivative of $F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ and $F_{\mathrm{ISI}}^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ for $R=5$. Hartree atomic units.](interp5.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The ZPE correction to the SCE approximation of $v_{{\text{XC}}}$ in includes a positive contribution from the region $\lambda\sim 0$ that, although integrable, is too large to provide a reasonable estimate of the energy $E_{{\text{XC}}}[\rho]$. This is due to the fact that we are using only pieces of information from the high coupling limit to approximate $W_{\lambda}[\rho]$. A way to improve this approximation is to include also exact ingredients from the $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ limit [@SeiPerLev-PRA-99; @SeiPerKur-PRL-00; @MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14; @GiaGorDelFab-JCP-18], by writing an expression that reproduces the correct behaviour of $W_{\lambda}$ at small and strong couplings; among these, the interaction strength interpolation (ISI) [@SeiPerLev-PRA-99] has been object of study in recent years [@GiaGorDelFab-JCP-18; @VucGorDelFab-JPCL-18; @FabSmiGiaDaaSalGraGor-ArXiv-18]. In this final paragraph, we investigate the effect of one of a simplified ISI as proposed in [@MalMirGieWagGor-PCCP-14], which is size consistent for the dissociation of a system into two equal fragments. Hence we approximate $W_{\lambda}[\rho]$ to $$W_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{isiZPE}}[\rho] = V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho] - {U_{\text{H}}}[\rho] + \frac{F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{2\sqrt{\lambda+a[\rho]}},$$ with $$a[\rho] = \left(\frac{F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{2(E_{\text{x}}[\rho]-(V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]-{U_{\text{H}}}[\rho]))}\right)^2.$$ The energy reads then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{exisi}
E^{\mathrm{ISI}}_{{\text{XC}}}[\rho]\sim V_{ee}^{{\text{SCE}}}[\rho]-{U_{\text{H}}}[\rho] \\
{} +\underbrace{F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]\left(\sqrt{1+a[\rho]}-\sqrt{a[\rho]}\right)}_{F^{{\text{ZPE}}}_{\mathrm{ISI}}[\rho]}\end{gathered}$$ While the potential is changed considerably at small $R$ (see Fig. \[interp05\]), for large internuclear distances the effect of the ISI becomes negligible: already at $R=5$ (Fig. \[interp5\]) we see that the effect is small and at $R=15$ the two curves becomes indistinguishable.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we worked out an explicit expression for the functional derivative of the subleading term of the generalized universal functional $ F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$ in the strong coupling limit of DFT for 2 electrons in 1D. Our expression respects the sum rules deduced first in [@GorVigSei-JCTC-09] on physical grounds, and has been verified numerically.
We found that the asymptotic behaviour of $\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta \rho(x)$ for $x \to \infty$ is dictated by the asymptotic behaviour of the ZPE frequency $\omega(x)$. The asymptotic behaviour of $\omega(x)$ is dominated by the ratio $v''_{ee}(x)/\rho(x)$ for large $x$, so typically depends on the relative decay of the density compared to the interaction. For relatively fast decaying densities, $\omega(x)$ and hence $v^{{\text{ZPE}}}$ diverges for $x \to \infty$ and $x \to N_e(1)$. We expect similar features to be present in more general cases (higher dimensions and more particles). Though we do not have an explicit expression of $F^{\text{ZPE}}$ to directly evaluate its functional derivative, the sum rule is generally valid and indicates that $v^{{\text{ZPE}}}$ should have at least the same divergencies as the ZPE frequencies $\omega_{\mu}(x)$. So in the general 1D case, we expect divergencies of the ZPE potential at the points where the density integrates to an integer particle number.
By studying the dissociation of a symmetric dimer, we have demonstrated that the correctly generates a peak in the mid-point region, properly purely built by the kinetic energy. Unfortunately, the diverging features of $\omega(x)$ also make the peak diverging for Coulomb systems, instead of reaching a finite value as in the exact case.
In the future, we aim to investigate the next leading term of the generalized universal functional. This should include exact pieces of information on the ionization energy, hence “curing” the divergencies appearing at the ZPE order [@GiaVucGor-JCTC-18]. Another promising research line is the calculation of the kernel of $ F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]$, i.e. its second functional derivative, which can be used as an adiabatic but spatially *non-local* -kernel in the response formulation of TD-DFT.
Financial support was provided by the European Research Council under H2020/ERC Consolidator Grant “corr-DFT” \[grant number 648932\]. K.J.H.G. also acknowledges funding by Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie FOM Projectruimte \[project 15PR3232\].
Calculation details for $\delta F^{\normalfont{\text{ZPE}}} / \delta\rho(x)$
=============================================================================
We have from $$\label{starting}
\frac{\delta F^{{\text{ZPE}}}[\rho]}{\delta\rho(x)}
= \frac{\omega(x)}{4} + \frac{1}{4}{\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}.$$ Using the chain rule in , the integral in the last equation can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
{}={}& {\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\frac{\omega(y)}{2}\frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1}\bigl(\delta(y-x)-f'(y)\delta(f(y)-x)\bigr) \notag \\
&{}+ {\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\frac{\omega(y)}{2}\left(\frac{v'''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}{v''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}-\frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1}\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\right)
f'(y)\bigl(\Theta(y-x)-\Theta(f(y)-x)\bigr) .\end{aligned}$$
With the substitution $u=f(y)$, the second delta function and step function can be combined with the first ones to yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{second}
{\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
{}={}& {\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\omega(y)\frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1}\delta(y-x) \nonumber \\
&{}+ {\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\frac{\omega(y)}{2}\bigg[\frac{v'''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}{v''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}(f'(y)+1)-\frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1}\left(f'(y)\frac{\rho'(f(y))}{\rho(f(y))}+\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)}\right)\bigg].\end{aligned}$$
The integrand of last integral is not well behaved due to the presence of $\omega(y)$, and is prone to numerical instabilities when evaluated. In our investigation we found that both integrals have opposite divergences, which can be eliminated by combining them. In order to do so, we proceed along two lines: first, we integrate the Dirac deltas in the first term and then rewrite the result as an integral, effectively performing an integration by parts of the Dirac delta. Secondly, remembering that the functional derivative is only defined modulo a constant, we can shift the region of integration, as this only gives a constant contribution and write $$\begin{gathered}
{\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
= \omega(x)\frac{f'(x)^2-1}{f'(x)^2+1} \\
{} + {\int^{\crampedrlap{b_+}}_{\crampedrlap{x}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\frac{\omega(y)}{2}\bigg[\frac{v'''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}{v''_{ee}(f(y)-y)}(f'(y)+1) \\
{} - \frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1}\bigg(f'(y)\frac{\rho'(f(y))}{\rho(f(y))}+\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)}\bigg)\bigg] ,\end{gathered}$$ where we defined $b_+>0$ as the point where $b_+=-f(b_+)$. As outlined, we can now use the fundamental theorem of calculus to rewrite the first term as $$\begin{gathered}
\omega(x)\frac{f'(x)^2-1}{f'(x)^2+1}
= {\int^{\crampedrlap{x}}_{\crampedrlap{b_+}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\bigg(\omega'(y)\frac{f'(y)^2-1}{f'(y)^2+1} \\
{}+ \frac{4\omega(y)}{(f'(y)+1/f'(y))^2}\frac{f''(y)}{f'(y)}\bigg).\end{gathered}$$ We make use of
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega'(y)=&\frac{1}{2\omega(y)}\bigg[v'''_{ee}(f(y)-y)(f'(y)-1)\bigg(f'(y)+\frac{1}{f'(y)}\bigg) \notag \\*
&{}+ v''_{ee}(f(y)-y)\bigg(1-\frac{1}{f'(y)^2}\bigg)f''(y)\bigg], \\
f''(y)=&f'(y)\left(\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)}-f'(y)\frac{\rho'(f(y))}{\rho(f(y))}\right)\end{aligned}$$
to write
$$\begin{gathered}
\omega(x)\frac{f'(x)^2 - 1}{f'(x)^2 +1}
=\int_{b_+}^{x}\mathrm{d}y\biggl[\frac{v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{2\omega(y)}
\bigl(f'(y) - 1\bigr)\bigl(f'(y) - f'(y)^{-1}\bigr) \\*
{}+ \frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{2\omega(y)}\frac{f'^2(y) + f'(y)^{-2} + 6}{f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}}
\biggl(\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)} - f'(y)\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\biggr)\biggr] .\end{gathered}$$
Combining these results we can write the integral in as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{protofunctional}
{\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)}
={\int^{\crampedrlap{b_+}}_{\crampedrlap{x}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\biggl[v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)\frac{f'(y) + 1}{\omega(y)} \\
{} - \frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)}
\biggl(\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)}\frac{f'(y)^2 + 3}{f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}} -
f'(y)\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\frac{f'(y)^{-2} + 3}{f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}}
\biggr)\biggr] .\end{gathered}$$ It is not transparent from this expression that is odd under the exchange $x \to f(x)$. Moreover, the term $\sim v'''_{ee}f / \omega$ might not be bounded. To make it more clear, we apply again the transformation $u=f(y)$ to the first two terms in the integrand above and rewrite them as $$\begin{gathered}
{\int^{\crampedrlap{b_+}}_{\crampedrlap{x}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\biggl[v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)\frac{f'(y)}{\omega(y)}
- \frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)}\frac{\rho'(y)}{\rho(y)}\frac{f'(y)^2 + 3}{f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}}\biggr] \\
= -{\int^{\crampedrlap{-b_+}}_{\crampedrlap{f(x)}}{\mathrm{d}}{u}\,}\biggl[\frac{v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(u) - u\bigr)}{\omega(u)}
+ \frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(u) - u\bigr)}{\omega(u)}
f'(u)\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(u)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(u)\bigr)}\frac{f'(u)^{-2} + 3}{f'(u) + f'(u)^{-1}}\biggr].\end{gathered}$$ Now the integrands can be summed to yield $${\int^{\crampedrlap{\infty}}_{\crampedrlap{-\infty}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\rho(y)\frac{\delta \omega(y)}{\delta\rho(x)} =
\left({\int^{\crampedrlap{b_+}}_{\crampedrlap{x}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,} + {\int^{\crampedrlap{f(x)}}_{\crampedrlap{-b_+}}{\mathrm{d}}{y}\,}\right)\biggl[\frac{v_{ee}'''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)} +
\frac{v_{ee}''\bigl(f(y) - y\bigr)}{\omega(y)}
\frac{\rho'\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}{\rho\bigl(f(y)\bigr)}\frac{3f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}}{f'(y) + f'(y)^{-1}}\biggr],$$ and adding the integration between $-b_+$ and $b_+$, which amounts to adding only an immaterial constant to the functional derivative, yields .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Zero temperature quench in the Axial Next Nearest Neighbour Ising (ANNNI) model fails to bring it to its ground state for a certain range of values of the frustration parameter $\kappa$, the ratio of the next nearest neighbour antiferromagnetic interaction strength to the nearest neighbour one. We apply several annealing methods, both classical and quantum, and observe that the behaviour of the residual energy and the order parameter depends on the value of $\kappa$ strongly. Classical or thermal annealing is found to be adequate for small values of $\kappa$. However, neither classical nor quantum annealing is effective at values of $\kappa$ close to the fully frustrated point $\kappa=0.5$, where the residual energy shows a very slow algebraic decay with the number of MCS.'
address: ' Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009, India. '
author:
- Parongama Sen and Pratap Kumar Das
title: Dynamical frustration in ANNNI model and annealing
---
Keywords: frustration, zero temperature quenching, domain dynamics, small world network, freezing, Suzuki Trotter mapping
[2]{}
Introduction
============
Simulated annealing is usually applied to systems with frustration, like spin glasses and optimisation problems, where the energy landscape is complex with many spurious minima. There are certain other systems, however, which have very simple energy landscape picture and ground states, but still the system fails to reach its ground state during a energy-lowering dynamical process. This situation corresponds to “dynamical frustration”. We have specifically considered the case of the axial next nearest neighbour (ANNNI) chain, where such a situation is encountered. In section II, we elaborate the notion of dynamic frustration with examples and in section III, the dynamics in ANNNI model is discussed in detail. The results of application of the classical and quantum annealing are discussed in sections IV and V. Summary and some concluding comments are given in the last section.
Dynamic frustration in Ising models
===================================
Quenching dynamics in magnetic systems has been a topic of intense research over the last few decades. In quenching dynamics, the system has a disordered initial configuration corresponding to a high temperature. As the temperature is suddenly decreased quite a few interesting phenomena take place like domain growth [@gunton; @bray], persistence [@satya1; @derrida; @stauffer; @krap1] etc.
The Ising model maybe regarded as the simplest model describing magnetic properties of many real systems and it shows a rich dynamical behaviour with respect to the above phenomena. The dynamics of Ising models has been extensively studied in lattices of different dimensions as well as on graphs and networks.
In dynamical studies, the system is allowed to evolve from the initial configuration following a certain prescription and the commonly used dynamical rule at zero temperature is the Glauber dynamics, i.e., a spin is chosen randomly and flipped if it makes the energy lesser, not flipped if energy increases and flipped with probability 1/2 if there is no energy change.
The zero temperature deterministic dynamics in Ising models can be visualised as the motion of interfaces and the domains grow in size as the interfaces annihilate on approaching each other (Fig. 1). In one dimension, a zero temperature quench of the Ising model ultimately leads to the equilibrium configuration, i.e., all spins point up (or down).
In two or higher dimensions, however, the system does not always reach equilibrium [@Krap_Redner; @sundar; @god; @stein; @jain; @gleiser]. Such a situation corresponds to dynamical frustration when the system gets frozen in a metastable state which does not correspond to the ground state. For example, in the two dimensional lattice (Fig. 2), the dynamics stops at a higher energy when the domain walls are straight and appear without any corner. The system thus acquires a “striped phase”, where the number of stripes is an even number. In dimensions higher than two, there maybe other kind of frozen states in which the system gets locked.
This kind of freezing or blocking is also encountered in ferromagnetic Ising models on random graphs and small world networks where there are finite number of random long range bonds. In the random graph, any two spins are connected with a finite probability while in the small world network, random long range connections occur in addition to nearest neighbour links. In these cases, the domain walls may get pinned resulting in a frozen state [@sw1; @sw2; @sw3; @sw4; @sw5]. Recently, freezing has been observed on scale-free networks also, where, although the system is locked in an excited state, the dynamics continues indefinitely [@sw6].
In the above examples of freezing in Ising models on finite dimensional lattices, graphs and networks, a few things are to be noted\
(a) The ground state is simple in all the cases\
(b) There is no frustration arising out of the interactions in the system.\
In addition, power law scalings with time (e.g., domain size $\sim t^{1/z}$) exist for the finite dimensional lattices [@comment] but in the case of networks or random graphs, one has an exponential relaxation behaviour consistent with the mean field nature of these systems [@silva; @herrero; @hong; @lopes].
Dynamics in ANNNI chain
=======================
We will now discuss the dynamics in the axial next nearest neighbour Ising (ANNNI) model [@selke] in which there is frustration but no randomness or disorder. The ANNNI model in one dimension is described by the Hamiltonian
$$H = -J_1\Sigma S_iS_{i+1} + J_2\Sigma S_iS_{i+2}.$$
The ground state of this model is well-known: it is ferromagnetic for $\kappa = J_2/J_1 < 0.5$; antiphase for $\kappa = J_2/J_1 > 0.5$ and highly frustrated for $J_2/J_1=0.5.$ All configurations having domains of size $\ge 2$ are ground states at the point $\kappa=0.5$, which we call the fully frustrated point.
The dynamics of the ANNNI chain has quite a few interesting behaviour [@redner; @PS_SDG]. When zero temperature quenching dynamics dynamics is considered, $\kappa = 1.0$ emerges as a dynamical transition point. For $\kappa < 1$, there is no conventional domain coarsening or persistence behaviour. Here, all domains of size 1 immediately vanish but domains of size two are stable such that two domain walls cannot approach each other and annihilate (Fig. 3).
Unlike in the Ising model in $d=2$, here the domain walls are not pinned but can move around keeping their number fixed. The energy of the system is constant as spin flips occur with zero energy cost. The system thus wanders in a subspace of iso-energy metastable states forever. As a result, the model also does not show a power-law decay in the persistence probability. Interestingly, there is no special effect of the $\kappa =0.5$ point (which dictates the static behaviour) on the dynamics.
As the domain walls continue moving in the system, the number of spin flips at any time becomes a constant in time. This constant is independent of the value of $\kappa$. That is expected as this quantity is proportional to the number of domain walls. The average number of domain walls remaining in the system (per spin) turns out to be close to 0.28[@PS_SDG].
The residual energy $E_r$, defined as the excess energy over the ground state energy shows an interesting behaviour with $\kappa$ (Fig. 4). At small values of $\kappa$ the large number of domain walls makes the residual energy large. As $\kappa$ is increased, $E_r$ becomes lesser and at $\kappa=0.5$ it is zero. This is not surprising however; the configurations with domain sizes $\ge2$ are nothing but the degenerate ground states of the $\kappa=0.5$ point. The residual energy decreases as $\kappa = 0.5$ is approached from both sides.
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that the ANNNI model shows conventional relaxation behaviour for $\kappa > 1$ although with a dynamic exponent different from that of the nearest neighbour Ising model.
Since the conventional dynamics does not bring the system to the ground state, one has to employ some other method to do this. Simulated annealing for the Ising model on random graphs has been attempted to “melt” the system with success [@sw1]. For small world networks, freezing can be got rid off by letting more number of edges in the system also [@pkd]. We discuss in the next two section the result of applying different annealing schedules to the ANNNI model for various values of $\kappa < 1$.
Classical Annealing (CA)
========================
We have adopted two different schemes for applying classical or thermal annealing.
This is the conventional scheme where one starts with a finite temperature $T=T_0$ and slowly reduces it according to a linear schedule, such that, at the $t$-th iteration step,
$$T= T_0(1-t/\tau),$$
where $\tau$ is the total number of Monte Carlo steps (MCS). The final temperature (at $t=\tau$) is zero for any starting value of $T$.
Since for all non-zero temperature, the ANNNI model is in a paramagnetic state, one may start with a random initial configuration corresponding to $T_0$.
We have calculated the residual energy and the order parameter as functions of $\tau$; the former is expected to approach zero and the latter should increase towards unity with larger values of $\tau$.
In Fig. 5, we show the behaviour of $E_r$ against $\tau$ for different $\kappa$ values. These simulations have been done for a system of 100 spins keeping $T_0=10$. The number of configurations $n$ over which averaging has been done decreases with $\tau$; starting with $n=1000$ for smaller values of $\tau$, it is decreased to $n=100$ for very large $\tau$ values. While for $\kappa =0.2$, we find a stretched exponential decay, the nature of the curves changes to a power law decay for higher values of $\kappa$. Close to 0.5 it has a very slow decay. Corresponding to a power law fit $E_r \sim \tau^{-\alpha}$, $\alpha$ is very small here, e.g., for $\kappa=0.4, ~~\alpha = 0.08\pm 0.01,$ and for $\kappa = 0.6, ~~\alpha = 0.03\pm 0.01 .$ The slowing down of the decay pattern of $E_r$ seems to depend on the closeness to $\kappa =0.5$ as well as on the nature of the ground state. For the various values of $\kappa$ for which the annealing scheme has been employed, the slowest decay is observed at $\kappa=0.6$, when the system is close to $\kappa=0.5$ and the ground state is also antiphase. The power law remains valid for $\kappa > 0.5$ with an increasing value of $\alpha$.
We have also checked the efficiency of this scheme for different values of $T_0$. Note that the decrease in $T$ is made with a slope equal to $T_0/\tau$ (eq. 2), so we compare the results for different $T_0$’s by plotting $E_r$ against $\tau/T_0$. For $\kappa=0.4$ or $0.6$, $E_r$ is independent of $T_0$ (as long as $T_0$ is not very small compared to 1) while for $\kappa=0.2$, lowering $T_0$ makes the decay faster at large $\tau$. However, when $T_0$ is made smaller than unity the decay does not become faster any more. This plot (Fig. 6) also shows that for $\kappa$ close to 0.5, the power law behaviour is actually valid over a large range of $\tau$ which is not so apparent from Fig. 5.
Thus $E_r$ depends strongly on $\kappa$: not only does the functional form change from a stretched exponential to power law, there is also a non-universal exponent $\alpha$ which depends on the value of $\kappa$. The role of $\kappa=0.5$ is felt clearly as the annealing is least effective close to this point.
While estimating the order parameter (OP), it should be noted that for $\kappa < 0.5$, the order parameter is just the magnetisation while for $\kappa > 0.5$, it is the average of the four sublattice magnetisations defined as $$m_\alpha = \Sigma_{j=0}^{L/4-1} S_{\alpha + 4j}; ~~~\alpha =1,2,3,4$$ as in [@PS_SDG]. In Fig. 7, we plot the behaviour of the OP with $\tau$ for different values of $\kappa$. The behaviour of the order parameter is also $\kappa$ dependent. The variations with $\tau$ are not smooth: the reason is that decreasing energy is not necessarily equivalent to increasing the order parameter. However it seems to have a rough power law increase for all values of $\kappa$ (Fig. 7). As expected, the growth of the order parameter is slowest at $\kappa=0.6$.
Thus we find that this annealing schedule is not very effective near $\kappa=0.5$ but works well for small values of $\kappa$. It is not possible to detect whether there is a value of $\kappa$ for which the behaviour of the residual energy changes from stretched exponential to power law from the present numerical study.
In this scheme, we first let the system evolve from a random configuration (corresponding to a high temperature) using the zero temperature dynamics and then, after a few steps, apply scheme A. The difference here is, we let the system reach one of the metastable states under zero temperature dynamics, heat it to a finite temperature $T_0$ which is then gradually decreased.
In the ANNNI chain, for the first 100 iterations, the temperature is kept zero such that when re-heated, the system is in one of the metastable iso-energy states. We find that this scheme accelerates the decay of the residual energy remarkably for small values of $\kappa$ (e.g., $\kappa=0.2$) at large $\tau$. However, for higher values, e.g., $\kappa =0.3,0.4, 0.6$, for which scheme A gave a power law decay of $E_r$, the results are identical to that of scheme A. Thus near the $\kappa=0.5$ point, this scheme is also seen to fail to bring the system to its static ground state.
This scheme is highly appropriate for cases where the system has a fractional probability to end up in a metastable or frozen state not corresponding to the ground state. Here it is not possible to predict whether a random initial configuration will reach the ground state under zero temperature dynamics or not. A good example is the two dimensional Ising model as it reaches a frozen state in about 30% cases. It is useless to apply scheme A here because 70% of the cases do not require any annealing at all. Therefore in order to see whether CA is useful, it should be better to apply scheme A to an initial configuration of frozen state which can be assumed to have evolved from a perfectly random initial state with zero temperature Glauber dynamics. Thus effectively it has undergone a period of cooling at zero temperature and when scheme A is now applied to it, it is equivalent to scheme B.
We have performed some simulation on a square lattice of size $L=40$, where the number of stripes $s$ is equal to 2 or 4. In each case, we find that the behaviour of both the residual energy and the magnetisation is exponential which means that the scheme works very well in this case. In Fig. 8, we show the variation of the residual energy and magnetisation for $s=2$. The exponential relaxation is easily understood, as the thermal perturbation breaks the structure of the domain walls and the system is then again free to evolve dynamically. The results are identical for $s=2$ and $4$ at large $\tau$. It may be mentioned here that for a value of the stripe number $s$ comparable to $L$, the situation is very similar to the ANNNI model (as stripe sizes have to be $\ge 2$) and then the exponential behaviour may no longer be present. However, the probability of a large value of $s$ is small and so, we have not considered values of $s > 4$.
Quantum Annealing (QA)
======================
Although the classical annealing methods work quite well for the ANNNI model for small $\kappa$, we find that close to the $\kappa=0.5$ point, it leads to very slow relaxation. In several situations, quantum annealing is far more efficient in decreasing the energy of the system [@new2; @sontoro] and we therefore apply this method in the ANNNI model. Here instead of thermal fluctuation, quantum fluctuation is considered to induce tunnelling to enable the system reach the ground state for $\kappa < 1$.
The Hamiltonian for the quantum ANNNI chain is : $$$$H=-J_1\Sigma S_{i}S_{i+1} + J_2\Sigma S_ iS_{i+2}
-\Gamma \Sigma S_ i$$$$
This can be mapped to a 2-dimensional classical model [@suzuki; @CDS] using the Suzuki-Trotter formula:
$$H=-J_1\Sigma S_{\alpha, i}S_{\alpha,i+1} + J_2\Sigma S_{\alpha, i}S_{\alpha ,i+2} -J_p\Sigma S_{\alpha, i}S_{\alpha+1,i}$$
where
$$J_p = - {PT/2}\ln (\tanh (\Gamma/PT))$$ and $\alpha$ denotes the $\alpha th$ row in the Trotter direction. Subsequently, one can use a linear schedule for the transverse field as in [@sontoro] and find out the results for $E_r$ and the order parameter. However, it is not possible to make $\Gamma$ equal to zero in the last step as that would make $J_p$ infinite.
We would first show some curious features of the results on applying this method to the ANNNI model and then try to justify the results.
The Suzuki-Trotter mapping is exact for $P \to \infty$ but it can be a good approximation if $PT \ge 1$. One needs to find out an optimum value of $PT$ for which $E_r$ does not change with $P$. We therefore fix $PT$ and find out $E_r$ for different values of $P$ following [@sontoro]. We first fix $PT=1$. For small $\kappa$, e.g., for $\kappa=0.1$, the scheme indeed makes $E_r$ go down with $\tau$ quite efficiently. However, the value of $E_r$ for the same $\tau$ and different values of $P$ shows that $E_r$ actually increases with $P$. Thus results for any finite $P$ may not be reliable. Even increasing $PT$ to 2, we find that this behaviour persists. The reason for this maybe that the Suzuki-Trotter mapping works with a non-zero temperature for which the system is disordered and is always at a high energy state compared to the perfectly ordered state and therefore $E_r$ does not go to zero for large $\tau$ and $P$. These results are shown in Fig. 9.
In case of a value of $\kappa $ close to 0.5, e.g., $\kappa=0.4$, we find that $E_r$ remains virtually a constant for all $P$ values when $PT=1$ which apparently implies that $PT=1$ is a good optimum value. However, $E_r$ actually remains a constant for all $\tau$ values as well showing that it does not relax at all. Thus here too the quantum annealing method will not work well. The reason is again because a non-zero temperature of the system has been used. However, the manifestation of this non-zero temperature is different for small and higher values of $\kappa$.
On hindsight, it may appear that quantum annealing is a redundant exercise in this case. However, it is interesting to find out how the redundancy makes itself known for different values of $\kappa$ in different ways.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
In summary, we have shown that in systems with dynamic frustration, simulated annealing can be applied which gives results according to the nature of the system. For the ANNNI model, which has a competing interaction leading to frustration, (but well defined ground states with trivial degeneracy for $\kappa \ne 0.5$) classical annealing seems to work well for values of $\kappa$ close to $\kappa=0$.
We have applied a different scheme of thermal annealing where the system is heated after an initial period of cooling. The results remain same in case of the ANNNI model when the frustration parameter is appreciable. But this method is useful in case of some other models where the conventional scheme is not very handy, e.g., the two dimensional Ising model. The better effectiveness of the annealing scheme for the two dimensional model in comparison to the ANNNI model may be attributed to the fact that there is no frustration in the former. The frustration present in the ANNNI model especially near $\kappa=0.5$ makes it unresponsive to the thermal annealing while the unfrustrated two dimensional Ising model responds fast to the thermal fluctuation.
In case of the ANNNI model, it is also interesting to note that while in the dynamical studies it was shown that the $\kappa=0.5$ point hardly has any role to play, and dynamical quantities like persistent probability, number of spins flipped at any time etc. were $\kappa$ independent, things become strongly $\kappa$ dependent under any annealing schedule with non-universal exponents governing the power law decays. The effect of $\kappa=0.5$ is also felt as the annealing fails to make any impact close to it.
The application of a quantum annealing method with non-zero temperature also fails to “melt” the system to its ground states and its effect is differently manifested for small and large values of $\kappa$s.
In fact we find that much is left to be done for a successful annealing programme near $\kappa=0.5$, e.g., one may attempt a zero-temperature quantum annealing schedule.
Even for the classical annealing case, the change in behaviour of the residual energy as $\kappa$ is varied requires to be studied more intricately and possibly for larger syatem sizes. Our present study may act as a guideline for such future research work.
Lastly, we note that the variations of the residual energy does not follow a Huse-Fisher [@huse] type scaling in any parameter range for the ANNNI model.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Arnab Das and Subinay Dasgupta for very valuable discussions. P. K. Das acknowledges support from CSIR grants no. 9/28(608)/2003-EMR-I.
[references:]{} J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel and P. S. Sahni, [*[Phase Transitions and critical phenomena]{}*]{}, Vol 8, eds. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Ac A. J. Bray, [Adv. Phys. [**[43]{}**]{} 357 (1994) and the references therein]{}. For a review, see S. N. Majumdar, [Curr. Sci. [**[77]{}**]{} 370 (1999)]{}. B. Derrida, A. J.Bray and C. Godreche, [J.Phys. A [**[27]{}**]{} L357 (1994)]{} D. Stauffer, [J. Phys. A [**[27]{}**]{} 5029 (1994)]{}. P. L. Krapivsky, E.Ben-Naim and S. Redner, [Phys. Rev.E [**[50]{}**]{} 2474 (1994)]{}. V. Spirin, P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, [Phys. Rev.E [**[63]{}**]{} 036118 (2001)]{}; Phys. Rev.E [**[65]{}**]{} 016119 (2002). P. Sundaramurthy and D. L. Stein, cond-mat/0411286. C. Godreche and J. M. Luck, cond-mat/0412077. C. M. Newman and D. L. Stein, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[82]{}**]{} 3944 (1999)]{}. S. Jain, [Phys. Rev.E [**[60]{}**]{} R2445 (1999)]{}. P. M. Gleiser, F. A. Tamarit, S. A. Cannas and M. A. Montemurro, [Phys. Rev. B [**[68]{}**]{} 134401 (2003)]{}.
P. Svenson, Phys. Rev. E [**[64]{}**]{} 036122 (2001). O. Haggstrom, [Physica A [**[310]{}**]{} 275 (2002)]{}. D. Boyer and O. Miramontes, [Phys. Rev. E [**[67]{}**]{} R035102 (2003)]{}. P. Svenson and D. A. Johnson, [Phys. Rev. E [**[65]{}**]{} 036105 (2002)]{}. J. Y. Zhu and H. Zhu, [Phys. Rev. E [**[67]{}**]{} 026125 (2003)]{}. D. Jeong, M. Y. Choi and H. Park, cond-mat/0501099. The persistence probability in case of four dimensional lattice, however, does not show a power law decay due to blocking (D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**8**]{} 361 (1997)). N. R. da Silva and J. M. Silva, [Phys. Lett. A [**[135]{}**]{} 373 (1989)]{}. C. P. Herrero, [Phys. Rev. E [**[65]{}**]{} 066110 (2002)]{}. H. Hong, B. J. Kim and M. Y Choi, [Phys. Rev. E [**[66]{}**]{} 011107 (2002)]{}. J. V. Lopes etal, cond-mat/0402138. W. Selke, [Phys. Rep. [**[170]{}**]{} 213 (1988)]{}. S. Redner and P. L. Krapivsky, J.Phys. A [**31**]{} 9229 (1998) P.Sen and S.Dasgupta, J. Phys. A [**37**]{} 11949 (2004) P. K. Das and P. Sen, cond-mat/0503138. T. Kadawoki and H. Nishimori, [Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{} 5355 (1998)]{}. G. E. Santoro, R. Martonak, E. Tosatti and R. Car, Science [**295**]{} 2427 (2002). M. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**56**]{} 1454 (1976). B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Dutta and P. Sen, Quantum Ising Phases and Transitions in Transverse Ising models, Lecture Notes in Physics [**M41**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1996. D. A. Huse and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} 2203 (1986).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider mixtures of multinomial logistic models (MNL), which are known to $\epsilon$-approximate any random utility model. Despite its long history and broad use, rigorous results are only available for learning a uniform mixture of two MNLs. Continuing this line of research, we study the problem of learning an arbitrary mixture of two MNLs. We show that the identifiability of the mixture models may only fail on an algebraic variety of Lebesgue measure $0$, implying that all existing algorithms apply in the almost sure sense. This is done by reducing the problem of learning a mixture of two MNLs to the problem of solving a system of univariate quartic equations. As a byproduct, we derive an algorithm to learn any mixture of two MNLs in linear time provided that a mixture of two MNLs over some finite universe is identifiable. Several numerical experiments and conjectures are also presented.'
address: 'Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, UC Berkeley '
author:
- '[Wenpin]{} Tang'
bibliography:
- 'unique.bib'
title: Learning an arbitrary mixture of two multinomial logits
---
*Key words :* cubic equations, identifiability, mixture models, multinomial logits, multivariate polynomials, quartic equations, query complexity, symbolic computations.
Introduction
============
This paper is concerned with the problem of learning a mixture of two multinomial logistic models from data. Understanding an individual, or a user’s rational behavior when facing a list of alternatives is a classical topic in economic theory. In the era of data deluge, it has wide applications, especially for recommender systems where a user decides which of several competing products to purchase, and companies like Amazon, Netflix and Yelp look for which products are most relevant to a specific user. A powerful tool to study user behavior is [*discrete choice models*]{}, and we refer to McFadden [@MF74; @MF81; @MF83; @MF01] for the modern literature. The most well-studied class of discrete choice models are the class of [*random utility models*]{}, which find roots in the work of Thurstone [@Thur27], and were formally introduced by Marschak [@Mar60]. The book of Train [@Train09] contains a thorough review on this subject. [*Mixtures of multinomial logistic models*]{} (also known as [*mixed logits*]{}) are a family of parametric random utility models, which have been widely used since 1980 [@BM80; @CD80], following earlier works of Bradley-Terry [@BT52], and Luce-Plackett [@Luce; @Plackett] on the multinomial logits. Despite its broad use in practice, there are few works on efficient algorithms to learn any non-trivial mixture of multinomial logistic models. Chierichetti et al. [@CKT18] took the first step to develop polynomial-time algorithms to learn a uniform mixture of two multinomial logits. However, they pointed out that generalizing the results to non-uniform mixtures, or mixtures of more than two components is challenging.
The purpose of this paper is to go beyond the uniform mixture, and study the problem of reconstruction and polynomial-time algorithms to learn an arbitrary mixture of two multinomial logits. To proceed further, we give a little more background. A [*multinomial logistic model*]{}, or simply an [*MNL*]{} over a universe $\mathcal{U}$ is specified by a mapping from any non-empty subset $S \subset \mathcal{U}$ to a distribution over $S$. The set $S$ is referred to as the [*choice set*]{}, from which a user selects exactly one item. The MNL requires a [*weight function*]{} $w: \mathcal{U} \to \mathbb{R}_{+}$ which gives a positive weight to each item in the universe $\mathcal{U}$. The model then assigns probability to each $u \in S$ propositional to its weight: $$\mathbb{P}(u | S): = \frac{w(u)}{\sum_{v \in S} w(v)}, \quad \mbox{for each } u \in S.$$ One can regard $\mathbb{P}(u|S)$ as the conditional probability of selecting item $u$ given the alternatives in $S$. It is often convenient to normalize the weight function $w$ by $\sum_{u \in \mathcal{U}} w(u) = 1$, so $w : \mathcal{U} \to \Delta_{|\mathcal{U}|-1}$ where $\Delta_{|\mathcal{U}|-1}:=\{(a_1, \ldots, a_{|\mathcal{U}|}) \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{U}|}_{+}: \sum_{i = 1}^{|\mathcal{U}|} a_i = 1\}$ is the $(|\mathcal{U}| - 1)$-simplex with $|\mathcal{U}|$ the number of items in $\mathcal{U}$. Given sufficient data of [*slates*]{} $S$ with resulting choices of $u \in S$, it is possible to estimate the weight $w$ via maximum likelihood estimation. The underlying problem is convex, and is easy to solve by gradient methods.
In spite of simple interpretation and computational advantages, MNL is criticized for being too restrictive on the model behavior across related subsets, and thus lack of flexibility. This drawback is due to the fact that MNL is defined as a family of functions mapping any $S \subset \mathcal{U}$ to a distribution over $S$, based on a single fixed weight function. One way to resolve this issue is to remove the constraint that the likelihood of each item is always proportional to a fixed weight. The aforementioned random utility model does the job: it is defined by a distribution over vectors, where each vector assigns a value to each item of $\mathcal{U}$. A user then draws a random vector from this distribution, and selects the item of $S$ with largest value. McFadden and Train [@MT00] observed that any random utility model can be approximated arbitrarily close by a mixture of MNLs. Thus, learning general random utility models reduces to learning mixtures of MNLs. This is the reason why mixtures of MNLs are widely recognized by practitioners. However, almost all existing learning approaches are empirical, and there are little provable results on learning non-trivial mixtures of MNLs. The only exception is [@CKT18], where the authors resolved positively the problem of leaning a uniform mixture of MNLs. Here we take a further step to study a possibly non-uniform mixture of two MNLs, giving a few positive results on optimal learning algorithms.
The object of interest is specified by the triple $(a,b,\mu)$, where $a, b: \mathcal{U} \to \Delta_{|\mathcal{U}|-1}$ are two weight functions, and $\mu \in (0,1)$ is the [*mixing weight*]{}. A $\mu$-mixture of two MNLs $(a,b)$ assigns to item $u$ in the set $S \subset \mathcal{U}$ the probability $$\mu \, \frac{a(u)}{\sum_{v \in S} a(v)} + (1 - \mu) \, \frac{b(u)}{\sum_{v \in S} b(v)}.$$ The goal of the learning problem is to reconstruct the parameters $(a,b, \mu)$ from the oracle returning the distribution over items of the slate induced by the mixture. In this paper, we assume that the mixing weight $\mu \in (0,1)$ is known. So the problem consists of learning the weight functions $(a,b)$ in a $\mu$-mixture of MNLs. The main result of [@CKT18] showed that for $\mu = 1/2$, $(i)$ if $|\mathcal{U}| \ge 3$, any uniform mixture of two MNLs is [*identifiable*]{} in the sense that if the uniform mixtures of MNLs $(a,b)$ and $(a',b')$ agree on each $S \subset \mathcal{U}$, then $a = a'$, $b = b'$ or $a = b'$, $b = a'$; $(ii)$ there is an algorithm which learns any uniform mixture of two MNLs in $\mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{U}|)$ time. Theorem \[thm:CKT\] below contains more detailed statements. The idea relies on the fact that any uniform mixture of of two MNLs over a $3$-item universe is identifiable, and one can reconstruct the weight functions by querying to $2$- and $3$-slates, i.e. subsets $S$ with $|S| = 2, 3$. But this algorithm fails for a non-uniform mixture of two MNLs, since a non-uniform mixture of two MNLs on a $3$-item universe is not necessarily identifiable (see Section \[sc3\], or [@CKT18 Theorem 3]). Nevertheless, the latter is ‘rarely’ the case. One main point of this paper is to delve into the following result.
\[thm:main\] Let $n: = |\mathcal{U}| \ge 3$, and $\mu \in (0,1)$. If the uniform mixtures of MNLs $(a,b)$ and $(a',b')$ agree on each $S \subset \mathcal{U}$, then $$(a,b) \ne (a', b') \quad \mbox{implies} \quad R_n(a', b') = 0,$$ where $R_n$ is some polynomial specified later in the proof. Consequently, if $a = (a_1, \ldots, a_n)$ and $b = (b_1, \ldots, b_n)$ are drawn from two independent distributions with continuous density on the $(n-1)$-simplex $\Delta_{n-1}$, then a $\mu$-mixture of MNLs $(a, b)$ is identifiable almost surely.
Theorem \[thm:main\] shows that the identifiability of a mixture of two MNLs may only fail on some [*algebraic variety*]{} $R_n = 0$. We refer to the books of Sturmfels [@MS21; @Sturm02] for a gentle introduction to algebraic geometry with focus on the computational aspects. More important than the theorem itself is the way to construct the multivariate polynomials $R_n$. As we will see later, this and the problem of learning a mixture of two MNLs essentially boils down to the problem of finding the common roots of some univariate quartic equations. Unlike [@CKT18], we adopt purely an equation-solving approach which is more natural and transparent. Besides the validity of the algorithms in [@CKT18] in the almost sure sense, we also devise an algorithm (Theorem \[thm:main2\]) to learn a $\mu$-mixture of two MNLs in $3 \, |\mathcal{U}|$ time provided that a $\mu$-mixture of two MNLs over some finite universe is identifiable. The algorithm takes half the time that the adaptive algorithm in [@CKT18] uses to learn a uniform mixture of two MNLs. The contributions of the paper are twofold:
- We show that the identifiability of the mixture model does not cause much a problem, and it may only fail on some ‘small’ algebraic variety of Lebesgue measure $0$. This is important to develop further Baysian nonparametric models, e.g. both $\mu$ and $(a,b)$ are random, and are drawn from some distributions. That is, we model user choice by a mixture of random MNLs.
- We show that learning a mixture of two MNLs is reduced to solving a system of univariate quartic equations. This gives a possible way to prove the identifiability of any mixture of two MNLs over some finite universe. Numerical experiments suggest that the latter be true on a $4$-item universe, based on which Theorem \[thm:main2\] gives a linear-time learning algorithm.
The remaining issues, which seem to be technically challenging, are polynomial conditions in nature. We hope that this work will draw attention to experts of algebraic geometry and symbolic computations, so that advanced techniques in these domains can be used or developed to solve the conjectures in the paper.
To conclude the introduction, let us mention a few relevant references. There are a line of works discussing heuristic approaches to learn mixtures of MNLs by simulation [@Ge08; @GB13; @HJR03; @Train09]. Mixtures of MNLs have also been studied in the context of revenue maximization by [@BGG16; @RSTT]. More related to this work are [@CKT182; @OS14; @ZPX16; @ZX19], where different oracles are assumed. We refer to [@CKT18 Section 2] for a more detailed explanation of the aforementioned references, and various pointers to other related works.
. Section \[sc2\] provides background, and collects existing results related to mixtures of MNLs. Section \[sc3\] warms up with a discussion of learning a mixture of two MNLs over a $3$-item universe. Section \[sc4\] studies the general problem of learning a mixture of two MNLs over a $n$-item universe. Section \[sc5\] gives the conclusion.
Preliminaries and existing results {#sc2}
==================================
This section provides background on the multinomial logit models, and recalls a few existing results. We follow closely the presentation in Chierichetti et al. [@CKT18]. Consider the $n$-item universe, whose items are labeled by $[n]: = \{1, \ldots, n\}$. A [*slate*]{} is a non-empty subset of $[n]$, and a $k$-slate is a slate of size $k$.
A [*multinomial logit*]{}, or simply [*$1$-MNL*]{} is determined by a weight function $a: [n] \to \Delta_{n-1}$, where $\Delta_{n-1}:=\{(a_1, \ldots, a_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n_{+}: \sum_{i = 1}^n a_i = 1\}$ is the $(n-1)$-simplex, with $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ the set of nonnegative real numbers. In this choice model, given a slate $T \subset [n]$, the probability that item $i \in T$ is selected is given by $$\label{eq:1MNL}
D_T^a(i) = \frac{a_i}{\sum_{j \in T} a_j}, \quad i \in T.$$ One can also take a weight function $a: [n] \to \mathbb{R}_{+}$, and normalizing each $a_i$ by $\sum_{j = 1}^n a_j$ will not affect the selection probability . A mixture of two multinomial logits, or simply [*$2$-MNL*]{} $\mathcal{A} = (a,b,\lambda)$ is specified by two weight functions $a, b$, and a mixing parameter $\lambda > 0$ in such a way that the probability that item $i \in T$ is selected in the slate $T$ is $$\label{eq:2MNL}
D_T^{\mathcal{A}}(i) = \frac{1}{1+ \lambda} \frac{a_i}{\sum_{j \in T} a_j} + \frac{\lambda}{1+\lambda} \frac{b_i}{\sum_{j \in T} b_j}, \quad i \in T.$$ For later simplification, we use the parameter $\lambda > 0$ instead of $\mu:=1/(1+\lambda) \in (0,1)$ as the mixing weight. So given a slate $T \subset [n]$, $\mathcal{A}$ first chooses the weight function $a$ with probability $1/(1+\lambda)$ and $b$ with probability $\lambda/(1+\lambda)$, and then behaves as the corresponding $1$-MNL. For ease of presentation, we drop the superscript and write $D_T$ instead of $D^{\mathcal{A}}_T$ if there is no ambiguity. If $\lambda = 1$ or $\mu = 1/2$, the choice model is called a uniform $2$-MNL.
The problem is to reconstruct the parameters $\mathcal{A} = (a,b, \lambda)$ of the mixture model , assuming an oracle access to $D_T(i)$ for all $T \subset [n]$ and $i \in T$. There are two main problems: $(i)$ [*identifiability*]{} of the model parameters; $(ii)$ [*computational complexity*]{}, i.e. the number of queries to the oracle $D_T(\cdot)$ for reconstruction. [@CKT18] studied the uniform $2$-MNL, and gave polynomial-time algorithms to reconstruct any uniform $2$-MNL. Their results are summarized in the following theorem.
[@CKT18] \[thm:CKT\] Let $n \ge 3$, and $\mathcal{A} = (a,b,1)$, $\mathcal{A}' = (a', b', 1)$ be two uniform $2$-MNL over $[n]$. Then:
- $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}'$ agree on each $T \subset [n]$, i.e. $D_T^{\mathcal{A}} = D_T^{\mathcal{A}'}$ for each $T \subset [n]$ if and only if $a = a'$, $b = b'$, or $a = b'$, $b = a'$.
- Any adaptive algorithm for $2$-MNL which queries to $k$-slates requires $\Omega(n/k)$ queries, and any non-adaptive algorithm for $2$-MNL which queries to $k$-slates requires $\Omega(n^2/k^2)$ queries.
- There is an adaptive algorithm to learn a uniform $2$-MNL with $6n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ queries to $2$- and $3$-slates, and there is a non-adaptive algorithm to learn a uniform $2$-MNL with $2n^2 + \mathcal{O}(n)$ queries to $2$- and $3$-slates.
Learning $2$-MNL on the $3$-item universe {#sc3}
=========================================
In this section, we study a $2$-MNL on the $3$-item universe $\{1,2,3\}$. As mentioned in the introduction, assume that the mixing parameter $\lambda > 0$ is known. So we only need to reconstruct the $1$-MNL weights $a = (a_1, a_2, a_3)$ and $b = (b_1, b_2, b_3)$. As pointed out in [@CKT18], for $\lambda \ne 1$ the oracle $\left(D_{\{1,2,3\}}(\cdot), D_{\{1,2\}}(\cdot), D_{\{1,3\}}(\cdot), D_{\{2,3\}}(\cdot)\right)$ does not uniquely determine the weights $(a_1, a_2, a_3, b_1, b_2, b_3)$. The main point of Theorem \[thm:main\] is that this situation rarely happens, and we can characterize the instances where the uniqueness fails. As will be seen in Section \[sc4\], the computation yielding the non-uniqueness characterization for $n = 3$ is a building block to study the identification problem of $2$-MNL for $n > 3$. As an easy consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\] and [@CKT18 Theorems 5 & 6], the following result shows that the query complexity lower bounds (see Theorem \[thm:CKT\] $(ii)$) can be achieved for a random $2$-MNL.
\[main:coro\] Let $n \ge 3$, and consider a $2$-MNL $\mathcal{A} = (a,b,\lambda)$ over $[n]$. Assume that $\lambda > 0$ is known, and $a = (a_1, \ldots, a_n)$ and $b = (b_1,\ldots ,b_n)$ are drawn from two independent distributions with continuous density on the $(n-1)$-simplex $\Delta_{n-1}$. Then:
- There is an adaptive algorithm to learn a $2$-MNL $\mathcal{A}$ with $6n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ queries to $2$- and $3$-slates almost surely.
- There is a non-adaptive algorithm to learn a $2$-MNL $\mathcal{A}$ with $2n^2 + \mathcal{O}(n)$ queries to $2$- and $3$-slates almost surely.
Now we deal with the non-uniqueness issue of a $2$-MNL for $n = 3$. Let the oracle $\left(D_{\{1,2,3\}}, D_{\{1,2\}}, D_{\{1,3\}}, D_{\{2,3\}}\right)$ be generated from the weights $(a', b') \in \Delta_2 \times \Delta_2$, e.g. $D_{\{1,2\}}(1) = \frac{1}{1 + \lambda}\frac{a'_1}{a'_1 + a'_2} + \frac{\lambda}{1 + \lambda}\frac{b'_1}{b'_1 + b'_2}$. To simplify the notations, we denote $C_T: = (1 + \lambda) D_T$. The problem involves solving the following system of equations:
\[eq:31\] $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle &\frac{a_i}{a_i + a_j} + \lambda \frac{b_i}{b_i + b_j} = C_{\{i,j\}}(i) \qquad \mbox{for } i,j \in [3] \mbox{ and } i \ne j, \label{eq:31a}\\
\displaystyle &a_i + \lambda b_i = C_{\{1,2,3\}}(i) \qquad \qquad \qquad \mbox{for } i \in [3], \label{eq:31b} \\
\displaystyle &a_1 + a_2 + a_3 = b_1 + b_2 + b_3 = 1. \label{eq:31c}\end{aligned}$$
So there are $6$ unknowns and 11 equations, $6$ from , $3$ from and $2$ from . Since $\left(\frac{a_i}{a_i + a_j} + \lambda \frac{b_i}{b_i + b_j} \right) + \left(\frac{a_j}{a_i + a_j} + \lambda \frac{b_j}{b_i + b_j} \right) = 1 + \lambda$ and $\sum_{i = 1}^3 (a_i + \lambda b_i) = 1 + \lambda$, there are $7$ linearly independent equations. The following lemma provides a simple way to narrow down the possible solutions to .
\[lem:algebra\] Assume that $(a_1, a_2, a_3, b_1, b_2, b_3)$ solves , and $b_1 \ne \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1)}{1 + \lambda}$. Then:
- Each of $a_1, a_2, a_3, b_2, b_3$ can be written as a simple function of $b_1$, which is specified by –.
- $b_1$ solves a quartic equation given by .
By –, it is easy to see that $(b_1, b_2)$ determines the remaining variables by $$\label{eq:32}
\begin{aligned}
& a_1 = C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) - \lambda b_1, \quad a_2 = C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2) - \lambda b_2, \quad b_3 = 1 - b_1 - b_2, \\
& a_3 = 1 - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2) + \lambda(b_1 + b_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that can be rewritten as $$\tag{3.1a'}
\label{eq:31abis}
\frac{a_i}{1 - a_k} + \lambda \frac{b_i}{1 - b_k} = C_{\{i,j\}}(i) \qquad \mbox{for } i,j \in [3] \mbox{ and } i \ne j$$ Specializing to $i = 2$, $j = 3$ and using to express $a_1,a_2$ in terms of $b_1, b_2$, we get $$\label{eq:33}
b_2 = \frac{\left(C_{\{2,3\}}(2)(1 - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) + \lambda b_1) - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2)\right)(1-b_1)}{\lambda \left((1+\lambda) b_1 - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) \right)}=: \frac{N(b_1)}{D(b_1)},$$ where $N(b_1)$ is a quadratic function of $b_1$, and $D(b_1)$ is linear in $b_1$. Further specializing to $i = 1$, $j = 3$ and using – to express $a_1, a_2, b_2$ in terms of $b_1$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:34}
C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) \left((1 - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2)) D(b_1) + \lambda N(b_1) \right) (D(b_1) - N(b_1)) \\
-(C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1) - \lambda b_1)(D(b_1) - N(b_1)) - \lambda b_1 \left((1 - C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2)) D(b_1) + \lambda N(b_1) \right) =0.\end{gathered}$$ The first term on the l.h.s. of is a quartic polynomial in $b_1$, and the other two terms are cubic polynomials in $b_1$.
The main point of Lemma \[lem:algebra\] is to reduce the system of equations to that only involving the $4$-tuple $(a_1, a_2, b_1,b_2)$:
\[eq:35\] $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle &\frac{a_1}{1-a_2} + \lambda \frac{b_1}{1-b_2} = C_{\{1,3\}}(1), \quad \frac{a_2}{1-a_1} + \lambda \frac{b_2}{1-b_1} = C_{\{2,3\}}(2), \label{eq:35a}\\
\displaystyle &a_1 + \lambda b_1= C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1), \quad a_2 + \lambda b_2= C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2). \label{eq:35b}\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, solving the system of equations is equivalent to solving a univariate quartic equation. We call the equations – the [*$(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2)$-system*]{}. Note that if $b_1 = \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1)}{1 + \lambda}$ and $b_2 \ne \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2)}{1 + \lambda}$, then similar to we can express $b_1$ in terms of $b_2$, and hence all the other variables in terms of $b_2$ by . If $b_1 = \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1)}{1 + \lambda}$ and $b_2 = \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(2)}{1 + \lambda}$, it is clear that all the other variables are uniquely determined by .
Recall that the values of $\left(C_{\{1,2,3\}}, C_{\{1,2\}}, C_{\{1,3\}}, C_{\{2,3\}}\right)$ are generated from some weights $(a', b')$. This implies that the quartic equation $P_{12}(b_1) = 0$ given by has a real root $b'_1 \in [0,1]$. Here the subscript ‘$12$’ indicates that the polynomial $P_{12}$ is associated with the $(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2)$-system. Let $$Q_{12}(b_1): = \frac{P_{12}(b_1)}{(b_1 - b'_1)},$$ which is a cubic polynomial whose coefficients are rational functions of $(a'_1, a'_2, b'_1, b'_2)$. Therefore, the identifiability of a $2$-MNL on the $3$-item universe, or equivalently the uniqueness of the solution to the system of equations reduces to the problem $(i)$ if the cubic polynomial $Q$ has a real roots $b''_1 \in [0,1]$ and $b''_1 \ne b'_1$; $(ii)$ if the corresponding $6$-tuple $(a''_1, a''_2, a''_3, b''_1, b''_2, b''_3)$ given by – solves . Algorithmically, this is rather easy to verify: Cardano’s formula [@Cardano] solves any cubic equation. Then it suffices to check if the corresponding $(a''_1, a''_2, a''_3, b''_1, b''_2, b''_3) \in [0,1]^6$, and if the equation $\frac{a''_2}{a''_2 + a''_3} + \lambda \frac{b''_2}{b''_2+ b''_3} = C_{\{2,3\}}(2)$, which is part of but not in holds.
Now we show that it is rarely the case that the system of equations has more than one solution $(a,b) \in \Delta_2 \times \Delta_2$. In fact, it is even true that can barely have more than one solution $(a,b) \in \mathbb{R}^3 \times \mathbb{R}^3$.
Consider $P_{12}(b_1), Q_{12}(b_1)$ associated with the $(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2)$-system, and $P_{13}(b_1), Q_{13}(b_1)$ associated with the $(a_1,a_3,b_1,b_3)$-system. Observe that the system has only one solution if the polynomials $P_{12}$ and $P_{13}$ have only one common root $b_1 = b'_1$, or equivalently the polynomials $Q_{12}$ and $Q_{13}$ do not have any common root. It is well known [@Harris95 Lemma 3.6] that the latter holds if and only if $$\mbox{Res}(Q_{12}, Q_{13}) \ne 0,$$ where $\mbox{Res}(Q_{12}, Q_{13})$ is the [*resultant*]{} of $Q_{12}$ and $Q_{13}$, the determinant of a $6 \times 6$ Sylvester matrix whose entries are the coefficients of $Q_{12}$ and $Q_{13}$. Recall that the coefficients of $Q_{12}$, $Q_{13}$ are rational functions of $(a', b') = (a'_1, a'_2, a'_3, b'_1, b'_2, b'_3)$. By letting $R_3(a',b')$ be the polynomial corresponding to the numerator of $\mbox{Res}(Q_{12}, Q_{13})$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\left\{(a', b') \in \Delta_2 \times \Delta_2: \eqref{eq:31} \mbox{ has more than one solution} \right\} \\
\subset \left\{(a', b') \in \mathbb{R}^3 \times \mathbb{R}^3: R_3(a',b') = 0 \right\}.\end{gathered}$$ That is, the uniqueness of the solution to may fail only for those $(a', b')$ on the algebraic variety $R_3(a', b') = 0$.
Of course, it is rather impossible to put down the expression of $R_3$ by hand. With the help of `Mathematica`, we get an expression of $R_3(a, b)/\lambda^6$ as follows:
{width="1\columnwidth"}
But it seems that even `Mathematica` finds it challenging to expand, or to simplify the above large expression. We only know that the maximum degrees of $a_1, a_2, a_3, b_1,b_2, b_3$ appearing in $R_3$ are $26,9,9,23,9,9$ respectively.
To conclude this section, we go back to the cubic polynomial $Q_{12}$. This polynomial has either $3$ real roots, or $1$ real root and $2$ complex conjugate roots. Since we are only concerned with the real roots of $Q_{12}$, it is natural to ask whether $Q_{12}$ can have $3$ real roots for some $\lambda > 0$ and $(a',b') \in \Delta_2 \times \Delta_2$. The point is that if $Q_{12}$ has only $1$ real root, the analysis may further be simplified. It turns out that this question is subtle. It is known [@Cardano] that $Q_{12}$ has $3$ real roots if the [*discriminant*]{} of $Q_{12}$ is nonnegative. Note that the discriminant of $Q_{12}$ is a function of $(a'_1, a'_2, b'_1, b'_2)$. For $\lambda = 2$, the functions `FindInstance` and `NSolve` in `Mathematica` do not find any $4$-tuple $(a'_1,a'_2,b'_1, b'_2) \in \Delta_1 \times \Delta_1$ such that the discriminant of $Q_{12}$ is nonnegative. Moreover, the function `NMaximize` finds numerically the maximum of the discriminant of $Q_{12}$ over $\Delta_1 \times \Delta_1$, which is $-0.00317 < 0$. These observations suggest that $Q_{12}$ have only $1$ real root when $\lambda = 2$. However, for $\lambda = 5$ and $(a'_1,a'_2,b'_1, b'_2) = (0.0389099, 0.000870832, 0.0565171, 0.943483)$, `Mathematica` finds that $Q_{12}$ has $3$ real roots: $0.043916, 0.164599, 0.281671$. Based on many experiments, we conjecture that there is a threshold $\lambda_{\tiny \mbox{thres}} > 0$ such that for $\lambda < \lambda_{\tiny \mbox{thres}}$, $Q_{12}$ has only $1$ real roots whatever the values of $(a'_1,a'_2,b'_1, b'_2)$, and for $\lambda \ge \lambda_{\tiny \mbox{thres}}$, $Q_{12}$ can have either $1$ or $3$ real roots depending on the values of $(a'_1,a'_2,b'_1, b'_2)$.
Learning $2$-MNL on the $n$-item universe {#sc4}
=========================================
This section is devoted to the study of a $2$-MNL over $[n]$ for $n > 3$. The key idea is to reduce the system of equations over $2n$ unknowns to $(a_i,a_j,b_i,b_j)$-systems. This also gives a promising way to prove the identifiability of a $2$-MNL on $[n]$ for some possible $n > 3$. The following result records the general structure of learning a $2$-MNL over $n$ items. Recall the definitions of $D_T$ and $C_T$ for $T \subset [n]$ from Section \[sc3\].
Let $n \ge 3$, and $\mathcal{A} = (a,b, \lambda)$ be a $2$-MNL over $[n]$. Assume that $\lambda > 0$ is known. Then learning $\mathcal{A}$ is equivalent to solving the following system of equations with $2n$ unknowns $(a_1, \ldots, a_n, b_1, \ldots, b_n) \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$:
\[eq:41\] $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle &\frac{a_i}{\sum_{j \in T} a_i} + \lambda \frac{b_i}{\sum_{j \in T} b_j} = C_T(i) \qquad \mbox{for } T \subset [n] \mbox{ with } |T| \ge 2, \mbox{ and } i \in T, \label{eq:41a}\\
\displaystyle & \sum_{i = 1}^n a_i = \sum_{i = 1}^n b_i = 1. \label{eq:41b}\end{aligned}$$
So there are $2 + 2^{n-1} n - n$ equations, and at most $3 + 2^{n-1} (n -2)$ of these equations are linearly independent.
Note that for each $T \subset [n]$ with $|T| = k$, contributes $k$ equations, and $k-1$ of these equations are linearly independent. The result follows from the well known identities $\sum_{k = 1}^n k \binom{n}{k} =2^{n-1} n $ and $\sum_{k = 1}^n (k-1) \binom{n}{k} = 1 + 2^{n-1}(n-2)$.
The following $(a_i, a_j, b_i, b_j)$-system is an obvious extension of to the $n$-item universe:
\[eq:42\] $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle &\frac{a_i}{1-a_j} + \lambda \frac{b_i}{1-b_j} = C_{[n] \setminus \{j\}}(i), \quad \frac{a_j}{1-a_i} + \lambda \frac{b_j}{1-b_i} = C_{[n] \setminus \{i\}}(j), \label{eq:35a}\\
\displaystyle &a_i + \lambda b_i= C_{[n]}(i), \quad a_j + \lambda b_j= C_{[n]}(j). \label{eq:35b}\end{aligned}$$
Similar to Lemma \[lem:algebra\], solving the system of equations boils down to solving a univariate quartic equation by using $(a_i,a_j,b_i,b_j)$-systems.
\[lem:algebra2\] Assume that $(a_1, \ldots, a_n, b_1, \ldots, b_n)$ solves , and $b_1 \ne \frac{C_{\{1,2,3\}}(1)}{1 + \lambda}$. Then:
- If for each $i$ there exists a set $T(i)$ containing $i$ such that $b_i = \frac{C_T(i)}{1 +\lambda}$, then $a_i = C_{[n]}(i) - \frac{\lambda}{1 + \lambda} C_{T(i)}(i)$.
- Otherwise, assume without loss of generality $b_1 \ne \frac{C_T(1)}{1 + \lambda}$ for any set $T$ containing $i$. Then each of $a_1, \ldots, a_n, b_2, \ldots b_n$ can be written as a simple function of $b_1$, and $b_1$ solves a quartic equation.
Part $(i)$ is straightforward. For part $(ii)$, consider the $(a_1,a_i, b_1, b_i)$-system for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n\}$. By Lemma \[lem:algebra\], $a_1, a_i, b_i$ are fully determined by $b_1$, and $b_1$ solves the quartic equation $P_{12} = 0$ associated with the $(a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2)$-system.
Basically, Lemma \[lem:algebra2\] shows that the system with approximately $2^{n-1} n$ equations has at most $4$ solutions. This simplification only makes use of $2n$ equations, which involves those in with $|T| = n-1, n$. That is, queries to $(n-1)$-slates and $n$-slates. Theorem \[thm:main\] is then a consequence of Lemma \[lem:algebra2\].
We follow the notations in Section \[sc3\] which proves the result for $n = 3$. Similarly, define the polynomials $P_{ij}$, $Q_{ij}$ associated with the $(a_i, a_j, b_i, b_j)$-system. Recall that the coefficients of $P_{ij}$, $Q_{ij}$ are rational functions of $(a'_i, a'_j, b'_i, b'_j)$. By Lemma \[lem:algebra2\], if the system of equations has more than one solution, then the polynomials $Q_{12}, Q_{13}, \ldots, Q_{1n}$ have a common root. The latter implies that each pair $(Q_{1j}, Q_{1k})$ have a common root, which is equivalent to $$\mbox{Res}(Q_{1j}, Q_{1k}) = 0 \quad \mbox{for } j, k \in \{2, \ldots, n\} \mbox{ and } j < k,$$ where $\mbox{Res}(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the resultant of two polynomials. Let $W_{1jk}$ be the multivariate polynomial in $(a'_1, a'_j, a'_k, b'_1, b'_j, b'_k)$ corresponding to the numerator of $\mbox{Res}(Q_{1j}, Q_{1k})$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\left\{(a', b') \in\Delta_{n-1} \times \Delta_{n-1}: \eqref{eq:41} \mbox{ has more than one solution} \right\} \\
\subset \left\{(a', b') \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n: W_{1jk} = 0 \mbox{ for all } 2 \le j < k \le n \right\}.\end{gathered}$$ In particular, one can take $R_4 (a',b') = \sum_{2 \le j < k \le n} (W_{1jk})^2$ so that has the unique solution when $R_4(a',b') \ne 0$.
There are many ways to build $R_n$ in Theorem \[thm:main\]. One can take $R_n = \sum_{(j,k) \in \mathcal{S}} (W_{1jk})^2$ for $\mathcal{S}$ any subset of $\{(j,k): 2 \le j < k \le n\}$, e.g. $R_n = \sum_{2 \le j < k \le n} (W_{jk})^2$ in the previous proof, or just $R_n = W_{1jk}$ for some $j, k$. Given $(a,b) \in \Delta_{n-1} \times \Delta_{n-1}$, it is relatively easy to check numerically if $R_{n}(a,b) = 0$. But as mentioned in Section \[sc3\], even in the simple case $R_n = W_{1jk}$ (with $6$ variables), `Mathematica` cannot output the expression of $R_n$, let alone doing further symbolic computations.
Now we give a simpler $R_n$ when $n > 3$. Consider the equations in relating only $(a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2)$. For $n >3$, in addition to the $(a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2)$-system there is one more: $$\label{eq:43}
\frac{a_1}{a_1 +a_2} + \lambda \frac{b_1}{b_1 + b_2} = C_{\{1,2\}}(1).$$ By injecting – into , we get $\widetilde{P}_{12}(b_1) = 0$ with $\widetilde{P}_{12}$ another quartic polynomial. Let $\widetilde{Q}_{12}(b_1) = \widetilde{P}_{12}(b_1)/(b_1 - b'_1)$ be the corresponding cubic polynomial. Another simple choice for $R_n$ is the numerator of $\mbox{Res}(Q_{12}, \widetilde{Q}_{12})$, which `Mathematica` outputs:
{width="1\columnwidth"}
Such defined $R_n$ is a polynomial in $4$ variables, and is apparently simpler than the previous choices for $R_n$. The expression of this $R_n$ has more than $400,000$ terms, and the maximum degrees of $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2$ appearing in $R_n$ are $25,15,25,15$ respectively. An interesting question is whether $\{R_n = 0\} \cap (\Delta_1 \times \Delta_1)$ is empty for all $\lambda > 0$. If so, the system of equations – has a unique solution $(a'_1, a'_2,b'_1,b'_2)$ which implies that any $2$-MNL over $[n]$ is identifiable for $n > 3$. Unfortunately, the following example shows it is not the case.
{width="1\columnwidth"}
In principle, determining if a $2$-MNL over $[n]$ is identifiable, or if the system of equations has only one solution reduces to determining if a set of about $2^{n-1} n$ univariate cubic equations have a common root. The latter is equivalent to whether the [*resolvent*]{} of these cubic polynomials is zero, and this amounts to a fairly large number of multivariate polynomial equations on $(a',b')$, see e.g. [@Goldman06 Section 7]. So as $n$ increases, the set of $(a',b')$ for which the system of equations has more than $1$ solution becomes more and more restrictive. It is believable that there is a threshold $n_{\tiny \mbox{thre}} > 3$ such that has only one solution for $n \ge n_{\tiny \mbox{thre}}$. Based on many experiments, we conjecture that $n_{\tiny \mbox{thre}} = 4$; that is, any $2$-MNL over $[n]$ for $n \ge 4$ is identifiable. We leave this puzzle to interested readers.
To finish, we show that if a $2$-MNL over $[k]$ for some finite $k$ is identifiable (and thus can be uniquely reconstructed), then we can learn a $2$-MNL over $[n]$ for $n \ge k$ with $\mathcal{O}(n)$ queries.
\[thm:main2\] Assume that $\lambda > 0$ is known, and a $2$-MNL $(a,b, \lambda)$ over $[k]$ for some finite $k$ is identifiable. Consider a $2$-MNL $\mathcal{A} = (a,b, \lambda)$ over $[n]$ with $n \ge k$. Then there is an algorithm to learn $\mathcal{A}$ with $3n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ queries.
By hypothesis, $(a_1, \ldots, a_k, b_1, \ldots, b_k)$ must take the form: $$a_j = a^{[k]}_j\Sigma_a, \quad b_j = b^{[k]}_j \Sigma_b, \quad \mbox{for } j \in [k],$$ where $(a^{[k]}_1, \ldots, a^{[k]}_k, b^{[k]}_1, \ldots, b^{[k]}_k)$ is the unique solution to with $n = k$, and $\Sigma_a, \Sigma_b \in [0,1]$. Here $\Sigma_a = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j$ and $\Sigma_b = \sum_{j = 1}^k b_j$ have yet to be determined. It requires $\mathcal{O}(1)$ queries to find $(a^{[k]}_1, \ldots, a^{[k]}_k, b^{[k]}_1, \ldots, b^{[k]}_k)$. For instance, by Lemma \[lem:algebra2\], there are at most $4$ possible solutions associated with the $(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2)$-system, and a quartic equation is easily solved by Ferrari’s method [@Cardano]. Then it suffices to check which one of these solutions satisfy other $2^{k-1}(k-2) - 3$ equations. Next for each $j \in \{k+1, \ldots, n\}$, consider the $(a_1, a_j, b_1, b_j)$-system which has $3$ queries. By Lemma \[lem:algebra2\], $b_j$ can be expressed in terms of $b_1$. So the condition $\sum_{j = 1}^n b_j = 1$ determines $\Sigma_b$. Similarly, by expressing $a_j$ in terms of $a_1$, the condition $\sum_{j = 1}^n a_j = 1$ specifies $\Sigma_a$. In total, it requires $\mathcal{O}(1) + 3(n -k) = 3n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ queries to learn $\mathcal{A}$.
In contrast to [@CKT18] (see Theorems \[thm:CKT\]) which learns a $2$-MNL by querying $2$- and $3$-slates, Theorem \[thm:main2\] learns a $2$-MNL by querying mostly $(n-1)$- and $n$-slates. Recall that the adaptive algorithm in [@CKT18] requires $6n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ queries to oracles $\left(D_{\{i,j\}}(\cdot), D_{\{j,k\}}(\cdot), D_{\{i,k\}}(\cdot), D_{\{i,j,k\}}(\cdot)\right)$. The algorithm in Theorem \[thm:main2\] requires an even smaller number $3n + \mathcal{O}(1)$ of queries to oracle entries $D_T(i)$.
Conclusion {#sc5}
==========
In this paper, we study the problem of learning an arbitrary mixture of two multinomial logits. We have proved that the identifiability of the mixture models is less problematic, since it may only fail on a set of parameters of Lebesgue measure $0$. The proof is based on a reduction of the learning problem to a system of univariate quartic equations. As a consequence, we also proposed an algorithm to learn any mixture of two MNLs in linear time under the condition that a mixture of two MNLs over some finite universe is identifiable.
The paper also leaves a few problem for future research. For instance, $(i)$ prove all the conjectures in Sections \[sc3\] and \[sc4\]; $(ii)$ consider the identifiability issue for both the mixing parameter $\lambda$ and the weight functions $(a,b)$; $(iii)$ study the problem of learning a mixture of more than two multinomial logits. We hope that our work will trigger further developments on the mixture models.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a method for producing estimates on the spectral gaps of reversible Markov jump processes with chaotic invariant measures, that is effective in the case of degenerate jump rates, and we apply it to prove the Kac conjecture for hard sphere collision in three dimensions.'
address:
- |
Address of Eric Carlen\
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University\
110 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway NJ 08854 USA\
- |
Address of Maria Carvalho\
DEpartment of Mathematics and CMAF-CIO\
University of Lisbon 1649-003 Lisbon, Portugal\
- |
Adress of Michael Loss\
School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute ofTechnology\
Atlanta, GA 30332 USA\
author:
-
-
-
title: 'Spectral Gaps for Reversible Markov Processes with Chaotic Invariant Measures: The Kac Process with Hard Sphere Collisions in Three Dimensions'
---
,
Introduction {#intro}
============
In a seminal paper of 1956, Mark Kac [@K56] introduced a family of continuous time reversible Markov jump processes on the sphere $S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})$ of radius $\sqrt{N}$ in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^N$. This family of processes, and its generalizations, have drawn the attention of many researchers. Kac was motivated by a connection, in the large $N$ limit, to the non-linear Boltzmann equation. The connection arises through a particular “asymptotic independence” property of sequences $\{{\rm d}\mu_N\}$, where ${\rm d}\mu_N$ is a probability measure on $S^{N-1}$. This property is possessed, in particular, by the sequence $\{{\rm d}\sigma_N\}$ of uniform probability measures on $S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})$. Let $\vec v = (v_1,\dots,v_N)$ denote a generic point on $S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})$ of radius $\sqrt{N}$. Let $\phi$ be any bounded continuous function on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^k$ and ${\rm d}\gamma = (2\pi)^{-1/2} e^{-v^2/2}{\rm d}v$ be the unit Gaussian probability measure on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}$. As is well known, going back at least to Mehler [@M66], $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_{S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})} \phi(v_1,\dots,v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N = \int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^k}\phi(v_1,\dots,v_k){\rm d}\gamma^{\otimes k}\ .$$ As long as one only looks at coordinates belonging to a fixed, finite set, in the large $N$ limit, the coordinates in this set are asymptotically independent. The main result of [@K56] concerned sequences of probability measures $\{{\rm d}\mu_N\}$ on $S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})$ with the property that, for some probability density $f$ on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}$ with zero mean and unit variance, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_{S^{N-1}(\sqrt{N})} \phi(v_1,\dots,v_k){\rm d}\mu_N = \int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^k}\phi(v_1,\dots,v_k) \prod_{j=1}^k f(v_j){\rm d}v_j ,$$ in which case the sequence $\{{\rm d}\mu_N\}$ was said by Kac to be [*$f(v){\rm d}v$ chaotic*]{}. He proved that chaoticity was propagated in time by solutions of the forward Kolmogrov equations associated to the Kac processes. Moreover, if $\{{\rm d}\mu_N(t)\}$ is the sequence of laws at time $t$ starting from an $f(v){\rm d}v$ chaotic sequence, $\{{\rm d}\mu_N(t)\}$ is $f(t,v){\rm d}v$ chaotic where $f(t,v)$ is the solution of the [*Kac- Boltzmann equation*]{} with initial data $f(v)$. (The Kac Boltzmann equation is a simple model of the Boltzmann equation for a gas in one dimension.) He also made a conjecture, that went unsolved for a long time, concerning the spectral gap of the generator of this family of processes. Since the processes are reversible, their generators are self adjoint, and it is not hard to see that the null space is spanned by the constants. Kac conjectured a gap $\Delta_N$ separating $0$ from the rest of the spectrum that is bounded below uniformly in $N$. That is, $\lim_{N\to \infty}\Delta_N >0$. This was finally proved by Janvresse in 2000 [@J01], and shortly afterwards the exact value of $\Delta_N$ for all $N$ was determined in [@CCL00].
A few years after his original work, Kac returned to these problems [@K59], but this time for a physically realistic model of a gas in three dimensions undergoing “hard sphere” collisions that conserve energy and momentum. As he showed, this physical model would have, through propagation of chaos, a direct connection to the actual Boltzmann equation for hard sphere collisions, and not only a toy model of it. However, in the physical model, the rates at which different pairs of molecules collide depend on their velocities: The rates are not bounded away from $0$, and there is no bound from above that is uniform in $N$. It is much harder to estimate spectral gaps for the generators of jump processes with rates that are not bounded from below, and the lack of an upper bound that is uniform in $N$ makes it much harder to prove propagation of chaos.
In this paper, we prove the Kac conjecture for the Kac model with hard sphere collisions in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$. We do so using a method that has three essential components. These are:
[*(1)*]{} The introduction of a [*conjugate process*]{}, in which at each step all but one of the velocities are updated. The rates in this process are still not bounded below, but they depend only on the one velocity that is left fixed during the jump. There is also a simple connection between the spectral gaps of the original process and the conjugate process, and the central problem becomes the determination of the spectral gap for the conjugate process.
[*(2)*]{} Quantitative estimates on the chaoticity of the sequence of invariant measures: We prove and apply estimates quantitatively expressing the near independence of any finite set of coordinates for large $N$.
[*(3)*]{} A trial function decomposition: We decompose any trial function $f$ for the spectral gap problem into 3 pieces, $f = s + g + h$ that are mutually orthogonal in the $L^2$ space for the invariant measure, and, due to quantitative chaos estimates, are nearly orthogonal with respect to the inner product given by the Dirichlet form of the conjugate process. Each of these pieces has a particular special structure that facilitates the proof of estimates of the type we seek.
The first two components have been present in our work on Kac type models since our early papers [@CCL00; @CCL03] on the models (as in [@K56]) with uniform jump rates, though in the early papers, the conjugate process is not considered explicitly as a process. However, the connection between its spectral gap and the spectral gap for the Kac process has been central to the approach from the beginning. Work by two of us and Jeff Geronimo [@CGL] dealt with the quantitative chaos estimates needed for the three dimensional energy and momentum conserving collision considered here, but applied them to “Maxwellian molecules” models which, unlike to hard sphere model, has rates that are bounded below. There too, the approach yielded the exact value of the the spectral gap for a wide class of “Maxwellian molecules” models.
Finally in [@CCL14] we proved the Kac conjecture for a “hard sphere” model with one dimensional velocities, and introduced a somewhat simpler version of component [*(3)*]{}, the trial function decomposition. In application to kinetic theory, as explained in [@CCL14], the spectral gap in the symmetric sector, i.e., for functions that are invariant under permutations of coordinates, is especially important. It is this quantity that can be related to the spectral gap for the linearized Boltzmann equation, and one would like to have explicit estimates on this gap. Therefore, in [@CCL14] we worked hard to render all estimates as sharp and explicit as possible, and to treat only the symmetric sector for which fewer estimates were required.
It was clear to us at the time we wrote [@CCL14] that we had a general method that would prove the existence of a spectral gap, uniformly in $N$, for the physical three dimensional hard sphere Kac model, and we announced this in several lectures. The result is quoted in reference 9 of [@MM13], as a personal communication, and used in the development of the quantitative treatment of propagation of chaos that is provided there. After our paper [@CCL14] appeared with the details provided only for the symmetric sector and the one dimensional model, Stéphane Mischler and Clément Mouhot asked us several times to provide the details. This paper answers their request, and moreover, in the course of preparing this answer, it has provided a clearer picture of the how the method explained [@CCL14] in can be extended and applied to more complicated models, such as the main example treated here.
The method to be explained here may be applied to a wide class of sequences of reversible Markov jump processes whose sequence of invariant measures satisfies certain “quantitative chaos” estimates that are specified here. The method is not at all restricted to the treatment of the symmetric sector, and perhaps had we explained the method in [@CCL14] without obscuring it behind the detail of so many explicit computations, necessary for the precise quantitative estimates obtained there, this would have been clear some years ago.
Therefore, in the present paper, we prove the Kac conjecture for hard sphere collisions in three dimensions without any symmetry condition in as simple a manner as possible to provide a clear view of the method. To do this, we make use of constants $C$ that change from line to line but are independent of $N$ that are not explicitly evaluated here, but easily could be – at the expense of more pages and less clarity.
In addition to the applications to quantitative propagation of chaos developed in [@MM13], uniform bounds on the spectral gap are important in certain problems concerning the hydrodynamic limits of certain kinetic models, as explained in [@GKS12]. These authors considered a one dimensional model essentially equivalent to the one considered in [@CCL14], and asked for the spectral gap. Sasada [@Sas15] provided the answer to the question they raised, noting that she could not simply apply the result of [@CCL14] as it applied to the symmetric sector only. This is true, but as shown here, the method used in [@CCL14] may readily extended to answer a much broader range of questions. Much beautiful work has been done on the question of estimating spectral gaps for Kac type processes, and we refer to the papers of Sasada [@Sas15] and Caputo [@Cap04; @Cap08], in addition to our own papers cited here, for significant contributions. However, it is not clear to us that any of the other methods that have been developed for this class of models applies to the main example at hand which is considerably more complex than the models considered in most other work.
The Kac collision process
-------------------------
For $N\in {{\mathord{\mathbb N}}}$, $p\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ and $E > |p|^2$, let $\STE$ be the set consisting of $N$–tuples $\vec v = (v_1,\dots , v_N)$ of vectors $v_j$ in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ with ${\displaystyle \frac1N\sum_{j=1}^N|v_j|^2 = E }$ and ${\displaystyle \frac1N\sum_{j=1}^N v_j = p}$. In what follows, a point $\vec v\in \STE$ specifies the velocities of a collection of $N$ particles with mass $2$, so that $E$ is the kinetic energy per particle, and $p$ is one-half the momentum per particle. The Markov jump process introduced by Mark Kac [@K59] describes a random binary collision process for the $N$ particles, in which the collisions conserve both energy and momentum, and thus if the process starts on $\STE$, it will remain on $\STE$ for all time.
Recall that a random variable $T$ with values in $(0,\infty)$ is [*exponential with parameter*]{} $\lambda$ in case ${\rm Pr}(T \geq t) = e^{-\lambda t}$. When the collision process begins, associated to each pair $(v_i,v_j)$, $i<j$, is an exponential random variable $T_{i,j}$ with parameter $$\label{jumprate}
\lambda_{i,j} = N\ncht^{-1}|v_i - v_j|^{\alpha}\ ,$$ where $0 \leq \alpha \leq 2$, and $\alpha =1$ is the case of main interest: As explained in [@K59], (\[jumprate\]) is motivated by a connection between the Kac process and the Boltzmann equation, and $\alpha =1$ corresponds to “hard-sphere collisions”.
$T_{i,j}$ represents the waiting time for particles $i$ and $j$ to collide, and the set of these random times is taken to be independent. The first collision occurs at time $$\label{alarm}
T = \min_{i<j}\{T_{i,j}\}\ .$$ As is well known [@Fell], the minimum of an independent set of exponential random variables is itself exponential, and the parameter of the minimum is the sum of the parameters of the random variables in the set. In particular, if $\alpha =0$, $T$ is exponential with parameter $N$, and the expected waiting time for the first collision of some pair to occur is $1/N$.
At the time $T$, the pair $(i,j)$ furnishing the minimum collide: The state of the process “jumps” from $ (v_1,\dots , v_N)$ to $ (v_1,v_2,\dots,v_i^*,\dots,v_j^*,\dots,v_N)$, where only $v_i$ and $v_j$ have changed. Since the process is conceived to model momentum and energy conserving collisions we require that $$\label{kinpos}
v_i^*+v_j^* = v_i + v_j\qquad{\rm and}\qquad |v_i^*|^2+|v_j^*|^2 = |v_i|^2+|v_j|^2\ .$$ Then, by the parallelogram law, it follows that $$\label{crulesa}
|v_i^*-v_j^*| = |v_i - v_j|\ .$$ Given $v_i$ and $v_j$, the kinematically possible collisions of particles $i$ and $j$; i.e., those satisfying (\[kinpos\]), may be parameterized in term of a unit vector $\sigma\in S^2$, the unit sphere in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crules}
v_i^*(\sigma) &=& \frac{v_i+v_j}{2} + \frac{|v_i -v_j|}{2}\sigma \nonumber\\
v_j^*(\sigma) &=& \frac{v_i+v_j}{2} - \frac{|v_i -v_j|}{2} \sigma \end{aligned}$$
The particular kinematically possible collision that occurs at time $T$ is selected according to the following rule: There is given, in the specification of the process, a non-negative, even function $b$ on $[-1,1]$ such that for any fixed $\sigma'\in S^2$, with $\dd \sigma$ denoting the uniform probability measure on $S^2$ $$\label{normal}
\int_{S^2}b(\sigma\cdot \sigma')\dd \sigma = 1 \quad{\rm or, equivalently}, \qquad \frac12 \int_{-1}^1 b(t){\rm d} t = 1 \ .$$ The example of main interest turns out to be $$\label{hardrate}
b(x) = 1\ .$$ When $\alpha =1$ and $b$ is given by (\[hardrate\]), the Kac process models “hard sphere” or “billiard ball” collisions [@K59]. (There are two standard parameterizations of the set of energy and momentum conserving collisions, the “$\sigma$ parameterization” given by , and the “$n$ parameterization”. While the latter is often used in physics texts and is used in [@K59], the former, used here, has advantages. One is that in this parameterization, $b$ is constant, while in the other it is not due to a non-constant Jacobian relating the two parameterizations. See Appendix A.1 of [@CCC] for more information; equation (A.18) of [@CCC] is the formula relating the $b$ functions for the two representations.)
In any case, as long as $v_i \neq v_j$, $b(\sigma\cdot(v_i-v_j)/|v_i-v_j|)$ is a probability density on $S^2$. At time $T$, $\sigma$ is selected from the law $b(\sigma\cdot(v_i-v_j)/|v_i-v_j|)\dd \sigma$, and then the process executes the collision step in which $v_i^*$ and $v_j^*$ are given by (\[crules\]). (If $v_i = v_j$, no jump is made.) Then, all of the waiting times are “reset” and the process begins afresh. This completes the probabilistic description of the one parameter family of Kac collision process.
This one parameter family of Kac collision process is a little more general than the one considered by Kac: There is an extra parameter $\alpha$ that ranges between $0$ and $2$. The case $\alpha = 0$ corresponds to Maxwellian molecules as in [@K56] or [@CGL]. The case $\alpha =1$ is the hard sphere case that is our main focus. The case $\alpha =2$ is the case of “super hard spheres” and estimates for this case will be useful in our study of $\alpha =1$. Villani [@V03] discovered in the context of entropy production estimates that analysis of the non-physical case $\alpha =2$ could provide very helpful information on the physical cases $\alpha \leq 1$, and we make essential use of this insight in our analysis of spectral gaps.
The generator of the Kac process
--------------------------------
false An angle $\theta$ is selected from the distribution $b(\cos\theta)\dd \theta$, and then $\vec v$ jumps to $R_{i,j,\theta}\vec v$ where $$R_{i,j,\theta}\vec v = (v_1,v_2,\dots,v'_i(\theta),\dots,v'_j(\theta),\dots,v_n)$$ with $$v'_i(\theta) = v_i\cos(\theta) + v_j\sin(\theta)\qquad{\rm and}\qquad
v'_j(\theta) = -v_i\sin(\theta) + v_j\cos(\theta)\ .$$ and $\theta \in (-\pi,\pi]$. [*Then, all clocks are reset to zero, and the process begins afresh.*]{} Let $\vec v(t)$ denote the state of the $N$-particle system at time $t$ as it evolves under this process.
The object of our investigation is the spectral gap for the generator of the Markov semigroup associated to this process. For [*any*]{} continuous function $f$ on $\STE$, in particular without any symmetry assumption, define $$\LN f (\vec v) = \frac1h \lim_{h\to 0}{\rm E}\{ f (\vec v(h))\ |\ \vec v(0) = \vec v\ \} \ .$$ We can write this more explicitly as $$\label{lndef2}
\LN f (\vec v) = -{N}{\ncht}^{-1}\sum_{i<j} |v_i-v_j|^{\alpha}\left[f (\vec v) - [f ]^{(i,j)}(\vec v) \right]$$ where $$\label{lndef3}
[f ]^{(i,j)}(\vec v) = \int_{S^2}b\left(\sigma\cdot \frac{v_i-v_j}{|v_i-v_j|}\right) f (R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v) \dd \sigma$$ and ${\displaystyle
(R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v)_k = \begin{cases} v_i^*(\sigma) & k = i\\ v_j^*(\sigma) & k = j\\ v_k & k\neq i,j\end{cases}}$.
By (\[crulesa\]) and (\[crules\]), $$\cos\theta := \sigma\cdot \frac{v_i-v_j}{|v_i-v_j|} = \frac{v_i^*-v_j^*}{|v_i^*-v_j^*|}\cdot \frac{v_i-v_j}{|v_i-v_j|}\ .$$ By this and (\[crulesa\]) once again, rates for the jump from $\vec v$ to $R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v$ and from $R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v$ to $\vec v$ are equal. This is the property of “detailed balance” or “microscopic reversibility”. The analytic expression of this is self-adjointness of the generator $\LN$:
Let $\dd \sigma_N$ denote the uniform probability measure on $\STE$. (Note that $\STE$ is isometric to a sphere of radius $\sqrt{N(E - |p|^2)}$ in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^{3N -4}$, and by uniform, we mean uniform with respect to the symmetries of this sphere.)
For any two unit vectors $\sigma$ and $\omega$, one sees from (\[crules\]) that $$\label{Rdef4}
R_{i,j,\sigma}(R_{i,j,\omega}\vec v) = R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v\ .$$ From this and the fact that the measure $\dd \sigma_N \otimes \dd \sigma$ is invariant under $$(\vec v,\sigma) \mapsto (R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v,(v_i-v_j)/|v_i - v_j|)\ ,$$ it follows that for any two continuous functions $f$ and $g$ on $\STE$, $$\langle g , \LN f \rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)} =
\langle \LN g ,\ f \rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)} \ ,$$ where $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)}$ denotes the inner product on $L^2(\STE,\sigma_N)$. Thus, $\LN$ is a self adjoint operator on $L^2(\STE,\sigma_N)$. Notice that the formulas (\[lndef2\]) and (\[lndef3\]) do not involve the parameters $E$ and $p$, and hence our notation references only $N$ and $\alpha$.
Define the quadratic form $\E$ by $\E(f ,f ) = -\langle f , \LN f \rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)}$. A simple computation using (\[Rdef4\]) shows that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{endefi}
\E(f ,f ) = \\
\frac{N}{2}{\ncht}^{-1}\sum_{i<j}\int_{\STE}\int_{S^2} |v_i-v_j|^{\alpha} b\left(\sigma\cdot \frac{v_i-v_j}{|v_i-v_j|}\right)
\left[ f (\vec v) - f (R_{i,j,\sigma}\vec v) \right]^2
\dd \sigma \dd \sigma_N\ .\end{gathered}$$
One sees from this expression that $\LN$ is a negative semi-definite operator, and that provided $b$ is continuous at $1$, $\LN f = 0$ if and only if $f $ is constant. We are interested in the [*spectral gap*]{} of the operator $\LN$ on $L^2(\STE,\sigma_N)$:
$$\label{Deldef1}
\Delta_{N,\alpha}(E,p)
= \inf\left\{
\E(f,f)
\ : \ \langle f,1 \rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)} = 0\quad{\rm and}\quad {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_{L^2(\sigma_N)}^2 =1\ \right\} \ .$$
For fixed $N$, the dependence of $\Delta_{N,E,p}$ on $E$ and $p$ is quite simple: Consider the point transformation $$\phi_{E,p}(v_1,\dots,v_N) := \frac{1}{ \sqrt{E -|p|^2}}(v_1 - p, \dots, v_N - p)$$ that identifies $\STE$ with ${\mathcal S}_{N,1,0}$. The induced transformation $U_{E,p}$ from $L^2({\mathcal S}_{N,1,0},\sigma_N)$ to $L^2(\STE,\sigma_N)$ given by $U_{E,p}f = f\circ \phi_{E,p}$ is evidently unitary. A simple computation then shows that $$\label{scaling}
\E(U_{E,p}f,U_{E,p}f) = (E- |p|^2)^{\alpha/2}\E(f,f,)\ .$$ As an immediate consequence, $$\label{scaling2}
\Delta_{N,\alpha}(E,p)= (E- |p|^2)^{\alpha/2} \Delta_{N,\alpha}(1,0)\ .$$
The dependence of $\Delta_{N,\alpha}(E,p)$ on $N$ is not so simple. Nonetheless, we have seen that the problem of estimating the quantity $\Delta_{N,\alpha}(E,p)$ is essentially the same as the problem of estimating $\Delta_{N,\alpha}(1,0)$. We therefore simplify our notation:
\[specgapdef\] The [*spectral gap for the $N$ particle Kac model*]{} is the quantity $$\label{specgapdef1}
\Delta_{N,\alpha} := \Delta_{N,\alpha}(1,0)\ .$$
In what follows, we write $\ST$ to denote ${\mathcal S}_{N,1,0}$, and consider the Kac process on $\ST$ unless other values of $E$ and $p$ are explicitly specified. The [*Kac conjecture for hard sphere collisions*]{} [@K59] is that $\liminf_{N\to \infty}\Delta_{N,1}> 0\ .$ Our main result shows somewhat more:
\[main\] For each continuous non-negative even function $b$ on $[-1,1]$ statisfying , and for each $\alpha \in [0,2]$, there is a strictly positive constant $K$ depending only on $b$ and $\alpha$, and explicitly computable, such that $$\Delta_{N,\alpha}\geq K > 0$$ for all $N$. In particular, this is true with $b$ given by and $\alpha =1$, the $3$ dimensional hard sphere Kac model.
The conjugate Kac process and its generator
-------------------------------------------
Our method involves the introduction of another family of reversible Markov jump processes on $\ST$ that are [*conjugate*]{} to the Kac process. For fixed $N$ and $\alpha$, this process is described as follows: Given $\vec v\in \ST$, Let $\{ \widehat{T}_1, \dots, \widehat{T}_N\}$ be $N$ independent exponential variables such that the parameter $\lambda_k(\vec v)$ of $\widehat{T}_k$ is $$\lambda_k(\vec v) = \frac{1}{N}\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{\alpha/2}\ .$$ Since the total energy is $N$ and the total momentum is zero, the maximum possible value of $|v_k|^2$ on $\ST$ is $N-1$, and thus $\lambda_k \geq 0$, with equality only when $|v_k|^2$ takes on its maximal value.
The first jump time is $\widehat{T}= \min\{\widehat{T}_1,\dots,\widehat{T}_N\}$. At the jump time, if $k$ is the index furnishing the minimum, $\vec v$ jumps to a new point on $\ST$ such that $v_k$ is unchanged, but conditional on $v_k$, the other coordinates are redistributed uniformly. That is, the process makes a conditional jump to uniform, conditional on $v_k$ which is held fixed. After the jump, the process starts afresh. This completes the description of the [*conjugate Kac process*]{}.
Note that the conjugate process is trivial for $N=2$, since then $v_2 = -v_1$, so that given one velocity, the other is known exactly, and the “conditional jump to uniform” is no jump at all in this case. However, alsready for $N=3$, the process is far from trivial.
\[conrem\] If $|v_k|^2$ is close to its expected value of $1$, then $\lambda_k(\vec v) \approx \frac{1}{N}$, which is exact for $\alpha = 0$. In this case, we have $N$ independent Poisson clocks with rate $\tfrac1N$ each, so that the mean waiting time for [*some*]{} jump is $1$. For $\alpha > 0$, the rates $\lambda_k(\vec v)$ are not bounded away from $0$. However, [*at most one of them can be very close to zero for any given state $\vec v$*]{}. This is because, $\lambda_k(\vec v) = 0$ if and only if $|v_k|^2$ takes on its maximum value, $N-1$. For at most one value of $k$ is it possible that $|v_k|^2 > \tfrac12 N$, and for $|v_j|^2 \leq \tfrac12 N$, $\lambda_j(\vec v) = \frac{1}{2N} + {\mathcal O}(\frac{1}{N^2})$. Thus, for all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, for large $N$, the expected waiting time for a jump is very close to $1/N$, and this one jump will bring $N-1$ of the particles very close to equilibrium. If the expected waiting time were exactly $1/N$ and the jump took all $N$ particles to equilibrium, the spectral gap would be exactly $1- 1/N$. This is not misleading; we shall show that for the conjugate Kac process, the spectral gap is indeed $1-1/N$ plus lower order corrections.
To write down the generator, introduce the conditional expectation operators $P_k$, $k=1,\dots,N$, defined as follows:
For any function $\phi$ in $L^2(\ST)$, and any $k$ with $1\le k \le N$, define $P_k(\phi)$ to be the orthogonal projection of $\phi$ onto the subspace of $L^2(\ST)$ consisting of square integrable functions that depend on $\vec v$ through $v_k$ alone. That is, $P_k(\phi)$ is the unique element of $L^2(\ST)$ of the form $f(v_k)$ such that $$\label{Pkfir0}
\int_{\ST}\phi(\vec v)g(v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N =
\int_{\ST}f(v_k)g(v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N$$ for all continuous functions $g$ on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$. In probabilistic language, $P_k\phi$ is the conditional expectation of $\phi$ given $v_k$: $$\label{Pkfir}
P_k \phi = E\{ \phi \ :\ v_k \}\ .$$
The generator of the conjugate Kac process is then given by $$\label{dKgen}
\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}f = - \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{\alpha/2}[ f - P_k f]\ ,$$ which is the analog of . Define the quadratic form ${\mathcal D}_{N,\alpha}$ by $${\mathcal D}_{N,\alpha}(f ,f ) = -\langle f , \widehat{L}_{N,\alpha} f \rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)}\ .$$ A simple computation using (\[Rdef4\]) shows that $$\label{ddef2X}
\D(f,f) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{\alpha/2}
\left[f^2 - f P_k f\right] \dd \sigma_N\ .$$
The spectral gap for the conjugate Kac process is the quantity defined by $$\label{Deldef1}
\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha}
= \inf\left\{
{\mathcal D}_{N,\alpha}(f,f)
\ : \ ,\ \langle f,1 \rangle_{L^2(\ST)} = 0\quad{\rm and}\quad {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_{L^2(\ST)}^2 =1\ \right\} \ .$$
The following theorem bears out the heuristic discussion in Remark \[conrem\]
\[thm2X\] For all $N\geq 3$, and all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha} > 0$. Moreover, there is a constant $C$ independent of $N$ such that $$\label{ind2X}
\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha} \geq 1 - \frac{1}{N} - \frac{C}{N^{3/2}}\ .$$
The constant $C$ is large enough that the first statement does not follow from which is only a meaningful bound when $N$ is large enough that the right side is positive.
The link between the Kac process and its conjugate
--------------------------------------------------
The following theorem provides the link between the Kac process and its conjugate:
\[thm1X\] For all $N\geq 3$, $$\label{ind1X}
\Delta_{N,\alpha} \geq \frac{N}{N-1}\Delta_{N-1,\alpha}\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha}\ .$$
Before proving Theorem \[thm1X\], we recall some explicit formulas that will be useful here and elsewhere. The proof of Theorem \[thm1X\] uses the methods introduced in [@CCL00; @CCL03; @CCL14]. The estimation of $\DN$ in terms of $\Delta_{N-1,\alpha}$ is based on a parameterization of $\ST$, for $N\geq 3$, in terms of ${\mathcal S}_{N-1}\times B$ where $B$ is the unit ball. For each $k=1,\dots,N$, define $\pi_k: \ST \to B$ by $$\label{kproj}
\pi_k(\vec v) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N-1}}v_k\ .$$ (Note that because of the constraints $\sum_{j=1}^N v_j = 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^N |v_j|^2= N$, the largest value of $|v_k|$ on $\ST$ is $\sqrt{N-1}$.)
Define a map $T_1: {\mathcal S}_{N-1}\times B \to \ST$ as follows: $$\label{factor}
T_1(\vec y,v) =
\left( \sqrt{N-1}v\ , \ \beta(v) y_1 - {1\over \sqrt{N-1}}v, \dots,\beta(v) y_{N-1} -
{1\over \sqrt{N-1}}v\right)\ ,$$ where $$\label{factor2}
\beta^2(v) = \frac{N }{N-1}(1- |v|^2)\ .$$ The subscript $1$ in $T_1$ indicates that the vector $v$ from $B$ went into the first place. We likewise define $T_2,\dots,T_N$ by placing this coordinate in the corresponding position.
In the coordinates $(\vec y,v)$ on $\ST$ induced by any of the maps $T_k$, one has the integral factorization formula $$\label{facform}
\int_{\ST}\phi(\vec v){\rm d}\sigma_N =
\int_{B}\left[\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}}\phi(T_k(\vec y,v)) {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1}\right]
\dd \nu_N(v)\ .$$ where for all $N\geq 3$, $$\label{nun}
\dd \nu_N(v) =
{|S^{3N-7}|\over|S^{3N-4}|}(1 -|v|^2)^{(3N-8)/2} {\rm d}v\ .$$
Also, note that for $i\ne k,j\ne k$, $$\label{inter}
R_{i,j,\sigma}(T_k(\vec y,v)) = T_k(R_{i,j,\sigma}(\vec y),v)\ .$$ We now have the means to relate $\E$ to $\Em$.
For each $k=1,\dots,N$, define the [*conditional Dirichlet form*]{} $\E(f,f|v_k)$ on $L^2(\ST,\sigma_N)$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cdir}
\E(f,f|v_k) =
(N-1){\nmcht}^{-1}\times \\\sum_{i<j; i,j\neq k}\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}}\int_{S^2}
|y_i-y_j|^{\alpha} b\left(\sigma\cdot \frac{y_i-y_j}{|y_i-y_j|}\right)
F^2(\vec v,y)
\dd \sigma \dd \sigma_{N-1}(y)\ .\end{gathered}$$ where $F(\vec v,y) :=\left[ f (T_k(\pi_k(\vec v),y) - f (R_{i,j,\sigma}T_k(\pi_k(\vec v),y)) \right]$.
As the integration on the right is only over the “slices” of $\ST$ at constant values of $v_k$, the result is still a non-trivial function of $v_k$. For each fixed $v_k$, the conditional Dirichlet form is simply the $N-1$ particle Dirichlet form acting in the $\vec y$ variables.
Note that by (\[factor\]) and (\[factor2\]), when $\vec v = T_k(\vec y,v) $ and $i,j\neq k$, $$|v_i - v_j |^2= \beta^2(\pi_k(\vec v))|y_i - y_j|^2 = \frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2} |y_i - y_j|^2 \ .$$ We define, for $v\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$, $|v|^2 \leq N-1$,
$$\label{weightdef}
w_N(v) := \frac{N^2 - (1+|v|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\ .$$
We therefore have that $$|v_i-v_j|^{\alpha} b\left(\sigma\cdot \frac{v_i-v_j}{|v_i-v_j|}\right) = w^{\alpha/2}_N(v_k)
|y_i-y_j|^{\alpha} b\left(\sigma\cdot \frac{y_i-y_j}{|y_i-y_j|}\right)\ .$$
Then, using (\[inter\]), one easily checks that $$\label{rec}
\E(f,f) = \frac{N}{N-1}
\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{B}w^{\alpha/2}_N(v_k) \E(f,f|v_k) \dd \nu_N(v_k/\sqrt{N-1})\right)\ .$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm1X\]
--------------------------
To estimate the right hand side of in terms of $\Delta_{N-1,\alpha}$, we must take into account that for fixed $v_k$, $f$ need not be orthogonal to the constants as a function of the remaining variables $\vec y$. To take this into account, we use the projection operators already introduced in and . Using the factorization formula (\[facform\]), we have an explicit formula: $$P_k\phi(\vec v) = \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}}\phi(T_k(\vec y,v_k/\sqrt{N-1})) {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1}\ ,$$
Now note that $\E(f,f|v_k) = \E(f- P_kf,f-P_kf |v_k)$, and then using the spectral gap for $N-1$ particles and (\[rec\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec2H}
\E(f,f) &\geq& \frac{N}{N-1}\Delta_{N-1, \alpha}
\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w^{\alpha/2}_N(v_k)
\left[f - P_k f\right]^2 \dd \sigma_N\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{N}{N-1}\Delta_{N-1, \alpha} \D(f,f)\end{aligned}$$ since $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w^{\alpha/2}_N(v_k)
\left[f - P_k f\right]^2 \dd \sigma_N = \\
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w^{\alpha/2}_N(v_k)
\left[f^2 - f P_k f\right] \dd \sigma_N = \D(f,f)\ .\end{gathered}$$ The theorem follows directly from and the variational characterizations of $\Delta_{N,\alpha}$ and $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha}$
Proof of the main theorem
-------------------------
Combining Theorem \[thm1X\] and Theorem \[thm2X\] yields, for a constant $C$, independent of $N>3$, $$\label{indulink}
\Delta_{N,\alpha} \geq \left(1 - \frac{C}{N^{3/2}}\right) \Delta_{N-1,\alpha}$$ The main result will follow easily from this, and a bound on $\Delta_{2,\alpha}$, and our next task is to prove such a bound.
Because $|v_i-v_j|$ can be arbitrarily small on $\ST$ for any $N>2$, for any given $C>0$, there will be functions $f\in L^2(\sigma_N)$ that satisfy $\langle f,1\rangle_{L^2(\sigma_N)} = 0$ and ${{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}^2_{L^2(\sigma_N)} =1$ such that $ f(\vec v) \LN f(\vec v) < C f(\vec v) L_{N,0} f(\vec v)$ for some $\vec v\in \ST$. This precludes a simple and direct comparison of the Dirichlet forms $\E$ and ${\mathcal E}_{N,0}$.
false When $\alpha>0$, the parameter $\lambda_{i,j}$ is small when $|v_i- v_j|$ is small. Pairs of particles with a small relative velocity will collide only infrequently. Since it is the collision mechanism that drives the process to equilibrium, the suppression of collisions for such pairs is a problem to be overcome. Of course, if $|v_i- v_j|$ is small, there will be some $k$ so that $|v_i- v_k|$ and $|v_k- v_j|$ are not small, and eventually some such particle will collide with particle $j$, say, and then after the collision, the difference in velocities of particles $i$ and $j$ is unlikely to be small. Thus, it is natural to expect that the smallness of $|v_i- v_j|$ for certain pairs of particles is not a significant impediment to the existence of a spectral gap, but it does prevent us from making a simple comparison with the $\alpha =0$ case for $N > 2$
For $N=2$, things are much better: Then by definition of ${\mathcal S}_2 := {\mathcal S}_{2,1,0}$, for all $(v_1,v_2)\in {\mathcal S}_2$, $v_2 = -v_1$, and $|v_1| = |v_2| =1$, so that $|v_1-v_2| = 2$ everywhere on ${\mathcal S}_2$. That is, for $N=2$, there is no significant difference between $\alpha = 0$ and $\alpha> 0$. For $\alpha =0$ and a number of choices of $b$, $\Delta_2$ has been computed in [@CGL]. The following is proved in Lemma 2.1 of [@CGL]
\[sg2\]With $b(x) = 1$, $$\label{2gaphs}
\Delta_{2,1} = 2\ .$$
The proof given in [@CGL] is fairly simple, and it is easy to apply the formulas there to other choices for the probability density $b$, and to show that as long as $b$ is even and continuous on $[-1,1]$, $\Delta_{2,\alpha} > 0$ for all $\alpha\in [0,2]$.
We are now ready to prove the main theorem:
Since $\Delta_{2,\alpha} > 0$ by Lemma \[sg2\], Theorem \[thm1X\] and the first part of Theorem \[thm2X\] yield $$\Delta_{3,\alpha}\geq \frac32 \Delta_{2,\alpha} \widehat{\Delta}_{3,\alpha} > 0\ ,$$ and then the obvious iteration yields $\Delta_{N,\alpha}> 0$ for all $N\geq 2$. To go further and prove that $\inf_{N\geq 2}\Delta_{N,\alpha} > 0$, we use the second part of Theorem \[thm2X\]:
Let $N_0$ be such that ${\displaystyle 1 - C N_0^{-3/2} > 0}$. Then ${\displaystyle
K_0 := \prod_{j= N_0}^\infty \left(1 - \frac{C}{j^{3/2}}\right) > 0}$ and for all $N\geq N_0$, $\Delta_{N,\alpha} \geq K_0 \Delta_{N_0,\alpha}$.
As we shall see, it is possible to explicitly compute the constant $C$ in Theorem \[thm2X\]. To keep the presentation free of clutter, we have not carried this through here, but it would be a simple, if tedious, exercise to track the constants step by step. As for the first part of Theorem \[thm2X\], it is easy to give an explicit lower bound on $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha}$ for all $N \geq 4$, and we do so below. The case $N=3$ is more difficult, and we use a simple compactness argument to prove $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,\alpha}>0$. However we do sketch a method for explicitly estimating $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,\alpha}$. Thus, the method we employ to prove Theorem \[main\] can be used to prove explicit bounds.
It remains to prove Theorem \[thm2X\], and we prepare the way for this in the next section. Throughout the rest of the paper, we are concerned soley with the conjugate Kac process. All of the analysis that directly involves the Kac process itself is complete at this point.
Estimates for the conjugate process
===================================
It is in the proof of Theorem \[thm2X\] that new ideas are required to deal with the non-uniform jump rates of the conjugate process, and we begin with a heuristic discussion of these ideas.
As in the case $\alpha =0$, we rely in part on the fact that the invariant measure $\sigma_N$ (of both processes) is [*chaotic*]{} in the sense of Kac. More specifically, it is $\gamma$ chaotic where $${\rm d}\gamma = (2\pi /3)^{-3/2} e^{-3|v|^2/2}{\rm d}v$$ is the isotropic Gaussian distribution on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ with unit variance. This means that for any $k\in {{\mathord{\mathbb N}}}$ and any bounded continuous function $\psi(v_1,\dots,v_k)$ on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^{3k}$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{\ST} \psi(v_1,\dots,v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N = \int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^{3k}}\psi(v_1,\dots,v_k){\rm d}\gamma^{\otimes k}\ .$$ That is, as long as $k$ is much less than $N$, the random variables $v_1,\dots,v_k$ are nearly independent, and by symmetry this is true of any set of $k$ distinct coordinate functions on $\ST$. The notion of chaos was also introduced by Kac in [@K56], and the main result of that paper was that for the model with one dimensional velocities and $\alpha =0$, chaos is propagated by the dynamics. Propagation of chaos for $\alpha > 0$ is much harder, and this was only proved later by Sznitman [@Sznit], also in $3$ dimensions.
In case $\alpha =0$, the range of $I -\widehat{L}_{N,0}$ has a special structure that facilitates the study of the spectral gap for $\widehat{L}_{N,0}$. The subspace of the range that is orthogonal to the constants consists of functions $f$ of the form: $f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)$ such that each $\varphi_j(v_j)$ is square integrable and such that $f$ is orthognal to the constants. One choice for the $\varphi_j$’s is $\varphi_j = P_jf$, but there are other choices: Since for any fixed $a\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ and $b\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}$, $$\label{conlawcon}
\sum_{j=1}^N(a\cdot v_j + b(|v_j|^2-1)) = 0\, ,$$ we may make the replacement $\varphi_j(v_j) \longrightarrow \varphi_j(v_j)+ a\cdot v_j + b(|v_j|^2-1)$ without changing $f(\vec v)$. There is however, a prefered choice of the functions $\varphi_j$ that plays an important role in what follows. As we shall show, there is a unique choice that minimizes $\sum_{j=1}^N {{\Vert}}\varphi_j(v_j){{\Vert}}_2^2$ which has a number of useful properties.
\[ANdef\] Let ${\mathcal A}_N$ denote the subspace of $L^2(\ST)$ that is the closure of the span of functions of the form $$\label{ANdef1}
f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)$$ for bounded continuous functions $\varphi_1, \dots,\varphi_N$ in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ such that $\int_{\ST}f{\rm d}\sigma_N =0$.
When $\alpha \neq 0$, ${\mathcal A}_N$ is not an invariant subspace of $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$. Nonetheless, as we explain, the gap may be bounded using a trial function decomposition based on ${\mathcal A}_N$, and for this the approximate independence that comes along with the chaoticity of $\sigma_N$ is essential.
To see how this works, suppose that one replaces the state space $\ST$ with ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^{3N}$, and replaces the conjugate Kac process with the “conditional jump to uniform" process with respect to ${\rm d}\gamma^{\otimes N}$. In this case, with the invariant measure being a product measure, the corresponding conditional expectation operators $P_k$ will all commute. One might therefore expect that the operators $P_k$ figuring in the definition of $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$ almost commute for large $N$. Suppose that they [*exactly*]{} commute, or, what is the same thing, that the coordinate functions $v_1,\dots,v_N$ are [*exactly*]{} independent.
Since $0 = \int_{\ST}f{\rm d}\sigma_N = \sum_{j=1}^N \int_{\ST}\varphi_j(v_j){\rm d}\sigma_N =0$, replacing $\varphi_j(v_j)$ by $\varphi_j(v_j) - \int_{\ST}\varphi_j(v_j){\rm d}\sigma_N$, we may assume without loss of generality in that $\int_{\ST}\varphi_j(v_j){\rm d}\sigma_N = 0$ for each $j$. Granted the exact independence, we would then have that for $k\neq j$, $P_k \varphi_j(v_k) = 0$, while $P_k\varphi_k(v_k) = \varphi_k(v_k)$. Thus, for $f\in {\mathcal A}_N$, $f - P_kf = \sum_{j\neq k} \varphi_j(v_j)$, and then, again using the independence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hopefulA}
\D(f,f) &=& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) \sum_{j\neq k} \varphi_j^2(v_j) \dd \sigma_N\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left(\int_{\ST} w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k)\dd \sigma_N \right)
\left(\int_{\ST} \sum_{j\neq k} \varphi_j^2(v_j) \dd \sigma_N\right)
\end{aligned}$$ As is shown below, the integral over the rate, which is evidently independent of $k$, is bounded below by $1 - C/N^2$ for some constant $C$ that is independent of $N$. Thus, we would have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rx1}
\D(f,f) &\geq& \left(1 - \frac{C}{N^2}\right) \frac{N-1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_j(v_j){{\Vert}}_2^2\nonumber\\
&=& \left(1 - \frac{C}{N^2}\right) \frac{N-1}{N}{{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\
\end{aligned}$$ which is even better than .
The equality in comes from the identity $\sum_{j=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_j(v_j){{\Vert}}_2^2 = {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2$ which is true when there is [*exact*]{} independence of the coordinate functions. In our setting, we do not have exact independence, and must prove and use appropriate [*quantitative chaos*]{} estimates. For instance, in of Theorem \[gprop2\], it is shown that in our setting, for a particular decomposition $f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi(v_j)$ – such decompositions are not unique, even if one requires each $\varphi_j$ to be orthogonal to the constants – one has $$\label{rx2}
\sum_{j=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_j(v_j){{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq \left(1+\frac{C}{N^2}\right) {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2$$ for all $N\geq 3$ and with $C$ independent of $N$. Using this after the first inequality in still yeilds someting even better than . .
Of course, one must consider trial functions that are not in ${\mathcal A}_N$, and for trial functions $f$ that are in ${\mathcal A}_N^\perp$, things are better still. Such functions are shown to belong to the null space of $P_k$ for each $k$. Therefore, for $f\in {\mathcal A}_N^\perp$, we would have from $$\label{hopeful}
\D(f,f) = \int_{\ST} \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) \right)
f^2 \dd \sigma_N\ ,$$ which is a significant simplification of . It is shown below (see Lemma \[weight\] and Remark \[lowN\]) that for some constant $C$ independent of $N$, $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) \geq 1- \left(1 -\frac{\alpha}{2} \right)\frac{1}{N} - \frac{C}{N^2}\ .$$ Combining this with would then yield $$\D(f,f) \geq \left(1-\left(1 -\frac{\alpha}{2} \right)\frac{1}{N} - \frac{C}{N^2}\right){{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ For $\alpha>0$, this is much stronger than , and for this bound we do not even use the approximate independence.
Since ${\mathcal A}_N$ is not an invariant subspace for $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$, one has to show that for $g\in {\mathcal A}_N$ and $h\in {\mathcal A}_N^\perp$, $D(g,h)$ is small. We shall show, again using the approximate independence, that $$|D(g,h)| \leq \frac{C}{N^{3/2}}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2\ .$$ It is the estimate in this step that is responsible for the $N^{3/2}$ term in . A more refined argument, like the one provided for this step in [@CCL14] for the model with one dimensional velocities, would presumably improve $N^{3/2}$ to $N^2$, but since we have elected not to keep track of constants, there is no point in pursuing this here.
Our proof will closely follow these heuristics, but of course we must carefully control the departures from exact independence wherever it was used above. There is one significant twist. Though we have the estimate , it is much easier to prove the weaker analog of it with $N^2$ replaced by $N$, and perhaps there are other models that are “less chaotic” in which the weaker bound is all that one has. The weaker bound cannot be used directly in to obtain anything useful, but the simple device of defining ${\mathcal F}_{N,\alpha} := {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 - \D(f,f)$ reduces the problem of estimating the gap for $\D$ to that of obtaining an appropriate of an upper bound for ${\mathcal F}_{N,\alpha}$, and with the $1$ out of the way, the weaker version of becomes useful. This is what we do in Section \[sec3.3\] to complete the proof.
The next subsection presents the “quantitative chaos” estimates that are used to control the weak dependence of the coordinate function for large $N$. It is important that some of the results turn out to be meaningful even for small $N$, such as $N=3$.
Quantitative chaos
------------------
A number of the quantitative chaos bounds that we need may be expressed in terms of the [*correlation operator*]{} $K$-operator that we now define:
Let $B$ denote the unit ball in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$. Let $N\geq 3$ and let $\nu_N$ be given by , so that for any function $\psi$ on $B$, and any $k$, $$\int_B \psi(v){\rm d}\nu_N = \int_{\ST} \psi(\pi_k(\vec v)){\rm d}\sigma_N\ ,$$ where $\pi_k$ is given by , and $\nu_N$ is given by . We define the operator $K$ on $L^2(B,\nu_N)$ by $$\label{Kopdef}
\langle \psi_1,K \psi_2\rangle_{L^2(B,\nu_N)} = \int_{\ST} \psi_1^* (\pi_1(\vec v))\psi_2(\pi_2(\vec v)){\rm d}\sigma_N\ .$$ $K$ is evidently self adjoint.
\[xidef\]For $j=0,\dots,4$ define fnctions $\xi_j(v)$ on $B$ by $$\label{etaeigs}
\xi_0(v) =1\quad \xi_j(v) = v_j\ , j =1,2,3, \quad{\rm and}\quad \xi_4(v) = (|v|^2-1)/(N-1)\ .$$
The spectrum of $K$ is determined in [@CGL], where the following facts are proven:
\[CGL\] Let $N\geq 3$. The operator $K$ is compact. The function $\xi_0$ is an eigenfunction of $K$ with eigenvalue $1$, and it spans the corresponding eigenspace. The functions $\xi_j$, $j=1,2,3,4$ are eigenfunctions of $K$ with eigenvalue $-1/(N-1)$, and they are an orthogonal basis for this eigenspace. No other eigenvalues of $K$ are larger in absolute value than $\tfrac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3}$. Therefore, for all $\psi_1,\psi_2\in L^2(B,\nu_N)$ that are orthogonal to the constants, the three components of $v$ and $v^2$, $$\label{kbnd}
\left| \int_{\ST} \psi_1^*(\pi_1(\vec v))\psi_2(\pi_2(\vec v)){\rm d}\sigma_N\right| \leq \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3} {{\Vert}}\psi_2\circ\pi_1{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\psi_2\circ \pi_2{{\Vert}}_2\ .$$ Equivalently, for all functions $\psi\in L^2(B,\nu_N)$, that are orthogonal to $1$, the three components of $v$ and $v^2$, $$\label{ktop}
{{\Vert}}K\psi{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3} {{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2\ .$$ Finally, every eigenvalues $\kappa$ of $K$, other than $1$, $\frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3}$ and $\frac{1}{N-1}$ staisfies $$\label{upperlow}
-\frac{7N-3}{3(N-1)^4} \leq \kappa < \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3}\ .$$
The number on the left in is the eigenvalue denoted by $\kappa_{1,2}$ in Section 8 of [@CGL].
Fix some $k$, and let $\mathcal{H}$ the subspace of $L^2(\ST)$ spanned by functions of the form $\varphi(v_k)$ for some $k$. Since $v_k$ ranges over the ball of radius $\sqrt{N-1}$ in ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$, one may think of $\mathcal{H}$ as a Hilbert space consisting of square integrable functions on this ball, with respect to a scaled version of the measure $\nu_N$.
It will be convenient in what follows to think of $K$ as an operator on $\mathcal{H}$. Note that $\varphi(v_k) = \tilde \varphi(\pi_k(\vec v))$ where $\tilde \varphi(v) = \varphi(\sqrt{N-1} v)$. Define $$\label{spheretoball}
K\varphi(v_k) = (K\tilde \varphi)(\pi_k(\vec v)) \ .$$ The spectrum of $K$, including multiplictiy, thought of this way is naturally the same, but the eigenfunctions change by scaling. For example, now $|v|^2 -1$ is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue $-1/(N-1)$. In this notation, we have that for any function $\xi$ on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ so that $\xi(v_1)$ is in $L^2(\sigma_N)$, $$\label{ScaledK}
E\{ \xi(v_1) \ |\ v_2 = v\} = K\xi(v_N)\ .$$ The $K$ operator defined by is simply a “scaled” version of the $K$ operator defined in , scaled so it operates on functions on $\mathcal{H}$. For some computations, particularly in the computation of eigenvalues of $K$, the definition is more convenient. For other computations, more directly connected the the Kac process, has advantages. This slight abuse of notation will simplify many formulas that follow without introducing any ambiguity.
Since $K$ is compact, there is a orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}$ consisting of eigenvectors of $K$. This orthonormal basis is determined explicitly in [@CGL], but all we need to know is that is can be written as $\{\eta_\iota\}_{\iota\geq 0}$ where $$\label{etabasis}\eta_0(v) =1\ , \ \eta_j(v) = \sqrt{3}{\bf e_j}\cdot v \ , \ 1 \leq j\leq 3 \ {\rm and} \ \eta_4(v) = C_N( |v|^2 -1)\ ,$$ with $C_N$ being a normalization constant. This follows directly from Lemma \[CGL\] and .
Let $\kappa_\iota$ denote the eigenvalue corresponding to $\eta_\iota$, so that $K\eta_\iota = \kappa_\iota\eta_\iota$. Our first application of Lemma \[CGL\] concerns the norm of functions in ${\mathcal A}_N$:
\[gprop2\] Let $N\geq 3$, and let $f \in {\mathcal A}_N$ be orthogonal to $1$. Then there is a unique choice of $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N$ with $f = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j) $ and each $\varphi_j(v_j)$ orthogonal to the constants that minimizes $\sum_{k=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2$ where ${{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2$ denotes $\int_{\ST}|\varphi_k(v_k)|^2{\rm d}\sigma_N$. Let $$\label{goodexp}
\varphi_j(v_j)= \sum_{i=1}^\infty a_{j,i}\eta_i(v_j)$$ be the expansion of $\varphi_j$ in the orthonormal basis consisting of eigenfunctions of $K$ that is specified above. Then this minimizer is characterized by $$\label{minchar}
\sum_{j=1}^Na_{j,i} = 0 \qquad{\rm for}\qquad 1 \leq i \leq 4\ .$$ For this choice, $$\label{gp3}
\left(1 - \frac{7N-3}{3(N-1)^3}\right)\sum_{k=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq
\left(1 +\frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^2}\right)\sum_{k=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2\ ,$$ In particular, let ${\mathcal H}_{N,k}$ denote the subspace of $L^2(\ST)$ consisting of functions of the form $\varphi(v_k)$. Define ${\mathcal B}_N$ to be the subspace of $\bigoplus_{k=1}^N {\mathcal H}_{N,k}$ consisiting of $(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N)$ such that is satisfied. Then the operator $T: {\mathcal B}_N \to {\mathcal A}_N$ defined by by $$T(\varphi_1(v_1),\dots,\varphi_N(v_N)) = \sum_{k=1}^N \varphi_k(v_k)$$ is bounded with a bounded inverse.
Define $c_N := \left(1 - \frac{7N-3}{3(N-1)^3}\right)$ and $C_N = \left(1 +\frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^2}\right)$. Note the different exponents in the denominator, and that $c_N > 0$ for all $N\geq 3$. Also note that $c_N = 1 - {\mathcal O}(1/N)$, and $C_N = 1 + {\mathcal O}(1/N)$, and then we can rewrite as $$c_N \sum_{k=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq C_N \sum_{k=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2 \ ,$$ and of course we would have equality here with $c_N = C_N =1$ if the coordinate functions were exactly independent. Theorem \[gprop2\] gives a quantitative expression of the fact that for large $N$, the coordinate functions are approximately pairwise independent.
As noted above, we may assume that each $\varphi_j$ is orthogonal to the constants. We expand each $\varphi_j$ in the eigenbasis of $K$ as follows: $$\label{ioex1}
\varphi_j(v_j) = \sum_{\iota=1}^\infty a_{j,\iota} \eta_\iota(v_j)\ .$$ Then evidently ${\displaystyle {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2^2 = \sum_{\iota=1}^\infty |a_{j,\iota}|^2}$. On account of , for $j=1,2,3,4$, we may replace $a_{j,i}$ by $a_{j,i} -t_i$ without changing $f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N\varphi_j(v_j)$. With this modification, $$\sum_{j=1}^N {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2^2 = \sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^4 (a_{j,i} -t_i)^2 + \sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=5}^\infty|a_{i,j}|^2\ ,$$ which is evidently minimized by taking $t_i = - \frac1N\sum_{j=1}^Na_{j,i}$. and then making this replacement, is satisfied.
Next, for $j\neq k$, $$\int_{\ST} \varphi^*_j(v_j) \varphi_k(v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N = \sum_{\iota,\iota' =1}^\infty a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota'}\langle \eta_{j,\iota}, K\eta_{k,\iota'}\rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = \sum_{\iota=1}^\infty \kappa_\iota a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota}\ .$$ Therefore, when $f$ is given by and with satisfied, $$\label{ioexA}
{{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 = \sum_{\iota=1}^\infty \left(\sum_{j=1}^N |a_{j,\iota}|^2 + \kappa_\iota \sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota}\right)$$ For $\iota =1,\dots,4$, we have, using , the identity $$\sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota} = \left|\sum_{ j=1}^Na_{j,\iota}\right|^2 -\sum_{j=1}^N a_{i,j}^2= - \sum_{j=1}^N a_{i,j}^2\ ,$$ and then since $\kappa_i=-\frac{1}{N-1}$ for $i=1,\dots,4$, $$\label{ioexAA}
\sum_{\iota=1}^4 \left(\sum_{j=1}^N |a_{j,\iota}|^2 + \kappa_\iota \sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota}\right) = \frac{N}{N-1} \sum_{\iota=1}^4 \sum_{j=1}^N |a_{j,\iota}|^2\ .$$
For $\iota > 4$, we simply use the fact for such $\iota$, $\kappa_\iota$ is ${\cal O}(1/N^2)$ or smaller, and this takes the place of , which is not satisfied for such $\iota$, in eliminating a factor of $N$. Then since the $N\times N$ matrix that has $0$ in every diagonal entry, and $1$ elsewhere has eigenvalues $N-1$ and $-1$, $$\label{ioexAAA}
-\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i}^2 \leq \sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota} \leq (N-1) \sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i}^2\ .$$ Hence, for $\iota >4$, an upper bound on ${\displaystyle \left(\sum_{j=1}^N |a_{j,\iota}|^2 + \kappa_\iota \sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota}\right)}$ is $$\left(1 + \max\left\{ \frac{7N-3}{3(N-1)^4} \ ,\ (N-1)\frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3} \right\} \right)\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i}^2$$ where we have used . Evidently the maximum is furnished by the second quantitiy in the braces. Summing on $\iota>4$ and combining this with yields the upper bound in .
For $\iota>4$, a lower bound on ${\displaystyle \left(\sum_{j=1}^N |a_{j,\iota}|^2 + \kappa_\iota \sum_{j\neq k, j,k=1}^N \Re a^*_{j,\iota}a_{k,\iota}\right)}$ is $$\left(1 - \max\left\{ (N-1)\frac{7N-3}{3(N-1)^4} \ ,\ \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3} \right\} \right)\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i}^2$$ where we have again used . Evidently the maximum is furnished by the first quantitiy in the braces. Summing on $\iota>4$ and combining this with yields the lower bound in .
By Lemma \[CGL\], $\min\{1-\kappa_\iota\} = \tfrac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3}$, and thus we have the lower bound. For the upper bound, we use $\kappa_\iota = -1/(N-1)$ for $\iota = 1,2,3,4$, and note that for all $N\geq 3$, $\frac{N}{N-1} \leq \left(1 +\frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^2}\right)$. This gives us the upper bound. The rest is now clear, including the fact that is the only source of non-uniqueness in the representation of $f\in {\mathcal A}_N$ in the form $f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)$.
There is another type of quantitative chaos estimate that we need. For any functions $\xi$ on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ such that $\xi(v_k)\in L^2(\sigma_N)$ for some (and hence all) $k$, consider the conditional expectation $$\label{condex}
E\{ \xi(v_k) \ |\ v_j = v\} = K\xi(v)$$ for $j\neq k$. If the coordinate functions were exactly independent, this would simply be the expectation of $\xi(v_k)$, which is a finite constant. It turns out that when $\xi(v_k) $ is a polynomial in $|v_k|^2$, the conditional expectation is at least bounded – not only on $\ST$, which is trivial, but the bound is independent of $N$. Here is one such estimate:
\[v8\] For $\psi(v) = |v|^8$, there is a constant $C < \infty$ such that ${{\Vert}}K\psi{{\Vert}}_\infty \leq C$ for all $N$.
The formula gives us $$\begin{aligned}
K\psi(v) &=& \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}}\left| \sqrt{\frac{N -v^2}{N-1}} \vec y - \frac{1}{\sqrt{N(N-1)}} v \right|^8{\rm d}\sigma_{N-1} \\
&\leq& 2^7 \left(\left(\frac{N -v^2}{N-1}\right)^4 \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}} |\vec y|^8 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1} - \frac{|v|^8}{N^4(N-1)^4} \right)\end{aligned}$$ It is evident that $\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}} |\vec y|^8 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1}$ is bounded uniformly in $N$, and in fact, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}} |\vec y|^8 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1} = (2\pi/3)^{-3/2}\int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3} |y|^8 e^{-3|y|^2/2}\ .$$
In the remainder of this section we collect the other estimates of this type that we need. Their proofs, which are more intricate but still largely computational, are presented in Appendix A.
\[K2lemA\] There is a finite constant $C$ such that for all $N> 3$ and all $v$ such that $v=v_N$ for some $\vec v\in \ST$, $$\label{v80}
|E\{ |v_1|^4 \ |\ v_N = v \} - S(v)| \leq \frac{C}{N}$$ where $$\label{v800}
S(v) = \frac{N^2 + |v|^4 - 2N|v|^2 }{(N-1)^2}\ .$$
\[K2lem\] There is a finite constant $C$ such that for all $N> 3$ and all $(v,w)$ such that $(v,w) = (v_{N-1},v_N)$ for some $\vec v\in \ST$, $$\label{v80}
|E\{ |v_1|^4 \ |\ (v_{N-1},v_N) = (v,w) \} - S(v,w)| \leq \frac{C}{N}$$ where $$\label{v800}
S(v,w) = \frac{N^2 + |v|^4 + | w|^4 + 2N|v|^2 + 2N|w|^2 + 2|v|^2|w|^2}{(N-2)^2}\ .$$
The operators $W^{(\alpha)}$ and $P^{(\alpha)}$
-----------------------------------------------
Let $\alpha\in [0,2]$, and define the self adjoint operator $P^{({\alpha})}$ by $$\label{pgdefHH}
P^{({\alpha})} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) P_k \ ,$$ recalling that $w_N(v)$ is defined in , and $P_k$ is defined in , or equivalently . For each $k$, both $P_k$ and the multiplication operator ${\displaystyle w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) }$ are commuting and self adjoint, and hence $P^{({\alpha})}$ is indeed self adjoint, and non-negative. Since each $P_k$ is a projection, $$\label{pg2H}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k)
|P_kf|^2 \dd \sigma_N
= \langle f, P^{({\alpha})} f\rangle_{L^2(\ST,\sigma_N)}\ .$$
Define the function $W^{({\alpha})}$ by $$\label{wgdef}
W^{({\alpha})} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) \ .$$ Then $$\label{wg2}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k)
f^2 \dd \sigma = \int_{\ST} W^{({\alpha})} f^2\dd \sigma_N\ ,$$ and we can write: $$\label{ddef}
\D(f,f) := \int_{\ST} W^{({\alpha})} f^2\dd \sigma_N
- \langle f, P^{({\alpha})} f\rangle_{L^2(\ST,\sigma_N)}\ .$$
Equivalently, by the computations just below , $$\label{ddef2}
\D(f,f) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k)
\left[f - P_k f\right]^2 \dd \sigma_N\ ,$$ and hence $\D(f,f) \geq 0$ for all $f$ since for each $k$, $|v_k|^2 \leq N-1$. (Recall that because of the momentum constrain, not all of the energy can reside in a single particle.) It follows that $\D(f,f) = 0$ if and only if $f - P_k f = 0$ almost everywhere for each $k$, and then in this case $${{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 - \langle f,P^{(0)}f\rangle_{L^2(\ST)} = {\mathcal D}_{N,0}(f,f) = \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}|f - P_kf|^2{\rm d}\sigma_N = 0\ .$$ Evidently, $P^{(0)}$ is a contraction, and $1$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity one, and the eigenspace is spanned by the constant function $1$ [@CGL]. This proves:
\[nonzer\] For all $N\geq 2$ and all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, and all non-zero $f\in L^2(\ST)$ that are orthogonal to the constants, $\D(f,f) > 0$.
We use the following lemma proved in [@CCL14 Lemma 3.5]:
\[comp1\] For all $0 < \alpha \le 2$ and all $x > -1$, $$\label{com}
(1+x)^ {\alpha/2} \geq 1 + \tfrac{\alpha}{2} x - (1- \tfrac{\alpha}{2} )x^2\ .$$
\[weight\] For all $N$, all $0 < \alpha \leq 2$, and for all $\vec v \in \ST$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{wlb1}
1 - (1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\frac{N((N-1)^2 + 1)}{(N-1)^4} - \tfrac{\alpha}{2}\frac{1}{(N-1)^2} + (1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\frac{N+1}{(N-1)^3} \ \leq \ W^{(\alpha)}(\vec v)\ \leq\\
\left(1 - \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}\right)^{\alpha/2}\ .\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, for all $\vec v \in \ST$, with $W^{(\alpha)}$ given by , $$\label{wlb2}
W^{(0)}(\vec v)\ = \ 1\qquad{\rm and}\qquad \ W^{(2)}(\vec v)\ = \ 1- \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}\ .$$
Repeated use will be made of $$\label{toten}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N|v_k|^2 =1 \;$$ that identity is part of the definition of $\ST$.
Because of , ${\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left(\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right) = 1- \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}}$. Since $x \mapsto x^{\tfrac{\alpha}{2}}$ is concave on ${{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}_+$ for $0 \leq \alpha \leq 2$, Jensen’s inequality yields the upper bound.
To prove the lower bound, use the inequality : Writing $$\label{rateredef}
\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2} = 1+ \frac{N(1-|v_k|^2) -1}{(N-1)^2}\ ,$$ and applying and yields $$W^{({\alpha})}(\vec v) \geq 1 - \tfrac{\alpha}{2} \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} - (1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N
\left( \frac{N(1- |v_k|^2) -1}{(N-1)^2}\right)^2\ .$$ Expanding the square on the right and applying twice more, we find $$\label{wabndX}
W^{({\alpha})}(\vec v) \geq 1 - \tfrac{\alpha}{2} \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} - \frac{1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}}{(N-1)^4}\left[ 1-N^2+ N \sum_{k=1}^N
|v_k|^4\right] \ .$$
The maximum of ${\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^N |v_k|^4}$ on $\ST$ is no greater than the maximum of the convex function $ \sum_{k=1}^N x_k^2$ on the convex set of $(x_1,\dots,x_N)$ satisfying $$\label{wlb4}
0 \leq x_j \leq N-1 \quad {\rm for\ all}\quad j =1,\dots,N \qquad{\rm and}\qquad \sum_{j=1}^Nx_j = N\ .$$ The extreme points are obtained by permuting the coordinates of $(N-1,1,0,\dots,0)$. Evaluating the sum at such a point yields the stated bound, The final statement is obvious.
\[lowN\] Lemma \[weight\] shows that for large $N$, $$\label{wlowY1}
W^{(\alpha)}(\vec v) \geq 1 - \left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right) \frac{1}{N} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{N^2}\right)\ .$$ The fact that the coefficient of $1/N$ is no less than $-1$ is essential for the result that we shall prove.
We are particularly concerned with the case $\alpha =1$, and shall provide all the details in this case only. For $\alpha =1$, the lower bound simplifies further to $$\label{a1ilow}
W^{(1)}(\vec v) \geq C_N := 1 - \tfrac12 \frac{1}{N-1} - \tfrac12 \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} + \tfrac12 \frac{1}{(N-1)^3} - \tfrac12 \frac{1}{(N-1)^4}$$
It is easily seen that for all $N\geq 2$, $C_N$ increases as $N$ increases. For small $N$, we have the explicit values $$C_3 = \frac{21}{32}\quad{\rm and} \quad C_4 = \frac{64}{81}\ .$$
We now turn to $P^{(\alpha)}$. By , for each $k$ for all $v_k$, $$\label{ptws}
w_{N}^{\alpha/2}(v_k) = \left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{\alpha/2} = (1+x_N(v_k))^{\alpha/2} \ ,$$ where $$\label{xNdef}
x_N(v_k) =\frac{1}{N-1} - \frac{N}{(N-1)^2}|v_k|^2\ .$$ Note that ${\displaystyle
-1\leq x_N(v_k) \leq \frac{1}{N-1}}$. Then $$\label{xNdef2}
w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k)\leq \left(\frac{N}{N-1}\right)^{\alpha/2}$$ and by and the bounds from Lemma \[comp1\], $1 + \tfrac{\alpha}{2}x + (\frac{\alpha}{2} -1)x^2 \le (1+x)^{\alpha/2} \leq 1 + \tfrac{\alpha}{2}x$, $$\label{xNdef1}
|w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) -1| \leq \frac{1}{N-1} + \frac{3N}{(N-1)^2}|v_k|^2 + \frac{N^2}{(N-1)^4}|v_k|^4$$ for all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, where we have made estimates to simplify the right hand side. Thus, while $W^{(\alpha)}$ is only constant for $\alpha =0,2$, it is nearly constant for all $\alpha\in (0,2)$ when $N$ is large. However, its range, and hence the spectrum of the multiplication operator specified by $W^{(\alpha)}$, is a closed interval of positive length. At this point we record a simple lemma that will be useful later.
\[Lplem\] For all $p \geq 1$, there a constant $C$ depending only on $p$, so that for an $N\geq 3$ and all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, $$\label{lpbndW}
\left( \int_{\ST} |w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) -1|^p{\rm d}\sigma_N\right)^{1/p} \leq \frac{C}{N}\ .$$
This is an immediate consequnce of , the triangle inequality, and the fact that for all $m\in {{\mathord{\mathbb N}}}$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_{\ST} |v_k|^{mp}{\rm d}\sigma_N = \int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3} |v|^{mp}{\rm d}\gamma\ .$$
\[nullalpha\] For all $\alpha \in [0,2]$, the null space of $P^{(\alpha)}$ is independent of $\alpha$. If $h$ belongs to the null space of $P^{(0)}$, then $P_k h =0$ for each $k=1,\dots N$. For all $\alpha \in [0,2]$, the closure of the range of $P^{(\alpha)}$ is the subspace ${\mathcal A}_N$ of $L^2(\ST)$ defined in Definition \[ANdef\].
Since $P^{(\alpha)}\geq 0$, $h$ belongs to the null space of $P^{(\alpha)}$ if and only if $\langle h, P^{(\alpha)} h \rangle = 0$. But ${\displaystyle 0 = \langle h, P^{({\alpha})} h\rangle
= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\int_{\ST}w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) |P_k h|^2\dd \sigma_N}$. Since $w_N^{\alpha/2}(v_k) \ge 0$ almost everywhere, it must be the case that $|P_k h|^2$ vanishes identically. Thus is $h$ is in the null space of $P^{(\alpha)}$, $P_k h = 0$ for each $k$, and $h$ is in the null space of $P^{(0)}$. Conversely if $h$ is in the null space of $P^{(0)}$, then $P_k h = 0$ for each $k$, and then clearly $P^{(\alpha)}h = 0$.
Since each $P^{(\alpha)}\geq 0$, the closure of its range is the orthogonal complement of its null space. Since the null space does not depend on $\alpha$, neither does the range. Evidently, ${\mathcal A}_N$ is the closure of the range of $P^{(0)}$.
The spectrum of $\widehat{L}_{N,0}$
-----------------------------------
Already in our paper [@CCL03] we have proved results that specify the exact spectral gap of $\widehat{L}^{N,\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 0$. This case is especially amenable for several reasons. First, since $W^{(0)} =1$, $$\widehat{L}_{N,0} f = f - P^{({0})}f\ ,$$ and hence the problem is to determine the spectrum of $P^{({0})}$. Second, there is an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\ST)$ consisting of eigenfunctions of $P^{(0}$. This is the case because each $P_k$ is an average of rotations, so the finite dimensional spaces spanned by spherical harmonics of given maximal degree are invariant under $P^{(0)}$, and therefore one can study the spectrum of $P^{(0)}$ by studying the eigenvalue equation $P^{(0)}f = \lambda f$. This is the approach we took in our previous work. However, this approach cannot work even for $\alpha =2$, the next simplest case: In this case, $P^{(2)}$ has an interval of continuous spectrum, as we shall see below. Therefore, we now give another argument that determines the spectral gap of $\widehat{L}_{N,0}$ that does extend to $\alpha =2$ at least.
For all $N\geq 3$, $$\label{congap0}
\widehat{\Delta}_{N,0} = 1 - \frac{3N -1}{3(N-1)^2} = 1 - \frac1N + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{N^2}\right)\ .$$ and the second largest eigenvalue of $P^{(0)}$, $\mu^{(0)}$, is given by $$\label{mu0val}
\mu^{(0)} = \frac{3N -1}{3(N-1)^2}\ .$$
The range of $P^{(0)}$ is ${\mathcal A}_N$, and it suffices to determine the spectrum of $P^{(0)}$ as an operator on ${\mathcal A}_N$. For ${\displaystyle f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)\in {\mathcal A}_N}$, we compute $$P^{(0)} \left( \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)\right) = \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N \left(\varphi_k(v_k) + \sum_{j\neq k, j=1}^N K\varphi_j(v_k)\right)\ .$$
By this computation, with $T: \bigoplus_{j=1}^N {\mathcal H}_{N,j} \to {\mathcal A}_N$ defined as in Theorem \[gprop2\], $$T^{-1}P^{(0)} T = {\bf M}^{(0)}$$ where ${\bf M}^{(0)} = [M_{i,j}^{(0)}]$ is the $N\times N$ block matrix operator on $\bigoplus_{j=1}^N {\mathcal H}_{N,j} $ given by $$M_{i,j}^{(0)} = \frac{1}{N} I \quad{\rm if}\ i=j\quad{\rm and}\quad M_{i,j}^{(0)} = \frac{1}{N} K \quad{\rm if}\ i\neq j\ .$$
Note that ${\bf M}^{(0)}$ is unitarily equivalent to the block matrix operator in $\bigoplus_{j=1}^N {\mathcal H}_{N,j} $ given by $$\frac{1}{N} \left[\begin{array}{ccccc} I + (N-1)K & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & I-K & 0 &\cdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & I-K &\cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & I -K
\end{array}
\right]\ .$$ It follows that if $\lambda \not= 0$ is an eigenvalue of $P^{(0)}$ then either $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $\frac{1}{N}(I + (N-1)K)$ or else $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $\frac{1}{N}(I - K)$. Thus, the second largest eigenvalue of ${\bf M}^{(0)}$, and hence $P^{(0)}$, is either $1 + (N-1)\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is the second largest eigenvalue of $K$, or else $1-\kappa$ where $\kappa$ is the least eigenvalue of $K$. From the information on the spectrum of $K$ provided in Lemma \[CGL\], one immediately deduces , and then follows directly.
The spectrum of $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$, $\alpha \in (0,2]$
------------------------------------------------------------
After $\alpha =0$, the next simplest case is $\alpha =2$ since then at least $W^{(2)}$ is constant; as we have seen $W^{(2)} = 1 - (N-1)^{-2}$. It follows that $1$ is an eigenfunction for $P^{(2)}$ with eigenvalue $1 - (N-1)^{-2}$, and it spans the eigenspace. That is, $1$ spans the null space of $\widehat{L}_{N,2}$.
\[2yes\] For all $N \geq 3$, $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,2} > 0$.
The range of $P^{(2)}$ is ${\mathcal A}_N$, and as with $\alpha = 0$, $ {\bf M}^{(2)} := T^{-1}P^{(2)} T$ has a simple block matrix structure: $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}\left( \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)\right) &=& \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N w_{N,2}(v_k) P_k\left( \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j) \right)\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac1N w_{N,2}(v_k) \left( \varphi_k(v_k) + \sum_{j\neq k, j=1}^N K\varphi_j(v_k) \right)\end{aligned}$$
By Theorem \[gprop2\], ${\bf M}^{(2)} = T^{-1}P^{(2)} T = {\bf W}^{(2)}( {\bf I} + {\bf C})$, where $${\bf W}^{(2)} = \frac1N \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
w_{N,2}(v_1) & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & w_{N,2}(v_2) & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \cdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \cdots & 0 &w_{N,N}(v_N)\end{array}\right]\ ,$$ ${\bf I}$ is the identity on $\bigoplus_{j=1}^N {\mathcal H}_{N,j}$, and ${\bf C}$ is given by $${\bf C}= \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & K & K &\cdots & K\\
K & 0 & K &\cdots & K\\
\vdots & \cdots & \cdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
K & \cdots& K & 0 &K\\
K & \cdots & K & K & 0\end{array}\right]\ ,$$
Since ${\bf M}^{(2)}$ and $P^{(2)}$ are similar, they have the same spectrum, and in particular, the spectrum of ${\bf M}^{(2)}$ is real. (This is also evident from the identity ${\bf M}^{(2)} = {\bf W}^{(2)}( {\bf I} + {\bf C})$, and the fact that for bounded operators $A$ and $B$ on any Hilbert space, $AB$ and $BA$ have the same spectrum.)
Since the range of $\frac{1}{N} w_{N,2}$ is $[0,(N-1)^{-1}]$, this interval is the spectrum of ${\bf W}^{(2)}$. Note that ${\bf C}$, and hence ${\bf W}^{(2)}{\bf C}$ is compact. By Weyl’s lemma, the essential spectrum of $T P^{(2)} T^{-1} $, and hence of $P^{(2)}$, is the essential spectrum of ${\bf W}^{(2)}$, which is the interval $[0,(N-1)^{-1}]$. Hence any spectrum of $P^{(2)}$ in $(N-1)^{-1}, 1- (N-1)^{-2})$ consists of isolated eigenvalues, and the isolated eigenvalues can only accumulate at a point in $[0,(N-1)^{-1}]$. In particular, $1 - (N-1)^{-2}$ cannot be an accumulation point, and hence $P^{(2)}$ has a spectral gap below its top eigenvalue $1- (N-1)^{-2}$. This proves that $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,2} > 0$ for all $N\geq 3$.
For $\alpha \in (0,2)$, $W^{(\alpha)}$ is not constant – although for large $N$ it is nearly constant. This means that for such $\alpha$, one cannot determine the spectrum of $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$ simply by determining the spectrum of $P^{(\alpha)}$, and moreover, ${\mathcal A}_N$ is not invariant under $\widehat{L}_{N,\alpha}$. However, there is a simple comparison that one can make between $\D$ and ${\mathcal D}_{N,2}$ that provides the bound on $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha}$ that we seek.
\[firpar\] For all $N\geq 3$, and all $\alpha\in [0,2]$, $$\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha} \geq \left(\frac{N-1}{N}\right)^{1-\alpha/2}\widehat{\Delta}_{N,2}> 0\ .$$
By , for all $f$ and $k$, and all $\alpha \in (0,2)$, $$\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{\alpha/2}
\left[f - P_k f\right]^2 \geq \left(\frac{N-1}{N}\right)^{1-\alpha/2}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]
\left[f - P_k f\right]^2$$ It follows immediately that ${\displaystyle \D(f,f) \geq \left(\frac{N-1}{N}\right)^{1-\alpha/2} {\mathcal D}_{N,2}(f,f)}$, and then that ${\displaystyle\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha} \geq \left(\frac{N-1}{N}\right)^{1-\alpha/2} \widehat{\Delta}_{N,2} >0}.$
At this point, we have proved the first part of Theorem \[thm2X\], and all that remains is to prove the second part.
A sharper lower bound on $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,1}$ for large $N$
===============================================================
In this section we obtain lower bounds on ${\mathcal D}_{N,1}(f,f)$ for $f$ orthogonal to the constants that become sharper and sharper as $N$ increases. To keep the computations simple, we do this explicitly for $\alpha =1$, though the method applies to all $\alpha\in (0,2)$. We shall prove the following, which is simply a specialization of Theorem \[thm2X\]:
\[Dmain\] There is a constant $C$ independent of $N$ such that whenever $f$ is orthogonal to the constants, $$\label{mainDbnd}
{\mathcal D}_{N,1}(f,f) \geq \left( 1 - \frac1N - \frac{C}{N^{3/2}}\right){{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
The bound is meaningless for $N$ such that the right side is negative. However, no matter what $C$ is, there is an $N_0\in {{\mathord{\mathbb N}}}$ such that for all $N \geq N_0$, the right side is positive. From that point on, we have what we need for our induction. The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[Dmain\]
The trial function decomposition
--------------------------------
We begin by specifying a trial function decomposition that we shall use. Let ${\mathcal A}_N$ be the subspace of $L^2(\sigma_N)$ defined in Definition \[ANdef\]. For any $f\in L^2(\ST)$ orthogonal to the constants, define $p$ and $h$ to be the orthogonal projections of $f$ onto ${\mathcal A}_N$ and ${\mathcal A}_N^\perp$ respectively. Then since $1\in {\mathcal A}_N$, $h$ is orthogonal to the constant, and then $p =f- h$ is orthogonal to the constants.
By Lemma \[nullalpha\], $h$ is the component of $f$ in the null space of $ P^{({\alpha})}$ for each $\alpha\in [0,2]$, and hence $$\label{red2}
\langle f, P^{({\alpha})} f \rangle = \langle p, P^{({\alpha})} p \rangle$$ which yields
$$\label{red2X}
\int_{\ST} W^{({\alpha})} f^2\dd \sigma
- \langle f, P^{({\alpha})} f\rangle_{L^2(\ST)} =
\int_{\ST} W^{({\alpha})} f^2\dd \sigma
- \langle p, P^{({\alpha})} p\rangle_{L^2(\ST)} \ .$$
Since $p\in {\mathcal A}_N$, there are $N$ functions $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N$ of a single variable such that $\phi_j(v_j)\in L^2(\ST)$ for each $j$, and $$\label{struc}
p(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N\phi_j(v_j)\ ,$$ and we shall always choose the particular representation of this form that is specificed in Theorem \[gprop2\]. That is, the eigenfunctions expansion $$\label{struc2}
\phi_j = \sum_{i=1}^\infty a_{j,i}\eta_i(v_j)$$ given in is such that is satsified; i.e., $\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i} = 0$ for $j=1,\dots,4$. We make a further decomposition of $\phi_j(v_j)$ as follows:
\[decompdef\] Let $p$ be a function given by a sum of the form where for each $j$, $\phi_j(v_j)$ is orthogonal to the constants, and moreover, is satisfied with $\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i} = 0$ for $j=1,\dots,4$. Define $$\label{struc3}
\psi_j = \sum_{i=1}^4 a_{j,i}\eta_i(v_j)\quad{\rm and} \quad\varphi_j(v_j) = \sum_{i=5}^\infty a_{j,i}\eta_i(v_j)$$ so that $\phi_j = \psi_j+ \varphi_j$. Next, define $$\label{pdecomp}
g(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j) \quad{\rm and}\quad s(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \psi_j(v_j)$$
Finally the [*trial function decomposition*]{} of any $f\in L^2(\sigma_N)$ that is orthogonal to the constants is given by $$\label{pdecomp}
f = g+ s + h$$ where $h$ is the component of $f$ in the null space of $P^{(\alpha)}$, $p$ is the component of $f$ in the closure of the range of $P^{(\alpha)}$, and $p =g+s$ is the decomposition of $p$ defined in .
It is easy to see that when $p$ is symmetric under coordinate permutations, one can take the functions $\phi_j$ in to be all the same. In particular, each $\psi_j$ has the form $\psi_j(v_j) = a\cdot v_j + b(|v_j|^2-1)$ for some fixed $a\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3$ and $b\in {{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}$. Then $$s(\vec v) = a\cdot\left(\sum_{j=1}^N v_j\right) + b\left(\sum_{j=1}^N (|v_j|^2-1)\right) = 0$$ on account of the constraints on the momentum and energy. Hence when $p$ is symmetric $s=0$, and in this case the trial function decomposition simplifies to $f = g+h$, as in [@CCL14].
We have seen in Lemma \[nullalpha\] that for each $k$, $P_kh = 0$. The next lemma shows that each $P_k$ also has a simple action on $s$:
\[Pks\] For each $k$, the function $s$ in the trial function decomposition satisfies $$\label{pkse}
P_k s(\vec v) = \frac{N-2}{N-1}\psi_k(v_k)\ .$$
Note that ${\displaystyle
P_k s(\vec v) =\psi_k(v_k) - \frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j\neq k} \psi_j(v_k)}$. Writing $\psi_j = \sum_{i=1}^4 a_{j,i}\eta_i$ and recalling that $\sum_{j=1}^N a_{j,i} =0$ for $i =1,\dots,4$, for any [*fixed*]{} $v$ $$\sum_{j=1}^N \psi_j(v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i=0}^4 a_{j,i}\eta_i(v) = \sum_{i=0}^4 \left(\sum_{j=1}^Na_{j,i}\right)\eta_i(v) = 0 \ ,$$ from which follows.
Each of the components $g$, $s$ and $h$ have their own special properties that we shall repeatedly use.
[*(1)*]{} A very useful feature of $g(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)$ is that, by Lemma \[CGL\] for each $j$ $${{\Vert}}K\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^3}{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \ .$$ This gives us something [*almost*]{} like Lemma \[Pks\] for $g$: $$P_k g(\vec v) = \varphi_k(v_k) + \sum_{j\neq k} K \varphi_j(v_k)\ ,$$ and hence $${{\Vert}}P_k g - \varphi_k(v_k){{\Vert}}_2 \leq \left\Vert \sum_{j\neq k} K \varphi_j(v_k)\right\Vert_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^2}\sum_k \Vert \varphi_k \Vert^2\ ,$$ where in the last inequality we have used Theorem \[gprop2\].
[*(2)*]{} The key feature of $s(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \psi_j(v_j)$ is that $P_k$ has a very simple action on $s$, given in Lemma \[Pks\].
Another is that each $\psi_j(v_j)$ belongs to $L^4(\sigma_N)$, and for a constant $C$ independent of $N$, ${{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_4 \leq C{{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2$. This is essentially because the integrals $\int_{\ST}|v|^{2m}{\rm d}\sigma_N$ are bounded uniformly in $N$ for each $m$. In particular, if we wish to estimate the $L^2(\sigma_N)$ norm of $|v_k|^2\psi_k(v_k)$, we can apply Schwarz’s inequality to bound this by $C{{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_4$, and then, changing $C$, to $C{{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_2$. This will be used in estimating the quantity in below. [*(3)*]{} A very useful feature of $h(\vec v)$ is that, by Lemma \[nullalpha\], $P_k h = 0$ for each $k$, and in particular, $P^{(1)}h = 0$.
Lower bound on $ {\mathcal D}_{N,1}(f,f) $
------------------------------------------
For $\alpha=1$, the lower bound simplifies to $$\label{wabnd1}
W^{({1})}(\vec v) \geq \widetilde{ W}^{({1})}(\vec v) := 1 + \frac{1}{(N-1)^3} - \frac12\frac{N}{(N-1)^4} \sum_{k=1}^N
|v_k|^4 \ .$$ Define $$\label{Dtodef}
\Dto (f,f) = \int_{\ST} \widetilde{ W}^{({1})} f^2 {\rm d}\sigma_N - \langle f, P^{(1)} f\rangle\ .$$ By , $\Do (f,f) \geq \Dto(f,f)$.
Now let $f$ be orthogonal to the constants, and let $f = g+s + h$ be the trial function decomposition of $f$ as specified above. This notation will be used throughout this subsection. Note that
$$\begin{aligned}
\Dto(f,f)
&=& \Dto(g,g) + \Dto(s,s) + \Dto(h,h)\\
&+& 2\Dto(g,h) + 2\Dto(s,h) + 2\Dto(g,s)
\end{aligned}$$
The next lemma says that $g$, $s$ and $h$ are almost mutually orthogonal with respect to the inner product given by $\Dto$, and hence the last three terms above make a negligible contribution. This decouples the contributions of $g$, $s$ and $h$, which may then be analyzed separately, taking advantage of their different helpful properties.
\[almorth\] There is a constant $C$ independent of $N$ such that for any $f\in L^2(\sigma_N)$ that is orthogonal to the constants, if $f = g+s+h$ is the trial function decomposition as specified above, then $$2|{\Dto}(g,h)| + 2|{\Dto}(s,h)| + 2|{\Dto}(g,s)| \leq \frac{C}{N^{3/2}}{{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
Since $P^{(1)} h = 0$, and since $g$ and $h$ are orthogonal, recalling that we may write $g(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_j(v_j)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Dto(g,h) &=& \int_{\ST} \widetilde W^{({1})} gh\dd \sigma_N = - \frac12\frac{N}{(N-1)^4}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} |v_k|^4 g h {\rm d}\sigma_N\nonumber\\
&= & - \frac12\frac{N}{(N-1)^4} \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} |v_k|^4 \varphi_k(v_k)h \dd \sigma_N\label{nct1}\\
&- & \frac12\frac{N}{(N-1)^4} \sum_{j\neq k}^N \int_{\ST} |v_k|^4 \varphi_j(v_j) h \dd \sigma_N \dd \sigma_N\label{nct2}\end{aligned}$$ The integral in vanishes since $P_k h =0$. Next consider the integral in . It will be convenient to introduce the notation $\xi(x) = x^8$ for the eighth power. Then, with this definition, the Schwarz inequality, and then application of the $K$ operator, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red43}
\left|\int_{\ST} |v_k|^4 \varphi_j(v_j) h\dd\sigma_N\right|
&\leq& {{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2 \left(\int_{\ST} |v_k|^8 \varphi_j^2(v_j)\dd\sigma_N\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&=& {{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2 \left(\int_{\ST} K\xi(v_j) \varphi_j^2(v_j)\dd\sigma_N\right)^{1/2}\ .\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[v8\], there is a constant $C$ so that, independent of $N$, ${{\Vert}}K\xi{{\Vert}}_\infty \leq C$. Therefore, ${\displaystyle
\left|\int_{\ST} h |v_k|^4 \varphi_j(v_j)\dd\sigma_N\right|
\leq C{{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2}$. Using this in gives us $$\label{ghbound} \left| \frac{N}{(N-1)^4} \int_{\ST} \left(\sum_{k=1}^N|v_k|^4\right) gh
\dd \sigma \right| \leq \frac{N}{(N-1)^3} C{{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2\left(\sum_{j=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2\right)\ ,$$ and then since Theorem \[gprop2\] gives us $$\sum_{j=1}^N{{\Vert}}\varphi{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \left(1 - \frac{5N-3}{3(N-1)^2}\right)^{-1/2}\sqrt{N}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2\ ,$$ we have that the left hand side of (\[ghbound\]) is bounded by $\frac{C}{N^{3/2}}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2$ for a constant $C$ independent of $N$. We conclude that $|\Dto(s,h)| \leq CN^{-3/2}$.
Finally, we consider $\Dto(s,g)$. This time we must also estimate $\langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle$. Because the span of $\{\eta_{j}(v_j)\ :\ 1 \leq j \leq N\}$ is invariant under $ P^{(0)}$, and every function in it is orthogonal to $g$, $$\langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle = \langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle - \langle P^{(0)}s, g\rangle = \langle s,( P^{(1)} - P^{(0)}) g\rangle\ .$$ Introducing the short notation $\tilde{w}(v) := w_{N,1}(v) -1$ [*to be used in this proof only*]{}, and writing $$s(\vec v) = \sum_{\j=1}^N \psi_j(v_j) \quad{\rm and}\quad g(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_\ell(v_\ell)\ ,$$ we have $$\label{partfo}
\langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle = \sum_{j,k,\ell=1}^N \int_{\ST} \psi_j(v_j) \tilde{w}(v_k) P_k \varphi_\ell(v_\ell)\ .$$ We now split the sum over $j$, $k$ and $\ell$, into five parts $${\it (i)}\ j=\ell =k \, \quad {\it (ii)}\ j\ne k, \ell = k \, \quad {\it (iii)}\ j = k, \ell \ne k \quad{\rm and}\quad {\it (iv)}\ j=\ell, \ell \ne k\ ,$$ and finally, ${\it (v)} \ j\ne \ell, \ell \ne k, k\neq j$
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle &=& \langle s,( P^{(1)} - P^{(0)}) g\rangle\\
&=& \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k) \psi_k(v_k), \varphi_k(v_k)\rangle\label{made1}\\
&+& \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k) \psi_j(v_j), \varphi_k(v_k)\rangle\label{made2}\\
&+& \frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\ell\neq k}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k)\psi_k(v_k), P_k \varphi_\ell(v_k)\rangle\label{made3}\\
&+& \frac1N\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\ell\neq k}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k) \psi_\ell(v_k), P_k \varphi_\ell(v_k)\rangle\label{made4}\\
&+&\frac1N \sum_{j\neq k,k\neq \ell,\ell\neq j}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k) \psi_j(v_j), P_k \varphi_\ell(v_k)\rangle\label{made5}\end{aligned}$$
We estimate as follows, using Lemma \[Lplem\] to bound $ {{\Vert}}\tilde{w}(v_k) {{\Vert}}_4$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1N \left| \sum_{k=1}^N \langle \tilde{w}(v_k) \psi_k(v_k), \varphi_k(v_k)\rangle\right| &\leq& \frac1N\sum_{k=1}^N {{\Vert}}\tilde{w}(v_k) {{\Vert}}_4 {{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_4 {{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2
\leq \frac{C}{N^2} \sum_{k=1}^N {{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2\\
&\leq& \leq \frac{C}{N^2} ({{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2)\ .\end{aligned}$$
Since $P_k\psi_j(v_k) = -\frac{1}{N-1}\psi_j(v_k)$, the argument used to estimate shows that the absolute value of the sum in is bounded above by $$\frac{C}{N^3} \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k}^N{{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^2} ({{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2) \ ,$$ as we found for . Since for $k\neq j$, ${{\Vert}}P_k\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq CN^{-2}{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2$ (by ), the argument used to estimate shows that the absolute value of the sum in is bounded above by $$\frac{C}{N^4} \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k}^N{{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^3} ({{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2) \ ,$$ even better than the previous bounds. Finally, for the terms in , $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle \tilde{w}(v_k)\psi_j(v_j), P_k \varphi_\ell(v_\ell)\rangle| &=& |\langle P_k \varphi_\ell(v_\ell) \tilde{w}(v_k), P_k\psi_j(v_j) \rangle|\\
&=& \frac{1}{N-1} |\langle P_k \varphi_\ell(v_\ell) \tilde{w}(v_k),\psi_j(v_j) \rangle|\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{N-1} {{\Vert}}K \varphi_\ell{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\psi_j {{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^3} {{\Vert}}\varphi_\ell{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\psi_j {{\Vert}}_2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have used Lemma \[CGL\], and the fact that for each $j$, $\psi_j$ is an eigenfunction of $K$ considered as an operator on $L^2(\ST)$, with eigenvalue $-\frac{1}{N-1}$. Thus, $$\frac{C}{N^4} \sum_{j\neq k,k\neq \ell,\ell\neq j}^N {{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_\ell{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^2} ({{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2) \ .$$ This proves $|\langle s, P^{(1)} g\rangle| \leq \frac{C}{N^2} ({{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2)$.
We now turn to the estimation of $\Dto(g,g)$ and $\Dto(s,s)$.
\[gterbo1\] There is a constant $C$ independent of $N\geq 3$ such that for all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{gerbo1a}
\langle g, P^{({1})} g \rangle \leq
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
\varphi^2_k(v_k) \dd \sigma + \frac{C}{N^2}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ and $$\label{gerbo1b}
\langle s, P^{({1})} s \rangle \leq
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
\psi_k^2(v_k) \dd \sigma \ .$$
Note first of all that $P_k g = \varphi_k(v_k) + \sum_{j\neq k}K\varphi_j(v_k)$, and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\langle g, P^{({1})} g \rangle &=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2} |P_k g|^2\dd \sigma_N \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
\varphi^2_k(v_k) \dd \sigma_N\nonumber\\
&+&
\frac{2}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{j\neq k}\int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
\varphi_k(v_k)K\varphi_j(v_k)\dd \sigma_N\label{min1}\\
&+&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{j\neq k}\sum_{\ell\neq k} \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
K\varphi_j(v_k) K\varphi_\ell(v_k)\dd \sigma_N\label{min2}\end{aligned}$$
By the Schwarz inequality and , the sum of integrals in (\[min1\]) is bounded above by $$\frac{C}{N^3} \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{j\neq k} {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^2}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
Similarly, by and Lemma \[gprop2\], the sum of integrals in (\[min2\]) is bounded above by $$\frac{C}{N^4} \sum_{j,k=1}^N {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{C}{N^3}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2 \ .$$ Using the two bounds we have just derived on (\[min1\]) and (\[min2\]) respectively, yields .
$$\langle s, P^{({1})} s \rangle =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2} |P_k s|^2\dd \sigma_N \ ,$$ follows directly from Lemma \[Pks\].
\[gv4lem\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $N$ and all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{gv4}
\int_{\ST} \sum_{k=1}^N |v_k|^4 g^2{\rm d}\sigma_N \leq \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} \varphi_k(v_k)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma + {C}{N}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ ,$$ and $$\label{gv4B}
\int_{\ST} \sum_{k=1}^N |v_k|^4 s^2{\rm d}\sigma_N \leq \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} \psi_k(v_k)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma + {C}{N}{{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2\ ,$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\ST} \sum_{k=1}^N |v_k|^4 g^2 {\rm d}\sigma &=& \sum_{i,j,k=1}^N \int_{ST} \varphi_i(v_i)\varphi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_N\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} \varphi_k(v_k)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma\label{chi1}\\
&+& 2\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)\varphi_k(v_k)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma\label{chi2}\\
&+& \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma\label{chi3}\\
&+& \sum_{i\neq j, j\neq k, k\neq i} \int_{\ST} \varphi_i(v_i)\varphi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma\label{chi4}\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[gv4lemX1\], Lemma \[gv4lemX2\] and Lemma \[gv4lemX3\] below the terms in , and add up to no more than $CN{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2$, which proves . The same argument using the same lemmas proves .
\[gv4lemX1\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $N$ and all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{gv4X1E}
2\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)\varphi_k(v_k)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq {C}{N}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ and $$\label{gv4X1E2}
2\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \psi_j(v_j)\psi_k(v_k)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq {C}{{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
For $j\neq k$, using the pointwise bound $|v_k|^4 \leq (N-1)^2$ and then , $$\label{wrap1}
\int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)\varphi_k(v_k)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq (N-1)^2{{\Vert}}K\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{(5N-3)(N-1)^2}{3(N-1)^3}{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2\ .$$Then by Theorem \[gprop2\], follows. Next, $$\label{wrap1}
\int_{\ST} \psi_j(v_j)\psi_k(v_k)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq {{\Vert}}K\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}|v_k|^4\psi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \leq \frac{1}{N-1}{{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2 C{{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_4 \leq \frac{C}{N}{{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2 C{{\Vert}}\psi_k{{\Vert}}_2 \ .$$Then by Theorem \[gprop2\] again, follows.
\[gv4lemX2\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $N$ and all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{gv4X2E3}
\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_N \leq CN{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ and $$\label{gv4X2E3B}
\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \psi_j(v_j)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_N \leq CN{{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
By Lemma \[K2lemA\], there is a finite constant $C$ independent of $N$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{j\neq k} \int_{\ST} \varphi_j(v_j)^2|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_N \leq
N\sum_{j=1}^N \int_{\ST} \frac{N^2 + |v_j|^4 - 2N|v_j|^2 }{(N-1)^2}\varphi^2_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N + CN\sum_{j=1}^N {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ Then by Lemma \[gprop2\], follows. The same analysis yields .
\[gv4lemX3\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $N$ and all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{gv4X3F}
\sum_{i\neq j, j\neq k, k\neq i} \int_{\ST} \varphi_i(v_i)\varphi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq C{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ and $$\label{gv4X3FB}
\sum_{i\neq j, j\neq k, k\neq i} \int_{\ST} \psi_i(v_i)\psi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq C{{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
By Lemma \[K2lem\], there is a finite constant $C$ independent of $N$ (but changing from line to line) such that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i\neq j, j\neq k, k\neq i} \int_{\ST} \varphi_i(v_i)\varphi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq \frac{C}{N}\sum_{i \not=j}{{\Vert}}\varphi_i{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2+\\
&& (N-2)\sum_{i\neq j} \int_{\ST} \frac{N^2 + |v_i|^4 + |v_j|^4 + 2N|v_i|^2 + 2N|v_j|^2 + 2|v_i|^2|v_j|^2}{(N-2)^2}\varphi_i(v_i) \varphi_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N \ .\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $i\neq j$, $$\int_{\ST} \frac{N^2 + |v_i|^4 + |v_j|^4 + 2N|v_i|^2 + 2N|v_j|^2}{N-2}\varphi_i(v_i) \varphi_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N \leq \frac{C}{N}
{{\Vert}}\varphi_i{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2$$ since in each term we may either replace $\varphi_i$ by $K\varphi_i$ or $\varphi_j$ by $K\varphi_j$, and this gives a factor of $CN^{-2}$. Then by Lemma \[gprop2\], $\sum_{i\neq j}{{\Vert}}\varphi_i{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq CN{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2$.
The remaining terms must be handled differently. For $j=1,\dots,N$, let $\xi_j$ denote the function $\xi_j(v) = |v_j|^2\varphi_j(v_j)$, and note that $\xi_j$ is orthogonal to the constants. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\ST} \frac{|v_i|^2|v_j|^2}{N-2}\varphi_i(v_i) \varphi_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N &=& \frac{1}{N-2}\langle \xi_i, K \xi_j \rangle\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{N-2}\frac{1}{N-1}{{\Vert}}\xi_i{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\xi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq C{{\Vert}}\varphi_i{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2\end{aligned}$$ Then by Lemma \[gprop2\], $\sum_{i\neq j}{{\Vert}}\varphi_i{{\Vert}}_2{{\Vert}}\varphi_j{{\Vert}}_2 \leq CN{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2$, and follows.
Next, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i\neq j, j\neq k, k\neq i} \int_{\ST} \psi_i(v_i)\psi_j(v_j)|v_k|^4 {\rm d}\sigma \leq CN^2{{\Vert}}\psi_i{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2 +\\
&& (N-2)\sum_{i\neq j} \int_{\ST} \frac{N^2 + |v_i|^4 + |v_j|^4 + 2N|v_i|^2 + 2N|v_j|^2 + 2|v_i|^2|v_j|^2}{(N-2)^2}\psi_i(v_i) \psi_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N \ .\end{aligned}$$ The main term is $$\frac{N^2}{N-2} \sum_{i\neq j} \int_{\ST} \psi_i(v_i) \psi_j(v_j) {\rm d}\sigma_N = \frac{N^2}{N-2}\sum_{i\neq j} \langle \psi_1, K\psi_j\rangle
= \frac{N^2}{(N-2)(N-1)}\sum_{i\neq j} {{\Vert}}\psi_i{{\Vert}}_2 {{\Vert}}\psi_j{{\Vert}}_2\ ,$$ and simple estimates show that all remaining terms are smaller.
Lower bounds on $\Dto(g,g)$ and $\Dto(s,s)$ {#sec3.3}
-------------------------------------------
We are now ready to estimate $\Dto(g,g)$ and $\Dto(s,s)$. We first define a quadratic form ${\mathcal F}$ on $L^2(\sigma_N)$ as follows: For all functions $r$ in $L^2(\sigma_N)$, define $$\label{mvFdef}
{\mathcal F}(r,r) :=
\frac12\frac{N}{(N-1)^4} \int_{\ST} \sum_{k=1}^N |v_k|^4 r^2
\dd \sigma + \langle r, P^{({1})} r \rangle$$
\[FFF\] For all $g$ and $s$ as above, $$\label{FFF1}
\Dto(g,g) \geq {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2 - {\mathcal F}(g,g) \quad{\rm and}\quad \Dto(s,s) \geq {{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2 - {\mathcal F}(s,s)\ .$$
This is immediate from , and the definition of ${\mathcal F}$.
\[FFG\] There is a finite constant $C$ independent of $N$ such that for all $g$ and $s$ as above, with ${\mathcal F}$ defined by $$\label{FFbndg}
{\mathcal F}(g,g) \leq \left( \frac1N + \frac{C}{N^2}\right){{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\qquad{\rm and}\qquad
{\mathcal F}(s,s) \leq \left( \frac1N + \frac{C}{N^2}\right){{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
By Lemma \[gterbo1\] and Lemma \[gv4lem\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal F}(g,g) &\leq& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left[\int_{\ST}
\left[\frac{N^2 - (1+|v_k|^2)N}{(N-1)^2}\right]^{1/2}
+ \frac12\frac{N^2}{(N-1)^4} \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} |v_k|^4\right] \varphi(v_k)^2 {\rm d}\sigma\\
&+&\frac{C}{N^2}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2\end{aligned}$$ Define ${\displaystyle y_k := \frac{N}{(N-1)^2}|v_k|^2}.$ Then $0 \leq y_k \leq N/(N-1)$, and $$\label{Fbnd}
{\mathcal F}(g,g) \leq \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\ST} w(y_k) \varphi^2 (v_k){\rm d}\sigma_N + \frac{C}{N^2}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2$$ where ${\displaystyle w(y) = \left(\frac{N}{N-1} - y\right)^{1/2} + \frac12 y^2}$. Simple calculations show that $w(y) \leq \sqrt{N/(N-1)}$ for all $0 \leq y \leq N/(N-1)$, and in fact, for $N\geq 7$, $w(y)$ is monotone decreasing on this interval. Then becomes $${\mathcal F}(g,g) \leq \sqrt{N/(N-1)} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N {{\Vert}}\varphi_k{{\Vert}}_2^2 + \frac{C}{N^2}{{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2$$ Now follows directly from Theorem \[gprop2\]. The proof of is the same.
Proof of Theorem \[Dmain\]
--------------------------
By Lemma \[almorth\], $$\Do(f,f) \geq \Dto(f,f) \geq \Dto(g,g) + \Dto(s,s) + \Dto(h,h) - CN^{-3/2}\Vert f \Vert^2s\ .$$ By Lemma \[FFF\] and Lemma \[FFG\], $$\Dto(g,g) + \Dto(s,s) \geq \left(1 - \frac{1}{N} - \frac{C}{N^2}\right)({{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2)\ .$$ Since $P^{(1)}h =0$, yields ${\displaystyle \Dto(h,h) \geq \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N} - \frac{C}{N^2}\right){{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2^2}$, adding the estimates completes the proof since ${{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2 = {{\Vert}}g{{\Vert}}_2^2+{{\Vert}}s{{\Vert}}_2^2+{{\Vert}}h{{\Vert}}_2^2$.
Some computational proofs
=========================
By , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{v44}
E\{ |v_1|^4 \ |\ v_N = v \} =\\
\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}} \left(\eta^4(v)|\vec y|^4 + \frac{\eta^2(v)}{(N-1)^2} | \vec y \cdot v|^2 + \frac{|v|^4}{(N-1)^4}
+ 2\frac{\eta^2(v)}{(N-1)^2}|\vec y|^2\right){\rm d}\sigma_{N-1}\ ,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\eta^2(v,w) = \frac{N - |v|^2 - |v|^2/(N-1)}{N-1}\ ,$$ Define $M_N:=
\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-2}}|\vec y|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-2}$ which is bounded uniformly in $N$: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-1}} |\vec y|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-1} = (2\pi/3)^{-3/2}\int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3} |y|^4 e^{-3|y|^2/2}\ .$$ Then the right hand side of becomes $$\label{v82X} M_N\eta^4(v) + \frac{1}{3(N-1)^2} \eta^2(v)|v|^2 +\frac{|v|^4}{(N-1)^4}
+ 2\frac{\eta^2(v)}{(N-1)^2}$$ Note that for some constant $C$ independent of $N$, $$\label{v83X}
\frac{1}{3(N-1)^2} \eta^2(v)|v|^2 +
\frac{|v|^4}{(N-1)^4}
+ 2\frac{\eta^2(v)}{(N-1)^2} \leq \frac{C}{N}\ .$$ Next, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v83}
\eta^4(v) = \frac{N^2 + |v|^4 - 2N|v|^2 }{(N-1)^2}
+ \frac{|v|^4}{(N-1)^4} + 2\frac{(N-|v|^2)|v|^2}{(N-1)^3}\ .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Again, for some constant $C$ independent of $N$, $$\frac{|v|^4}{(N-1)^4} + 2\frac{(N-|v|^2)|v|^2}{(N-1)^3} \leq \frac{C}{N}\ .$$
By a simple adaptation of , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{v8R}E\{ |v_1|^4 \ |\ (v_{N-1},v_N) = (v,w) \} =\\ \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-2}}\left(\beta^4(v,w)|\vec y|^4 + \frac{\beta^2(v,w)}{(N-2)^2} | \vec y \cdot (v+w)|^2 + \frac{|v+w|^4}{(N-2)^4}
+ 2\frac{\beta^2(v,w)}{(N-2)^2}|\vec y|^2\right){\rm d}\sigma_{N-2}\ ,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\beta^2(v,w) = \frac{N - |v|^2 - |w|^2 - |v+w|^2/(N-2)}{N-2}\ ,$$ which is non-negative on the allowed values for $(v,w)$. Note that $\beta^2(v,w) \leq N/(N-2)$. Define $M_N:=
\int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-2}}|\vec y|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-2}$ which is bounded uniformly in $N$: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{N-2}} |\vec y|^4 {\rm d}\sigma_{N-2} = (2\pi/3)^{-3/2}\int_{{{\mathord{\mathbb R}}}^3} |y|^4 e^{-3|y|^2/2}\ .$$ Then the right hand side of becomes $$\label{v82} M_N\beta^4(v,w) + \frac{1}{3(N-2)^2} \beta^2(v,w)|v+w|^2 +\frac{|v+w|^4}{(N-2)^4}
+ 2\frac{\beta^2(v,w)}{(N-2)^2}$$ Note that for some constant $C$ independent of $N$, $$\label{v83} \frac{1}{3(N-2)^2} \beta^2(v,w)|v+w|^2 +\frac{|v+w|^4}{(N-2)^4}
+ 2\frac{\beta^2(v,w)}{(N-2)^2} \leq \frac{C}{N}\ .$$ Next, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v83}
\beta^4(v,w) &=& \frac{N^2 + |v|^4 + |w|^4 + 2N|v|^2 + 2N|w|^2 + 2|v|^2|w|^2}{(N-2)^2} \\
&+& \frac{|v+w|^4}{(N-2)^4} + 2\frac{(N-|v|^2-|w|^2)|v+w|^2}{(N-2)^3}\ .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Again, for some constant $C$ independent of $N$, $$\frac{|v+w|^4}{(N-2)^4} + 2\frac{(N-|v|^2-|w|^2)|v+w|^2}{(N-2)^3} \leq \frac{C}{N}\ .$$
Quantitiative estimates on $\widehat{\Delta}_{N,2}$
===================================================
An explicit bound for $N\geq 4$
-------------------------------
By , $P^{(\alpha)}$ defined in satisfies $$\label{pabnd}
0 \leq P^{(\alpha)} \leq \left(\frac{N}{N-1}\right)^{\alpha/2} P^{(0)} $$ for all $\alpha\in [0,2]$. As we have seen, the second largest eigenvalue of $P^{(0)}$, denoted $\mu^{(0)}_N$, is given by $$\label{mu0f}
\mu^{(0)}_N = \frac{3N -1}{3(N-1)^2}\ .$$ It follows from and that for all $f$ orthogonal to the constants, $$\label{mu1f}
\langle f, P^{(\alpha)}f\rangle \leq \left(\frac{N}{N-1}\right)^{\alpha/2} \frac{3N -1}{3(N-1)^2}{{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ ,$$ for all $\alpha\in [0,2]$. For $\alpha = 2$, we have ${\displaystyle
\langle f, P^{(2)}f\rangle \leq \frac{N(3N -1)}{3(N-1)^3}{{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2}$. Note that $$\frac{N(3N -1)}{3(N-1)^3} = \frac{1}{N-1} + \frac53 \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} + \frac23 \frac{1}{(N-1)^3}\ ,$$ which evidently decreases monotonically as $N$ increases. Next, since $W^{(2)}(\vec v) = 1 - \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}$, we have that for all $f$ orthogonal to the constants $$\label{aus5}
-\langle f, \widehat{L}_{N,2} f\rangle = \langle f, (W^{(2)} - P^{(2)})f\rangle \geq \left( 1 - \frac{1}{N-1} - \frac83 \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} - \frac23 \frac{1}{(N-1)^3}\ \right){{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ For $N= 3$, this yields only the useless bound $-\langle f, \widehat{L}_{3,2} f\rangle \geq -\frac14 {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2$. But already for $N=4$, it yields $$-\langle f, \widehat{L}_{4,2} f\rangle \geq \frac{28}{81} {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ Since the right hand side of increases as $N$ increases, this, together with the comparison from Lemma \[firpar\], proves:
For all $N\geq 4$, $$\widehat{\Delta}_{N,2} \geq 1 - \frac{1}{N-1} - \frac83 \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} - \frac23 \frac{1}{(N-1)^3} > 0\ ,$$ and for all $\alpha \in (0,2)$, $$\widehat{\Delta}_{N,\alpha} \geq \left(\frac{N-1}{N}\right)^{1-\alpha/2}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{N-1} - \frac83 \frac{1}{(N-1)^2} - \frac23 \frac{1}{(N-1)^3}\ \right) > 0\ .$$
At this point, the only estimate we lack for a fully quantitative result is a quantitative estimate on $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,2}$.
An explicit bound for $N=3$
---------------------------
By what has been explained earlier, $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,2} = \frac34 - \nu_3$ where $$\label{nundefB}
\nu_3 = \sup\left\{ \langle f, P^{(2)} f\rangle_{L^2({\mathcal S}_3)}\ :\ {{\Vert}}f{{\Vert}}_2 =1\ ,\quad \langle f,1\rangle_{L^2(\ST)} = 0 \ \right\}\ ,$$ and by Lemma \[2yes\], $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,2}>0$, or, what is the same $\nu_3 < \frac34$.
If $\nu_3 \leq \frac12$, then evidently $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,2} \geq \frac14$. Therefore, we need only consider the possibility that $\nu_3 > \frac12$, and as we have seen, in in this case $\nu_3$ is an eigenvalue of $P^{(2)}$, and necessarily $\nu_3 < \frac 34$.
In seeking the second largest eigenvalue of $P^{(2)}$, we need only consider functions $f$ of the form $$\label{type1}
f(\vec v) = \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi(v_j)$$ or $$\label{type2}
f(\vec v) = \varphi(v_1)- \varphi(v_2)\ ,$$ where in the second case we have taken advantage of the the symmetry of $P^{(2)}$ to assume without loss of generality that $f$ is antisymmetric under interchange of $v_1$ and $v_2$.
\[outsym\] For $N=3$, the largest eigenvalue of $P^{(2)}$ on the orthogonal complement of the symmetric sector is no greater than $0.735$. Thus, either $\widehat{\Delta}_{3,2} \geq 0.015$, or else the gap eigenfucntion is symmetric.
For later use, we begin the proof for $N\geq 3$, and specialize to $N=3$ later. Let $f$ be given by , where we may assume that $\varphi$ is orthogonal to the constants. Then $$\frac1N w_{N,2}(v_1)(1- K)\varphi(v_1) - \frac1N w_{N,2}(v_2)(1- K)\varphi(v_2) = \lambda(\varphi(v_1) - \varphi(v_2)\ .$$ Multiplying by $\varphi(v_1)$ and integrating, $$\label{aus6}
\frac1N \int_{\ST} w_{N,2}(v_1)|(1- K)\varphi(v_1)|^2 = \lambda \langle \varphi,(1-K)\varphi\rangle\ .$$ By , $$\label{ptwsXX}
w_{N,2}(v) = \frac{N}{N-1} - \frac{N}{(N-1)^2}|v_k|^2\ .$$ Using in yields $$\label{aus7}
\frac{1}{N-1}\langle \varphi,(1-K)^2\varphi\rangle - \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}\langle (1-K)\varphi,|v|^2(1-K)\varphi\rangle = \lambda \langle \varphi,(1-K)\varphi\rangle\ .$$ Now write $\sqrt{1-K}\varphi = \psi + \zeta$ where $\psi$ is orthogonal to the constants, the three components of $v$ and $|v|^2$. Then $\zeta$ is an eigenvector of $K$ with eigenvalue $-1/(N-1)$, and hence $$\label{aus17}
\frac{1}{N-1}\langle \varphi,(1-K)^2\varphi\rangle = \frac{1}{N-1}\langle \psi,(1-K)\psi\rangle \
\ ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (1-K)\varphi,|v|^2(1-K)\varphi\rangle
&=& \langle \sqrt{1-K}\psi, |v|^2 \sqrt{1-K}\psi\rangle + \frac{N-2}{(N-1)^2}{{\Vert}}|v|\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 \nonumber\\
&-& 2 {{\Vert}}|v|\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2 \frac{\sqrt{N-1}}{N-2}{{\Vert}}|v|\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 \label{aus18}\\
&\geq& \left(1-\frac1t\right)\langle \sqrt{1-K}\psi, |v|^2 \sqrt{1-K}\psi\rangle + (1-t)\frac{N-2}{(N-1)^2}{{\Vert}}|v|\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2\ ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for all $t>0$, where we have used the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.
At this point we specialize to $N=3$, and carry out some explicit computations that could be done for all $N\geq 3$, but are then more cumbersome.
Write $\zeta = \sum_{j=1}^4 a_j \eta_j(v)$ where, as before, $\eta(j)v) = {\bf e}\cdot v$ for $j=1,2,3$, and where $\eta_4(v) = |v|^2 -1$. One readily computes that $$\label{aus20}
{{\Vert}}|v|\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 = \sum_{j=1}^4 |a_j|^2 {{\Vert}}|v|\eta_j{{\Vert}}_2^2$$ and that ${\displaystyle \int_{{\mathcal S}_3}|v_1|^4{\rm d}\sigma_3 = \frac 54}$ and ${\displaystyle \int_{{\mathcal S}_3}|v_1|^6{\rm d}\sigma_3 = \frac74}$. From here it follows that $${{\Vert}}|v|\eta_j{{\Vert}}_2^2 = \frac54 \quad{\rm for}\quad j=1,2,3\quad{\rm and}\quad {{\Vert}}|v|\eta_4{{\Vert}}_2^2 = 1\ .$$ Using this in finally yields ${{\Vert}}|v|\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 \geq {{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2$, and evidently $\langle \sqrt{1-K}\psi, |v|^2 \sqrt{1-K}\psi\rangle \leq 3{{\Vert}}\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2$. Therefore, for $0 < t < 1$, we have from that $$\langle (1-K)\varphi,|v|^2(1-K)\varphi\rangle \geq 3\left(1-\frac1\lambda\right) {{\Vert}}\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + (1-\lambda){{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$ Using this estimate in yields $$\frac12 {{\Vert}}\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + \frac34 {{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 - 3\left(1-\frac1t\right) {{\Vert}}\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 - (1-t){{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 \geq \lambda({{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2+{{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2)\ .$$
The second most negative eigenvalue of $K$ for $N=3$ is $-\frac38$; see [@CGL Section 8], where this eigenvalue is denoted $\kappa_{1,2}$. It follows that ${{\Vert}}\sqrt{1-K}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 \leq \frac{11}{8}{{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2$. Therefore, $$\left(\frac{1}{16} - 3 + \frac3t\right){{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + \left(\frac34 - 1 + t\right){{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2 \geq \lambda ({{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2)\ .$$ Choosing $t= 0.985$, we have that $0.735({{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2) \geq \lambda ({{\Vert}}\psi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + {{\Vert}}\zeta{{\Vert}}_2^2)$.
The remaining task is to bound the second largest eigenvalue of $P^{(2)}$ in the symmetric sector. We begin considering general $N\geq 3$ and shall specialize to $N=3$ later.
Let $f$ be given as in . Then $P^{(2)}f = \lambda f$ becomes $$\label{right1}
\frac1N \sum_{k=1}^N w_{N,2}(v_k)( \varphi(v_k) +(N-1)K \varphi(v_k)) = \lambda \sum_{j=1}^N \varphi(v_j)\ .$$ By Theorem \[gprop2\], $$\label{right2}
\frac1N w_{N,2}(v)( \varphi(v) +(N-1)K \varphi(v)) =\lambda \varphi(v) \ .$$ we have that Therefore, multiplying both sides of by $\varphi(v)$ and integrating, we obtain $$\label{right3}
\frac1N \int_{\ST} \varphi(v_1) w_{N,2}(v_1)( \varphi(v_1) +(N-1)K \varphi(v_1)){\rm d}\sigma_N = \lambda {{\Vert}}\varphi{{\Vert}}_2^2\ .$$
By , becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{right4B}
\langle \varphi, K \varphi\rangle -
\frac{1}{N-1} \int_{\ST} \varphi(v_1) |v_1|^2K \varphi(v_1)){\rm d}\sigma_N =\\ \left(\lambda - \frac{1}{N-1}\right) {{\Vert}}\varphi{{\Vert}}_2^2 + \frac{1}{(N-1)^2}
\int_{\ST} |v_1|^2 \varphi^2(v_1)){\rm d}\sigma_N\ .\end{gathered}$$ Define an operator $M$ by $M\phi(v) = |v|^2(1 + (N-1)K)\phi(v)$ .
Then becomes $$\left(\lambda - \frac{1}{N-1}\right) = \frac{ \langle \varphi, K \varphi\rangle - (N-1)^{-2}\langle \varphi, M \varphi\rangle}{{{\Vert}}\varphi{{\Vert}}_2^2}\ ,$$ Thus $\lambda - (N-1)^{-1}$ can be computed by computing the supremum of the right hand side as $\varphi$ ranges over functions that are orthogonal to $1$, the three components of $v$ and $|v|^2$.
Note that $M$ commutes with rotations so the different angular momentum sectors are mutually orthogonal, and can be considered separately. In each sector, by the usual recursion relations for orthogonal polynomials, the matrix representing $M$ in the eigenbasis of $K$ is tri-diagonal and explicitly computable, and the bounds proved in [@CGL Section 8] can be used to limit the number of angular momentum sectors that need to be considered. Hence one could obtain explicit bounds this way.
[99]{}
P. Caputo, *Spectral gap inequalities in product spaces with conservation laws*, In *Stochastic Analysis on Large Interacting Systems* T. Funaki and H. Osada, eds., Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo. (2004), 53Ð88.
P. Caputo, *On the spectral gap of the Kac walk and other binary collision processes*, ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat., [**4**]{}, (2008), 205-222.
*Strong convergence towards homogeneous cooling states for dissipative Maxwell models*, Ann. l’Institut H. Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis [**26**]{}, 5, 2009, 1675-1700
in *Journes Equations aux derivees partielles*, Nantes, 5-9 Juin 2000.
*Many body aspects of approach to equilibrium*, in *Journes Equations aux derivees partielles*, Nantes, 5-9 Juin 2000.
E. A. Carlen, M. C. Carvalho and M. Loss: *Determination of the spectral gap for Kac’s master equation and related stochastic evolution*, Acta Mathematica [**191**]{}, (2003) 1-54
E. A. Carlen, M. C. Carvalho and M. Loss: *Spectral gap for the Kac model with hard sphere collisions*. J. Funct. Anal. [**266**]{} (2014), no. 3, 1787-1832
E. A. Carlen, J. Geronimo and M. Loss: *Determination of the spectral gap in the Kac model for physical momentum and energy conserving collisions*, SIAM Jour. Mathematical Analysis [**40**]{}, no. 1, (2008) 327-364
W. Feller, *An introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Volume I*, Wiley and sons, New York, 1950
G. Giroux and R. Ferland, *Global spectral gap for DirichletÐKac random motions*. J. Stat. Phys. [**132**]{}, (2008) 561-567.
A. Grigo, A. Khanin and D. Szász, *Mixing rates of particle systems with energy exchange*, Nonlinearity [**25**]{} (2012), 2349-2376.
E. Janvresse, *Spectral Gap for Kac’s model of Boltzmann Equation*, Annals. of Prob., [**29**]{} (2001) 288-304.
M. Kac, *Foundations of kinetic theory*, Proc. 3rd Berkeley symp. Math. Stat. Prob., J. Neyman, ed. Univ. of California, vol 3, (1956) 171–197.
M. Kac *Probability and Related Topics in Physical Sciences*, Interscience Publ. LTD., London, New York (1959)
F.G. Mehler *Über die [E]{}ntwicklung einer [F]{}unction von beliebig vielen [V]{}ariablen nach [L]{}aplaschen [F]{}unctionen höherer [O]{}rdnungn.* Crelle’s Journal [**66**]{} (1866), 161–176.
S. Mischler and C. Mouhot, *Kac’s Program in Kinetic Theory*, Invent. Math., [**193**]{} (2013) 1-147.
M. Sasada, *On the spectral gap of the Kac walk and other binary collision processes on $d$-dimensional lattice*, In *Symmetries, Integrable Systems and Representations*, K. Iohara et al., eds. Springer Proc. Math. Stat. [**40**]{}, 543Ð560. Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.
M. Sasada, *Spectral gap for particle systems with degenerate energy exchange rates*, Ann. Probab. [**43**]{} (2015),1663-1711.
G. Szegö, *Orthogonal Polynomials*, Vol. 23 of A.M.S. Colloquium Series Publications, A.M.S., Rovidence, 1967.
A. S. Sznitman, *Topics in propagation of chaos*. In: *École dÕÉté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIXÑ1989*. Lecture Notes in Math., [**1464**]{}, pp. 165Ð251. Springer, Berlin, 1991.
C. Villani, *Cercignani’s Conjecture is Sometimes True and Always Almost True*, Comm. Math. Phys., [**234**]{}, (2003) 455–490.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1090 2000 2000 =9.6truein =6.3truein = 0pt =2ex plus .5ex minus .1ex 3em = cmcsc10 = cmbx7 at 10pt = cmbx10 scaled 1 = cmbx10 scaled 2 =1090 = cmbx9 at 11truept = cmbx10 at 12truept = cmbx9 at 16truept = cmbx9 at 21truept =0 \#1$$[$$]{}
A diatribe on expanding space
J.A. Peacock
Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh
Royal Observatory, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ
This is an expansion of an analysis that first appeared in Peacock (2001), but which has not previously been available online, except at [www.roe.ac.uk/japwww]{}. Some more details, particularly analytic solutions for test-particle motion in open and closed models, are given by Whiting (2004). Some relevant further discussion is given by Barnes et al. (2006).
The idea of an expanding universe can easily lead to confusion, and this note tries to counter some of the more tenacious misconceptions. The worst of these is the ‘expanding space’ fallacy. The RW metric written in comoving coordinates emphasizes that one can think of any given fundamental observer as fixed in a coordinate system where separations increase in proportion to $R(t)$. A common interpretation of this algebra is to say that the galaxies separate “because the space between them expands”, or some such phrase. This seems a natural interpretation, but we need to worry about what the coordinates mean, as may be seen via two examples: the empty universe and de Sitter space. In the former case, Minkowski spacetime is rewritten as an expanding open RW metric with $R(t)\propto t$. In the latter case, we can compare the usual metric for de Sitter space $$c^2d\tau^2 = c^2dt^2 - R^2(t)\left[dr^2 + r^2 \,d\psi^2\right]; \quad R(t) \propto e^{Ht}$$ with the static form in which de Sitter first derived it: $$c^2d\tau^2 = (1-r^2/{\cal R}^2)\,c^2dt^2 -
(1-r^2/{\cal R}^2)^{-1} dr^2 - r^2 \,d\psi^2; \quad {\cal R}=c/H.$$ It is not immediately obvious that there is anything expanding about the second form, and historically this remained obscure for some time. Although it was eventually concluded (in 1923, by Weyl) that one would expect a redshift that increased linearly with distance in de Sitter’s model, this was interpreted as measuring the constant radius of curvature of spacetime, ${\cal R}$. This is still the interpretation given by Hubble in his 1929 attempt to detect the predicted effect – a paper that does not contain the word ‘expansion’. But even if it takes more than just the appearance of $R(t)$ in a metric to prove that something is expanding, there are clearly cases where expansion is a legitimate global concept. This is most clear-cut in the case of closed universes, where the total volume is a well-defined quantity that increases with time, so undoubtedly space is expanding in that case.
But even if ‘expanding space’ is a correct [*global*]{} description of spacetime, boes the concept have a meaningful [*local*]{} counterpart? Is the space in my bedroom expanding, and what would this mean? Do we expect the Earth to recede from the Sun as the space between them expands? The very idea suggests some completely new physical effect that is not covered by Newtonian concepts. However, on scales much smaller than the current horizon, we should be able to ignore curvature and treat galaxy dynamics as occurring in Minkowski spacetime; this approach works in deriving the Friedmann equation. How do we relate this to ‘expanding space’? It should be clear that Minkowski spacetime does not expand – indeed, the very idea that the motion of distant galaxies could affect local dynamics is profoundly anti-relativistic: the equivalence principle says that we can always find a tangent frame in which physics is locally special relativity.
To clarify the issues here, it should help to consider an explicit example, which makes quite a neat paradox. Suppose we take a nearby low-redshift galaxy and give it a velocity boost such that its redshift becomes zero. At a later time, will the expansion of the universe have caused the galaxy to recede from us, so that it once again acquires a positive redshift? To idealize the problem, imagine that the galaxy is a massless test particle in a homogeneous universe.
The ‘expanding space’ idea would suggest that the test particle should indeed start to recede from us, and it appears that one can prove this formally, as follows. Consider the peculiar velocity with respect to the Hubble flow, $\delta {\bf v}$. A completely general result is that this declines in magnitude as the universe expands: $$\delta v \propto {1\over a(t)}.$$ This is the same law that applies to photon energies, and the common link is that it is particle momentum in general that declines as $1/a$, just through the accumulated Lorentz transforms required to overtake successively more distant particles that are moving with the Hubble flow. So, at $t\rightarrow\infty$, the peculiar velocity tends to zero, leaving the particle moving with the Hubble flow, however it started out: ‘expanding space’ has apparently done its job.
Now look at the same situation in a completely different way. If the particle is nearby compared with the cosmological horizon, a Newtonian analysis should be valid: in an isotropic universe, Bikhoff’s theorem assures us that we can neglect the effect of all matter at distances greater than that of the test particle, and all that counts is the mass between the particle and us. Call the proper separation of the particle from the origin $r$. Our initial conditions are that $\dot r=0$ at $t=t_0$, when $r=r_0$. The equation of motion is just $$\ddot r = {-G M(<r \mid t) \over r^2},$$ and the mass internal to $r$ is just $$M(<r \mid t) = {4\pi\over 3}\, \rho r^3 = {4\pi\over 3}\, \rho_0\, a^{-3} r^3,$$ where we assume $a_0=1$ and a matter-dominated universe. The equation of motion can now be re-expressed as $$\ddot r = -{\Omega_0 H_0^2 \over 2 a^3}\, r.$$ Adding vacuum energy is easy enough: $$\ddot r = -{H_0^2 \over 2 }\, r\, (\Omega_m a^{-3} -2 \Omega_v).$$ The $-2$ in front of the vacuum contribution comes from the effective mass density $\rho + 3p/c^2$.
We now show that this Newtonian equation is identical to what is obtained from $\delta v \propto 1/a$. In our present notation, this becomes $$\delta v = \dot r - H(t) r = -H_0 r_0 / a;$$ the initial peculiar velocity is just $-Hr$, cancelling the Hubble flow. We can differentiate this equation to obtain $\ddot r$, which involves $\dot H$. This can be obtained from the standard relation $$H^2(t) = H_0^2 [\Omega_v + \Omega_m a^{-3} + (1-\Omega_m-\Omega_v)a^{-2} ].$$ It is then a straightforward exercise to show that the equation for $\ddot r$ is the same as obtained previously (remembering $H=\dot a/a$).
Now for the paradox. It will suffice at first to solve the equation for the case of the Einstein-de Sitter model, choosing time units such that $t_0=1$, with $H_0 t_0=2/3$: $$\ddot r = -2 r /9 t^2.$$ The acceleration is negative, so the particle moves [*inwards*]{}, in complete apparent contradiction to our ‘expanding space’ conclusion that the particle would tend with time to pick up the Hubble expansion. The resolution of this contradiction comes from the full solution of the equation. The differential equation clearly has power-law solutions $r\propto t^{1/3}$ or $t^{2/3}$, and the combination with the correct boundary conditions is $$r(t) = r_0 (2 t^{1/3} - t^{2/3}).$$ At large $t$, this becomes $r = -r_0 t^{2/3}$. The use of a negative radius may seem suspect, but we can regard $r$ as a Cartesian coordinate along a line that passes through the origin, and the equation of motion $\ddot r \propto r$ is correct for either sign of $r$. The solution for $r(t)$ at large $t$ thus describes a particle moving with the Hubble flow, but it arises because the particle has fallen right through the origin and emerged on the other side.
In no sense, therefore, can ‘expanding space’ be said to have operated: in an Einstein-de Sitter model, a particle initially at rest with respect to the origin falls towards the origin, passes through it, and asymptotically regains its initial comoving radius on the opposite side of the sky. The behaviour can be understood quantitatively using only Newtonian dynamics.
This analysis demonstrates that there is no local effect on particle dynamics from the global expansion of the universe: the tendency to separate is a kinematic initial condition, and once this is removed, all memory of the expansion is lost. Perhaps the cleanest illustration of the point is provided by the Swiss Cheese universe, an exact model in which the mass within (non-overlapping) spherical cavities is compressed to a black hole. Within the cavity, the metric is exactly Schwarzschild, and the behaviour of the rest of the universe is irrelevant. This avoids the small complication that arises when considering test particles in a homogeneous universe, where we still have to consider the gravitational effects of the matter between the particles. It should now be clear how to deal with the question, “does the expansion of the universe cause the Earth and Moon to separate?”, and that the answer is not the commonly-encountered “it would do, if they weren’t held together by gravity”.
Two further cases are worth considering. In an empty universe, the equation of motion is $\ddot r=0$, so the particle remains at $r=r_0$, while the universe expands linearly with $a\propto t$. In this case, $H=1/t$, so that $\delta v = -Hr_0$, which declines as $1/a$, as required. Finally, models with vacuum energy are of more interest. Provided $\Omega_v > \Omega_m/2$, $\ddot r$ is initially positive, and the particle does move away from the origin. This is the criterion for $q_0<0$ and an accelerating expansion. In this case, there is a tendency for the particle to expand away from the origin, and this is caused by the repulsive effects of vacuum energy. In the limiting case of pure de Sitter space ($\Omega_m=0$, $\Omega_v=1$), the particle’s trajectory is $$r = r_0 \cosh H_0 (t-t_0),$$ which asymptotically approaches half the $r = r_0 \exp H_0 (t-t_0)$ that would have applied if we had never perturbed the particle in the first place. In the case of vacuum-dominated models, then, the repulsive effects of vacuum energy cause all pairs of particles to separate at large times, whatever their initial kinematics; this behaviour could perhaps legitimately be called ‘expanding space’. Nevertheless, the effect stems from the clear physical cause of vacuum repulsion, and there is no new physical influence that arises purely from the fact that the universe expands. The earlier examples have proved that ‘expanding space’ is in general a dangerously flawed way of thinking about an expanding universe.
Finally, some remarks about the relevance of the idea of expanding space to the nature of the redshift. For small redshifts, it is normal to interpret the redshift as a Doppler shift ($z=v/c$). Even though the idea of ‘expanding space’ might challenge such a view, it connects perfectly with the general idea that $1+z$ measures the factor by which the universe expanded between emission and absorption of a photon. Suppose we send a photon, which travels for a time $\delta t$ until it meets another observer, at distance $d=c\, \delta t$. The recessional velocity of this galaxy is $\delta v = Hd$, so there is a fractional redshift: $$\delta \nu \,/\, \nu = \delta v/c = - (Hd)/c = -H \delta t.$$ Now, since $H=\dot R/R$, this becomes $$\delta \nu \,/\, \nu = -\delta R \, /\, R,$$ which integrates to give the main result: $\nu \propto 1/R$. As shown above, the same reasoning proves that this $1/R$ scaling applies to the momentum of all particles – relativistic or not. Thinking of quantum mechanics, the de Broglie wavelength is $\lambda = 2\pi \hbar/p$, so this scales with the side of the universe, yielding the common analogy of standing waves trapped in an expanding box.
The redshift is thus the accumulation of a series of infinitesimal Doppler shifts as the photon passes from observer to observer, and this interpretation holds rigorously even for $z\gg 1$. However, this is not the same as saying that the redshift tells us how fast the observed galaxy is receding. A common but incorrect approach is to use the special-relativistic Doppler formula and write $$1+z=\sqrt{{1+v/c\over 1-v/c}}.$$ Indeed, it is all too common to read of the latest high-redshift quasar as “receding at 95% of the speed of light”. The reason the redshift cannot be interpreted in this way is because a non-zero mass density must cause gravitational frequency shifts. Combining Doppler and gravitational shifts, we then write $$1+z=\sqrt{1+v/c\over 1-v/c} \; \left(1+{\Delta\phi\over c^2}\right),$$ where $\Delta\phi$ is the difference in gravitational potential between the point of emission and reception of a photon. If we think of the observer as lying at the centre of a sphere of radius $r$, with the emitting galaxy on the edge, then the sense of the gravitational shift will be a blueshift: the radial acceleration at radius $r$ is $a=GM(<r)/r^2= 4\pi G\rho r/3$, so the potential is thus $\Delta\phi=-4\pi G\rho r^2/6=-\Omega_mH_0^2 r^2/4$, considering nonrelativistic matter only for simplicity. The gravitational term is thus quadratic in $r$ and has to be considered when going beyond first-order terms in the Doppler shift. To second order, it is exactly correct to think of the cosmological redshift as a combination of doppler and gravitational redshifts (see Bondi 1947 and problem 3.4 of ‘Cosmological Physics’).
Barnes L.A., Francis M.J., James, J.B., Lewis G.F., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 382 (astro-ph/0609271)
Bondi H., 1947, MNRAS, 107, 411
Peacock J.A., 2001, in proc. 2000 Como School, eds S. Bonometto, V. Gorini, U. Moschella \[IOP\], p9
Whiting A.B., 2004, Observatory, 124, 174 (astro-ph/0404095)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We establish bounds of triple exponential sums with mixed exponential and linear terms. The method we use is by Shparlinski together with a bound of additive energy from Roche-Newton, Rudnev and Shkredov.'
address: 'Department of Pure Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia'
author:
- Kam Hung Yau
title: Bounds for triple exponential sums with mixed exponential and linear terms
---
\[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Claim]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Question]{}
== =\#1[[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[(\[\#1\])]{}
\#1
${\left(}
\def$[)]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1\_r]{}
Introduction
============
Particular bounds of exponential sums were first studied in Number Theory as they produce arithmetic information about certain Diophantine problems. For example, by obtaining estimates of exponential sums over primes, Vinogradov [@V] was able to establish every sufficiently large odd integer can be written as a sum of three primes. Now the study of bounds for exponential sums are both for mathematical and arithmetic interest.
Let $g$ be an arbitrary integer with $\gcd(g, p) =1$. We denote $T$ to be the multiplicative order of $g$ modulo $p$. Given two intervals of consecutive integers $$\cI = \{ K+1, \ldots, K+M \}, \quad \cJ = \{ L+1, \ldots, L+N \}$$ and $$\cK = \{ 1, \ldots, H \}$$ with integers $H,K,L,M,N$ such that $0 < M \le p $, $0< N \le T$, $0 < H <T$ and a complex sequence $\cA = (\alpha_{m})_{m \in \cI}$, we define the following exponential sum $$\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cI, \cJ, \cK ) = \sum_{m \in \cI} \sum_{n \in \cJ} \sum_{x \in \cK} \alpha_m e_p(am g^x) e_T(nx)$$ for integers $a \in \mathbb{Z}$ with $\gcd(a,p)=1$ where $e_{h}(x)=e(2 \pi i x/h)$. In particular, when $\cI = \mathbb{Z}_{p}$, we define $$\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ, \cK ) = \cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cI, \cJ, \cK ).$$
Similar double exponential sums has already been considered. In particular, sums of the form $$S(\cA, \cB; \cI , \cJ) = \sum_{m \in \cI } \sum_{n \in \cJ} \alpha_{m} \beta_{n} e_{p}(am g^{n})$$ has been considered in the work by Shparlinski & Yau [@SY]. For the case when $g$ is not necessary a primitive root of $p$, bounds has been established under the condition $ \cI = \{ 1 \}$ and $\alpha_{m} =\beta_{n} =1$ by Kerr [@K] but the same method imployed there also works for the general $\cI$ as the bound depend only on the norm. Similar sums for multiplicative character has also been studied in [@SY2]. We refer the reader to [@KS] for a broader overview of this subject.
In this paper we establish bounds for $\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cI, \cJ, \cK )$ when $\cI = \mathbb{Z}_{p}$, it is clear the same method also works for general $\cI$.
Our approach follows from Shparlinski as in the proof of [@Shp]\[Theorem 2.1\]. In particular, after applying the triangle and Hölder inequality to $\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cI, \cJ, \cK )$, we obtain a mean fourth-moment of an exponential sum. By opening and changing the order of summation and appealing to the orthogonality of the exponential function, we can bound the sum by the number of solutions to a particular congruence (see Lemma \[additive energy\]).
Main Result
===========
The statement $A \ll B$ and $A = O(B)$ are both equivalent to the inequality $|A| \le c B$ for some positive absolute constant $c$. We define for any real number $\sigma >0$, $$\lVert \cA \rVert_{\sigma} = \Big (\sum_{m \in \cI} | \alpha_{m}|^{\sigma} \Big )^{1/\sigma}.$$
We state below a bound for $\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cK, \cJ)$.
\[S-bound\] For any prime $p$, we have $$\begin{split}
S_{a,T,p}&(\cA; \cJ, \cK ) \ll \lVert \cA \rVert_{1}^{1/2} \lVert \cA \rVert_{2}^{1/2}p^{1/4} N^{3/8} T^{5/8}.
\end{split}$$
Using the same technique as in [@Shp2 Lemma 3.14] and the bound [@R-NRS Corollary 19], we obtain the trivial bound $$\begin{split} \label{trivial-bound1}
S_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ, \cK ) & \ll \lVert A \rVert_{1} N \min \{ p^{1/8} H^{5/8}, p^{1/4} H^{3/8} \}.
\end{split}$$ Assuming $| \alpha_{m}| \le 1$ we have $\lVert \cA \rVert_{1} \ll M$ and $\lVert \cA \rVert_{2} \ll M^{1/2}$. We see that Theorem \[S-bound\] provides a stronger bound $$S_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ, \cK ) \ll M^{3/4}p^{1/4} N^{3/8} T^{5/8}$$ than (\[trivial-bound1\]) which becomes $$S_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ, \cK ) \ll M N \min \{ p^{1/8} H^{5/8}, p^{1/4} H^{3/8} \}$$ when $$pT^{5} < M^{2}N^{5}H^{5} \mand T^{5} < M^{2}N^{5}H^{3}.$$
Preparation
===========
For an integer $u$, we define $$\langle u \rangle_{r} = \min_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} | u - kr|$$ as the distance to the nearest integral multiple of $r$.
We recall a well-known bound from [@IK Bound (8.6)].
\[linearbound\] For an integers $u$, $W$ and $Z \ge 1$, we have $$\sum_{n=W+1}^{W+Z} e_{r}(nu) \ll \min \left \{ Z, \frac{r}{ \langle u \rangle_{r}} \right \}.$$
We recall that $T$ is the multiplicative order of $g$ modulo $p$. For any positive integer $K \le T$, we define the *additive energy* $E_{p}(K)$ as the number of solutions to the congruence $$\label{addenergy}
g^{x_{1}} + g^{x_{2}} \equiv g^{x_{3}} + g^{x_{4}} \pmod{p}$$ where $$\quad (x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}) \in \{1, \ldots, K \}^{4}.$$ Our approach to bounding $\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cI, \cJ, \cK )$ is to reduce the problem to estimating $E_{p}(K)$.
Note that $(v_{1}, v_{2}, v_{1}, v_{2}) \in \{1, \ldots, K \}^{4}$ is always a solution to (\[addenergy\]), hence we have the trivial lower bound $K^{2} \le E_{p}(K)$. If $(v_{1}, v_{2}, v_{3}, v_{4}) \in \{1, \ldots, K \}^{4}$ is a solution to (\[addenergy\]) then $v_{4}$ is depended on $v_{1}, v_{2}, v_{3}$ and we obtain the trivial upper bound $E_{p}(K) \le K^3$. In particular, $E_{p}(K)$ is an increasing function of $K$.
Set $A, B, C= \{g, \ldots, g^{K} \}$ then we have the trivial bound $|A|\le K$, $|BC| \le 2K$. Appealing to [@R-NRS Theorem 6], we derive a non-trivial estimate on $E_{p}(K)$.
\[additive energy\] For any positive integer $1 \le K \le T$, we have $$E_{p}(K) \ll K^{5/2}.$$
Proof of Theorem \[S-bound\]
============================
We proceed similarly to the proof of [@Shp Theorem 2.1]. Rearranging then applying Lemma \[linearbound\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ, \cK )
& = \sum_{x=1}^{H} \sum_{m =0}^{p-1} \alpha_{m} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \sum_{n=L+1}^{L+N} e_{T}(nx) \\
& = \sum_{x=1}^{H} \sum_{m = 0}^{p-1} \alpha_{m} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x}\end{aligned}$$ where $$| \varphi_{x} | \le \min \left ( N, \frac{T}{ \langle x \rangle_{T}} \right ).$$ Define $I = \lceil \log N \rceil$ and define the sets $$\cL_{0} = \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}: 0 < x \le T/N \}$$ and $$\cL_{i} = \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}: \min \{T ,e^{i}T/N \} \ge x > e^{i-1}T/N \}$$ for $i=1, \ldots, I$. Therefore, we obtain $$\cS_{a,T,p}(\cA; \cJ , \cK) \ll \sum_{i=0}^{I} |S_{i}|$$ where $$S_{i} = \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \alpha_{m} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x}$$ for $i=0, \ldots, I.$
Applying the triangle and Hölder inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Si}
|S_{i}| &\le \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} |\alpha_{m}|^{1/2} |\alpha_{m}^{2}|^{1/4} \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} \alpha_{m} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big | \nonumber \\
& \le \Big ( \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} |\alpha_{m}| \Big )^{1/2} \Big ( \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} | \alpha_{m}|^{2} \Big )^{1/4} \Big ( \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big |^{4} \Big )^{1/4} \\
& = \lVert \cA \rVert_{1}^{1/2} \lVert \cA \rVert_{2}^{1/2} \Big ( \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big |^{4} \Big )^{1/4} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which is valid for all $i = 0, \ldots , I$. Opening the summation and changing the order of summation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} & \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big |^{4} \\
& = \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \underset{x_{1}, \ldots,x_{4} \in \cL_{i}}{ \sum \cdots \sum} \varphi_{x_{1}} \varphi_{x_{2}} \overline{ \varphi_{x_{3}} \varphi_{x_{4 }} } e_{p}(am(g^{x_{1}} + g^{x_{2}} - g^{x_{3}} -g^{x_{4}} )) \\
& = \underset{x_{1}, \ldots,x_{4} \in \cL_{i}}{ \sum \cdots \sum} \varphi_{x_{1}} \varphi_{x_{2}} \overline{ \varphi_{x_{3}} \varphi_{x_{4 }} } \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} e_{p}(am(g^{x_{1}} + g^{x_{2}} - g^{x_{3}} -g^{x_{4}} )).\end{aligned}$$ Since for all $x \in \cL_{i}$, we have the bound $\varphi_{x} \ll e^{-i}N$, hence we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} & \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big |^{4} \\
& \le \underset{x_{1}, \ldots,x_{4} \in \cL_{i}}{ \sum \cdots \sum} |\varphi_{x_{1}} \varphi_{x_{2}} \overline{ \varphi_{x_{3}} \varphi_{x_{4 }} } |\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} e_{p}(am(g^{x_{1}} + g^{x_{2}} - g^{x_{3}} -g^{x_{4}} )) \\
& \ll e^{-4i}N^{4} \underset{x_{1}, \ldots,x_{4} \in \cL_{i}}{ \sum \cdots \sum} \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} e_{p}(am(g^{x_{1}} + g^{x_{2}} - g^{x_{3}} -g^{x_{4}} )). \end{aligned}$$ By appealing to the orthogonality of exponential function, we obtain $$\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \Big | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \Big |^{4} \ll p e^{-4i}N^{4} E_{p}( \lfloor e^{i} T/N \rfloor).$$ Therefore by Lemma \[additive energy\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} \left | \sum_{x \in \cL_{i}} e_{p}(amg^{x}) \varphi_{x} \right |^{4} & \ll p e^{-4i}N^{4} (e^{i} T/N)^{5/2} \\
& \ll p e^{-3/2i} N^{3/2}T^{5/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this bound into (\[Si\]), we obtain $$|S_{i}| \ll \lVert \cA \rVert_{1}^{1/2} \lVert \cA \rVert_{2}^{1/2}p^{1/4} e^{-3i/8}N^{3/8} T^{5/8}.$$ Finally, we have $$\sum_{i=0}^{I} |S_{i}| \ll \lVert \cA \rVert_{1}^{1/2} \lVert \cA \rVert_{2}^{1/2}p^{1/4} N^{3/8} T^{5/8}$$ and the result follows immediately.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank the referee for many helpful comments and also I. E. Shparlinski for the problem, helpful comments and proof-reading of this paper. During the preparation of this paper, the author was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
[9999]{}
H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski, “Analytic number theory”, [*Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ.*]{} 53 (2004).
B. Kerr, “Incomplete exponential sums over exponential functions”, [*Q. J. Math.*]{} **66**(1) (2015), 213-224.
S. V. Konyagin and I. E. Shparlinski, “Character sums with exponential functions and their applications”, [*Cambridge Tracts in Math.*]{} 136 (1999).
O. Roche-Newton, M. Rudnev and I. D. Shkredov, “New sum-product type estimates over finite fields”, [*Adv. Math.*]{} **293** (2016), 589-605.
I. E. Shparlinski, “Bilinear forms with Kloosterman and Gauss sums”, arXiv:1608.06160, 2016.
I. E. Shparlinski, “Cryptographic applications of analytic number theory. Complexity lower bounds and pseudorandomness”, [*Progr. Comput. Sci. Appl. Logic, Birkhäuser*]{} 22 (2013).
I. E. Shparlinski and K. H. Yau, “Double exponential sums with exponential functions”, [*Int. J. Number Theory*]{} **13** (2017), 2531-2543.
I. E. Shparlinski and K. H. Yau, “Bounds of double multiplicative character sums and gaps between residues of exponential functions”, [*J. of Number Theory*]{} **167** (2016), 304-316.
I. M. Vinogradov, “The method of trigonometical sums in the theorey of numbers”, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1954, x+180 pages.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a novel class of features for multidimensional time series that are invariant with respect to transformations of the ambient space. The general linear group, the group of rotations and the group of permutations of the axes are considered. The starting point for their construction is Chen’s iterated-integral signature.'
author:
- 'Joscha Diehl[^1], Jeremy Reizenstein[^2]'
title: 'Invariants of multidimensional time series based on their iterated-integral signature'
---
Introduction
============
The analysis of multidimensional time series is a standard problem in data science. Usually, as a first step, features of a time series must be extracted that are (in some sense) robust and that characterize the time series. In many applications the features should additionally be invariant to a particular group acting on the data. In Human Activity Recognition for example, the orientation of the measuring device is often unknown. This leads to the requirement of rotation invariant features [@bib:MA2017]. In EEG analysis, invariants to the general linear group are beneficial [@bib:EMZMN2012]. In other applications, the labeling of coordinates is arbitrary, which leads to permutation invariants. As any time series in discrete time can, via linear interpolation, be thought of as a multidimensional curve, one is naturally lead to the search of invariants of curves. Invariant features, of (mostly) two-dimensional curves have been treated using various approaches. Among the techniques are Fourier series (of closed curves) [@bibGranlund1972; @bibZahnRoskies1972; @bibKuhlGiardina1982], wavelets [@bibChuangKuo1996], curvature based methods [@bibMokhtarianMackworth1986; @bib:COSTH1998] and integral invariants [@bibManayCremers2006; @bib:FKK2010].
The usefulness of iterated integrals in data analysis has recently been realized, see for example [@bib:LLN2012; @bib:Gra2013; @bib:KSHGL2017; @bib:YLNSJC2017] and the introduction in [@bib:OxSigIntro]. Let us demonstrate the appearance of iterated integrals on a very simple example. Let $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a smooth curve. Say, we are looking for a feature describing this curve that is unchanged if one is handed a rotated version of $X$. Maybe the simplest one that one can come up with is the (squared) total displacement length $|X_T - X_0|^2$. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
|X_T - X_0|^2
&=
(X^1_T - X^1_0)^2
+
(X^2_T - X^2_0)^2 \\
&=
2 \int_0^T \left( X^1_r - X^1_0 \right) \dot X^1_r dr
+
2 \int_0^T \left( X^2_r - X^2_0 \right) \dot X^2_r dr \\
&=
2 \int_0^T \left( \int_0^r \dot X^1_u du \right) \dot X^1_r dr
+
2 \int_0^T \left( \int_0^r \dot X^2_u du \right) \dot X^2_r dr \\
&=
2 \int_0^T \int_0^r d X^1_u d X^1_r
+
2 \int_0^T \int_0^r d X^2_u d X^2_r,\end{aligned}$$ where we applied the fundamental theorem of calculus twice and introduced the notation $dX^i_r = \dot{X}^i_r dr$. We see that we have expressed this simple invariant in terms of iterated integrals of $X$; the collection of which is usually called its *signature*. The aim of this work can be summarized as describing *all* invariants that can be obtained in this way. It turns out, when formulated in the right way, this search for invariants reduces to classical problems in invariant theory. We note that already in the early work of Chen (see for example [@bib:Che1957 Chapter 3]) the topic of invariants arose, although a systematic study was missing (see also [@bib:Joh1962]). The aim of this work is threefold. Firstly, we adapt classical results in invariant theory regarding non-commuting polynomials (or, equivalently, multilinear maps), to our situation. These results are spread out in the literature and sometimes need a little massaging. Secondly, it lays out the usefulness of the signature of iterated integrals in the search for invariants of ${d}$-dimensional curves. We show, see Section \[sec:discussion\], that certain “integral invariants” found in the literature are in fact of this type and we simplify their enumeration. Lastly, we present new geometric insights into some entries found in the signature, Section \[sec:dXw1\].[^3]
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we introduce the signature of iterated integrals of a multidimensional curve, as well as some algebraic language to work with it. Based on this signature, we present in Section \[sec:gl\] and Section \[sec:so\] invariants to the general linear group and the special orthogonal group. Both are based on classical results in invariants theory. For completeness, we present in Section \[sec:permuations\] the invariants to permutations, which have been constructed in [@bib:BRRZ2005]. In Section \[sec:time\] we show how to use all these invariants if an additional (time) coordinate is introduced. In Section \[sec:discussion\] we relate our work to the integral invariants of [@bib:FKK2010] and demonstrate that the invariants presented there cannot be complete. We formulate the conjecture of completeness for our invariants and point out open algebraic questions.
For readers who want to use these invariants without having to go into the technical results, we propose the following route. The required notation is presented in the next section. The invariants are presented in Proposition \[prop:glInvariants\], Proposition \[prop:soInvariants\] and Proposition \[prop:permInvariants\]. Examples are given in Section \[sec:explicit\] (in particular Remark \[rem:interpretation\]), Example \[ex:soInvariants\] and Example \[ex:permInvariants\]. All these invariants are also implemented in the software package [@bib:Die2018]. For a python package for calculating the iterated-integrals signature we propose using the package `iisignature`, as described in [@bib:Rei2017].
The signature of iterated integrals {#sec:signature}
===================================
By a multidimensional **curve** $X$ we will denote a continuous mapping $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ of bounded variation[^4]. The aim of this work is to find features (i.e. complex or real numbers) describing such a curve that are invariant under the general linear group, the group of rotations and the group of permutations. Note that in practical situations one is usually presented with a discrete sequence of data points in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, a multidimensional **time series**. Such a time series can be easily transformed into a (piecewise) smooth curve by linear interpolation.
It was proven in [@bib:Che1957] (see [@bib:HL2010] for a recent generalization) that a curve $X$ is almost completely characterized by the collection of its iterated integrals[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T \int_0^{r_n} \dots \int_0^{r_2} dX^{i_1}_{r_1} \dots dX^{i_n}_{r_n}, \qquad n \ge 1,\quad i_1, \dots i_n \in \{1,\dots,{d}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The collection of all these integrals is called the **signature**[^6] of $X$. In a first step, we can hence reduce the goal
> *Find functions $\Psi: \text{curves} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are invariant under the action of a group $G$.*
to the goal
> *Find functions $\Psi: \text{signature of curves} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are invariant under the action of a group $G$.*
By the Shuffle identity (Lemma \[lem:shuffleIdentity\]), any polynomial function on the signature can be re-written as a linear function on the signature. Assuming that arbitrary functions are well-approximated by polynomial functions, we are lead to the final simplification, which is the goal of this paper
> *Find *linear* functions $\Psi: \text{signature of curves} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are invariant under the action of a group $G$.*
Algebraic underpinning
----------------------
Let us introduce some algebraic notation in order to work with the collection of iterated integrals. Denote by ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ the space of formal power series in ${d}$ *non-commuting* variables $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{{d}}$. We can conveniently store all the iterated integrals of the curve $X$ in ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$, by defining the **signature** of $X$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
S(X)_{0,T} := \sum x_{i_1} \dots x_{i_n} \int_0^T \int^{r_n} \dots \int_0^{r_2} dX^{i_1}_{r_1} \dots dX^{i_n}_{r_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the sum is taken over all $n \ge 0$ and all $i_1, \dots, i_n \in \{1,2,..,{d}\}$. For $n=0$ the summand is, for algebraic reasons, taken to be the constant $1$.
The algebraic dual of ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ is ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the space of polynomials[^7] in $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{{d}}$. The dual pairing, denoted by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is defined by declaring all monomials to be orthonormal, so for example $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle x_1 + 15\cdot x_1 x_2 - 2\cdot x_1 x_2 x_1, x_1 x_2 \Big\rangle = 15.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we write the element of ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ on the left and the element of ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ on the right. We can “pick out” iterated integrals from the signature as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_{i_1} \dots x_{i_n} \Big\rangle
=
\int_0^T \int^{r_n} \dots \int_0^{r_2} dX^{i_1}_{r_1} \dots dX^{i_n}_{r_n}.\end{aligned}$$
The space ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ becomes an algebra by extending the usual product of monomials, denoted $\cdot$, to the whole space by bilinearity. Note that $\cdot$ is non-commutative.
On ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ we usually use the shuffle product $\shuffle$ which, on monomials, interleaves them in all order-preserving ways, so for example $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 \shuffle x_2 x_3
=
x_1 x_2 x_3
+
x_2 x_1 x_3
+
x_2 x_3 x_1.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\shuffle$ is commutative.
Monomials, and hence homogeneous polynomials, have the usual concept of **order** or homogeneity. For $n \ge 0$ we denote the projection on polynomials of order $n$ by $\pi_n$, so for example $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_2
\left( x_1 + 15\cdot x_1 x_2 - 2\cdot x_1 x_2 x_1 \right)
=
15\cdot x_1 x_2.\end{aligned}$$ See [@bib:Reu1993] for more background on these spaces.
As mentioned above, every polynomial expression in terms of the signature can be re-written as a linear expression in (different) terms of the signature. This is the content of the following lemma, which is proven in [@bib:Ree1958] (see also [@bib:Reu1993 Corollary 3.5]).
\[lem:shuffleIdentity\] Let $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a continuous curve of bounded variation, then for every $a,b \in T({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, a \Big\rangle
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, b \Big\rangle
=
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, a \shuffle b \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$
We have used this fact already in the introduction, where we confirmed by hand that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big( \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_1 \Big\rangle \Big)^2
+
\Big( \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_2 \Big\rangle \Big)^2
&=
2\ \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_1 x_1 \Big\rangle
+
2\ \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_2 x_2 \Big\rangle \\
\Big(
& =
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_1 \shuffle x_1 \Big\rangle
+
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_2 \shuffle x_2 \Big\rangle
\Big).
\end{aligned}$$
The concatenation of curves is compatible with the product on ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ in the following sense (for a proof, see for example [@bib:FV2010 Theorem 7.11]).
\[lem:chen\] For curves $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}, Y: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ denote their concatenation $$\begin{aligned}
X \sqcup Y: [0,2T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d},
\end{aligned}$$ as $X_\cdot$ on $[0,T]$ and $Y_{\cdot-T} - Y_0 + X_T$ on $[T,2T]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
S(X \sqcup Y)_{0,2T} = S(X)_{0,T} \cdot S(Y)_{0,T}.
\end{aligned}$$
We will use the following fact repeatedly, which also explains the commonly used name **tensor algebra** for ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$.
\[lem:oneToOne\] The space of all multilinear maps on ${\mathbb{R}}^{{d}} \times \dots \times {\mathbb{R}}^{{d}}$ ($n$-times) is in a one-to-one correspondence with homogeneous polynomials of order $n$ in the non-commuting variables $x_1,\dots,x_{d}$ by the following bijection $$\begin{aligned}
\psi \mapsto {\mathsf{poly}}(\psi) := \sum_{i_1, \dots, i_n \in \{1,\dots,{d}\}} \psi(e_{i_1}, e_{i_2}, \dots, e_{i_n}) x_{i_1} \cdot x_{i_2} \cdot .. \cdot x_{i_n},
\end{aligned}$$ with $e_i$ being the $i$-th canonical basis vector of ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$.
General linear group {#sec:gl}
====================
Let $$\begin{aligned}
GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) = \{ A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{d}\times {d}} : \det( A ) \not= 0 \},\end{aligned}$$ be the general linear group of ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$.
\[def:invariant\] For $w \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we call $\phi \in {T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ an **GL invariant of weight $w$** if $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(A X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle = (\det A)^w \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in \operatorname{GL}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$.
\[def:action\] Define a linear action of $GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ on ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ and ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, by specifying on monomials $$\begin{aligned}
A x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n}
&:=
\sum_j (A e_{i_1})_{j_1} x_{j_1} .. (A e_{i_n})_{j_n} x_{j_n} \\
&=
\sum_j A_{j_1 i_1} .. A_{j_n i_n} x_{j_1} .. x_{j_n}.
\end{aligned}$$
For all $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{d}\times {d}}$ and any curve $X$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(A X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle
=
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, A^\top \phi \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
It is enough to verify this on monomials $\phi = x_{\ell_1} .. x_{\ell_m}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S( A X ), \phi \Big\rangle
&=
\sum_j A_{\ell_1 j_1} \dots A_{\ell_m j_m} \int d X^{j_1} \dots d X^{j_m} \\
&=
\Big\langle S(X), \sum_j A_{\ell_1 j_1} x_{j_1} .. A_{\ell_m j_m} x_{j_m} \Big\rangle \\
&=
\Big\langle S(X), A^\top \phi \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
We can simplify the concept of GL invariants further, using the next lemma.
\[lem:spans\] For $n\ge 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GspansT}
\operatorname{span} \{ \pi_n S(X)_{0,T} : X \text{ curve } \} = \pi_n {T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is clear by definition that the left hand side of is included in $\pi_n {T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$. We show the other direction and use ideas of [@bib:CF2010 Proposition 4]. Let $x_{i_n} \cdot \ldots \cdot x_{i_1} \in \pi_n {T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ be given. Let $X$ be the piecewise linear path that results from the concatenation of the vectors $t_1 e_{i_1}, t_2 e_{i_2}$ up to $t_n e_{i_n}$, where $e_i, i=1,..,{d}$ is the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$. Its signature is given by (see for example [@bib:FV2010 Chapter 6]) $$\begin{aligned}
S(X)_{0,1} = \exp( {t_n x_{i_n}} ) \cdot \ldots \cdot \exp( t_1 x_{i_1} ) =: \phi(t_1, \dots, t_n),
\end{aligned}$$ where the exponential function is defined by its power series. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt_n} \dots \frac{d}{dt_1} \phi(0,\dots,0) = x_{i_n} \cdot \ldots \cdot x_{i_1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with the fact that left hand side of is a closed set we get that $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i_n} \cdot \ldots \cdot x_{i_1}
\in
{\operatorname{span}}\{ \pi_n( S(X) _{0,1} ) : X \text{ curve } \}.
\end{aligned}$$
These elements span $\pi_n {T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$, which finishes the proof.
Hence, $\phi$ is a $GL$ invariant of weight $w$ in the sense of Definition \[def:invariant\] if and only if for all $A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ $$\begin{aligned}
A^\top \phi = (\det A)^w \phi.\end{aligned}$$
Since the action respects homogeneity, we immediately obtain that projections of invariants are invariants (take $B = (\det A)^{-w} A^\top$ in the following lemma):
\[lem:projectionIsInvariant\] If $\phi \in {T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
B \phi = \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for some $B \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ then $$\begin{aligned}
B \pi_n \phi = \pi_n \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $n \ge 1$.
By definition, the action of $GL$ on ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ commutes with $\pi_n$.
In order to apply classical results in invariant theory, we use the bijection ${\mathsf{poly}}$ between multilinear functions and non-commuting polynomials, given in Lemma \[lem:oneToOne\].
\[lem:multi\] For $\psi: ({\mathbb{R}}^d)^{\times n} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ multilinear and $A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{poly}}[ \psi( A \cdot ) ] = A^\top {\mathsf{poly}}[ \psi ].
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{poly}}[ \psi( A \cdot ) ]
&=
\sum_i \psi( A e_{i_1}, .. A e_{i_n} ) x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n} \\
&=
\sum_{i,j} A_{j_1 i_1} .. A_{j_n i_n} \psi( e_{j_1}, .. e_{j_n} ) x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n} \\
&=
\sum_{j} \psi( e_{j_1}, .. e_{j_n} ) A^\top x_{j_1} .. x_{j_n} \\
&=
A^\top B \psi.
\end{aligned}$$
The simplest multilinear function $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi: ({\mathbb{R}}^d)^{\times n} \to {\mathbb{R}},\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $\Psi( A v_1, .., A v_n ) = \det( A ) \Psi(v_1, .., v_n)$ that one can maybe think of, is the determinant itself. That is, $n={d}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(v_1,..,v_n) = \det[ v_1 v_2 .. v_n ],\end{aligned}$$ where $v_1 v_2 .. v_n$ is the $d \times d$ matrix with columns $v_i$. Up to a scalar this is in fact the only one, and it turns out that invariants of higher weight are built only using determinants as a building block.
To state the following classical result, we introduce the notion of Young diagrams, which play an important role in the representation theory of the symmetric group.
Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1, .., \lambda_r)$ be a partition of $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, which we assume ordered as $\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge .. \ge \lambda_r$. We associate to it a **Young diagram**, which is an arrangement of $n$ boxes into left-justified rows. There are $r$ rows, with $\lambda_i$ boxes in the $i$-th row. For example, the partition $(4,2,1)$ of $7$ gives the Young diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{ytableau}
\ & \ & \ & \ \\
\ & \ \\
\
\end{ytableau}\end{aligned}$$
A **Young tableau** is obtained by filling these boxes with the numbers $1, .., n$. Continuing the example, the following is a Young tableau $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{ytableau}
2 & 3 & 7 & 1 \\
5 & 4 \\
6
\end{ytableau}\end{aligned}$$
A Young tableau is **standard** if the values in every row are increasing (from left to right) and are increasing in every column (from top to bottom). The previous tableau was not standard; the following is. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{ytableau}
1 & 3 & 5 & 7 \\
5 & 4 \\
6
\end{ytableau}\end{aligned}$$
The following result is classical, see for example Dieudonné [@bib:DC1970 Section 2.5], [@bib:Wey1946] and [@bib:Gar1975], none of which explicitly give a basis for the invariants though.
\[thm:linearBasis\]
The space of multilinear maps $$\begin{aligned}
\psi: \underbrace{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times \dots \times {\mathbb{R}}^{d}}_{n \text{ times}} \to {\mathbb{R}}\end{aligned}$$ that satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(A v_1, A v_2, \dots, A v_n) = (\det A)^w \psi(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in \operatorname{GL}(V)$ and $v_1, \dots, v_n \in V$ is non-empty if and only if $n = w d$ for some integer $w \ge 1$.
In that case, a linear basis is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{ v \mapsto \det[ v_{C_1} ] .. \det[ v_{C_w} ] \}
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i$ are the columns of $\Sigma$, and $\Sigma$ ranges over all standard Young tableaux corresponding to the partition $\lambda = \underbrace{(w, w, .., w)}_{d \text{ times}}$ of $n$.
Here, for a sequence $C = (c_1,..,c_{d})$, $v_C$ denotes the matrix of column vectors $v_{c_i}$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
v_C = (v_{c_1}, .., v_{c_{d}}).
\end{aligned}$$
A consequence of this theorem, is the existence of identities between products of determinants. For example, for vectors $v_1, .., v_4 \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, one can check by hand $$\begin{aligned}
\det[ v_1 v_4 ] \det[ v_2 v_3]
=
\det[ v_1 v_3 ] \det[ v_2 v_4]
-
\det[ v_1 v_2 ] \det[ v_3 v_4].
\end{aligned}$$ This is why the product on the left-hand side here is not part of the basis in the previous lemma for $d=2, w=2$ (compare Section \[sec:explicit\]).
Identities of this type are called *Plücker identities*. They have a long history and are a major ingredient in the representation theory of the symmetric group. The procedure of reducing certain products of determinants to a basic set of such products is called the *straightening algorithm* [@bib:Sag2013 Section 2.6]. See also [@bib:Lec1993] and [@bib:SW1989].
The only invariant for $d=2, w=1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1 = [x_1,x_2],
\end{aligned}$$ a Lie polynomial. One can generally ask for invariant Lie polynomials [@bib:Reu1993 Section 8.6.2]. This seems to be of no relevance to the application of invariant feature extraction for curves though.
Write $V = ({\mathbb{R}}^{d})^*$, the dual space of ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$. Every $\phi \in V^{\otimes n}$ that satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:x}
A \phi = (\det A)^w \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ clearly spans a one-dimensional irreducible representation of $GL(V)$. Hence, we need to investigate all one-dimensional irreducible representation of $GL(V)$ contained in $V^{\otimes n}$ (and it will turn out that all of them satisfy ).
The (diagonal) action of $GL(V)$ on $V^{\otimes n}$ is best understood, by simultaneously studying the left action of $S_n$ on $V^{\otimes n}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \cdot v_1 \otimes .. \otimes v_n
:=
v_{\tau^{-1}(1)} \otimes .. \otimes v_{\tau^{-1}(n)}.
\end{aligned}$$
By Schur-Weyl duality, [@bib:Lan2012 Theorem 6.4.5.2], as $S_n \times GL(V)$ modules, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:schurWeyl}
V^{\otimes n} \simeq \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash n} S^\lambda \otimes V^\lambda,
\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over integer partitions $\lambda$ of $n$, the $S^\lambda$ are irreducible representations of $S_n$, to be detailed below and the $V^\lambda$ are irreducible representations of $GL(V)$. The exact form of the latter is irrelevant here, we only need to know that $V^\lambda$ is one-dimensional if and only if $\lambda = (w,..,w)$, $d$-times, for some integer $w \ge 1$, [@bib:DC1970 p.21]. This gives the condition $n = w d$ in the statement. We assume this to hold from now on.
We are hence left with understanding the unique copy of the “Specht module” $S^\lambda$ inside of $V^{\otimes n}$. We sketch its classical construction. Let us recall that a **tabloid** is an equivalence class of Young tableaux modulo permutations leaving the set of entries in each row invariant [@bib:Sag2013 Chapter 2]. [^8] For $t$ a Young tableau denote $\{ t \}$ its tabloid, so for example $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{ytableau}
1 & 3 \\
2 & 4
\end{ytableau}
\right\}
=
\left\{
\begin{ytableau}
1 & 3 \\
4 & 2
\end{ytableau}
\right\}
=
\left\{
\begin{ytableau}
3 & 1 \\
2 & 4
\end{ytableau}
\right\}
=
\left\{
\begin{ytableau}
3 & 1 \\
4 & 2
\end{ytableau}
\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
The symmetric group $S_n$ acts on Young tableaux as $$\begin{aligned}
(\tau \cdot t)_{ij} := \tau( t_{ij} ).
\end{aligned}$$ For example $$\begin{aligned}
(234) \cdot
\begin{ytableau}
2 & 4 \\
1 & 3
\end{ytableau}
=
\begin{ytableau}
3 & 2 \\
1 & 4
\end{ytableau}
\end{aligned}$$ It then acts on tabloids by $\tau \cdot \{t\} := \{ \tau \cdot t \}$. Define for a Young tableau $t$ $$\begin{aligned}
e_t := \sum_{\pi} {\operatorname{sign}}(\pi) \pi \cdot \{ t \},
\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all $\pi \in S_n$ that leave the set of values in each *column* invariant. For example with $$\begin{aligned}
t =
\begin{ytableau}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 4
\end{ytableau}
\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
e_t
=
\{ t \}
+
(1 3) \cdot \{ t \}
+
(2 4) \cdot \{ t \}
+
(1 3) (2 4) \cdot \{t\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Irrep}_{(w,..,w)}
:= \operatorname{span}\{ e_t : t \text{ Young tableau of shape } (w,..,w) \}
\end{aligned}$$ is an irreducible representation of $S_n$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\{ e_t : t \text{ standard Young tableau of shape $(w,..,w)$} \},
\end{aligned}$$ forms a basis [@bib:Sag2013 Theorem 2.5.2]. This concludes the reminder on representation theory for $S_n$.
Define the map $\iota$ from the space of tabloids of shape $(w,..,w)$ into $V^{\otimes n}$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\iota( \{ t \} )
:=
e_{j_1}^* \otimes .. \otimes e_{j_n}^*,
\end{aligned}$$ where $e_i^*$ is the canonical basis of $V$ and $$\begin{aligned}
j_\ell = i \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad \ell \in \text{ $i$-th row of } \{ t \}.
\end{aligned}$$ For example $$\begin{aligned}
\iota\left(
\left\{
\begin{ytableau}
1 & 2 & 5\\
3 & 4 & 6
\end{ytableau}
\right\}
\right)
=
e_1^* \otimes e_1^* \otimes e_2^* \otimes e_2^* \otimes e_1^* \otimes e_2^*.
\end{aligned}$$ This is a homomorphism of $S_n$ representations. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\iota( \tau \cdot \{t\} )
=
e_{j_1}^* \otimes .. \otimes e_{j_n}^*,
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
j_\ell = i &\Leftrightarrow \ell \in \text{ $i$-th row of } \tau \cdot \{t\}. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \cdot \iota( \{t\} )
&=
\tau \cdot e_{r_1}^* \otimes .. \otimes e_{r_n}^* \\
&=
e_{p_1}^* \otimes .. \otimes e_{p_n}^*,
\end{aligned}$$ with $p_\ell := r_{\tau^{-1}(\ell)}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
p_\ell = i &\Leftrightarrow r_{\tau^{-1}(\ell)} = i \\
&\Leftrightarrow \tau^{-1}(\ell) \in \text{ $i$-th row of } \{t\} \\
&\Leftrightarrow \ell \in \text{ $i$-th row of } \tau \cdot \{t\}.
\end{aligned}$$ So indeed $\iota( \tau \cdot \{t\} ) = \tau \cdot \iota \{t\} )$, and $\iota$ is a homomorphism of $S_n$ representations. It is a bijection from the space of $(w,..,w)$ tabloids into the space spanned by the vectors $$\begin{aligned}
e_{i_1} \otimes .. \otimes e_{i_n} : \#\{ \ell : i_\ell = j \} = w, \quad j = 1, .., {d}.
\end{aligned}$$ Restricting to $\operatorname{Irrep}_{(w,..,w)}$ then yields an isomorphism of irreducible $S_n$ representations. Hence, $\iota( \operatorname{Irrep}_{(w,..,w)} )$ is the (unique) realization of $S^\lambda$ inside of $V^{\otimes n}$ in . We finish by describing its image.
Consider the standard Young tableau $t_{first}$ of shape $(w,w,..,w)$ obtained by filling the columns from left to right, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
t_{first}
:=
\raisebox{40pt}[80pt][80pt]{
\ytableausetup{mathmode, boxsize=3em}
\begin{ytableau}
1 & {d}+ 1 & ..& .. & .. \\
2 & {d}+ 2 & ..& .. & .. \\
.. & .. & ..& .. & .. \\
{d}& 2 {d}& ..& .. & n
\end{ytableau}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, for any (standard) Young tableau $t$ there exists unique $\sigma_t \in S_n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_t \cdot t_{first} = t.
\end{aligned}$$
We claim $$\begin{aligned}
\iota( e_t )
=
\Bigl( v \mapsto \det[ v_{\sigma_t(1)} .. v_{\sigma_t({d})} ] \cdot ... \cdot \det[ v_{\sigma_t((w-1){d}+ 1)} .. v_{\sigma_t(n)}] \Bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, since $\iota$ is a homomorphism of $S_n$ representation, $$\begin{aligned}
\iota( \sigma_t \cdot e_{t_{first}} )(v_1,..,v_n)
&=
\iota( e_{t_{first}} )(v_{\sigma_t(1)},..,v_{\sigma_t(n)})
\end{aligned}$$ It remains to check $$\begin{aligned}
\iota( e_{t_{first}} ) = \det[v_1..v_{d}] ..\det[v_{(w-1){d}+1} .. v_n].
\end{aligned}$$ Every $\pi \in S^n$ that is column-preserving for $t_{first}$ can be written as the product $\pi_1 \cdot .. \cdot \pi_w$, with $\pi_j$ ranging over the permutations of the entries of the $j$-th column $t_{first}$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\iota( e_{t_{first}} )(v_1,..,v_n)
&=
\sum_\pi {\operatorname{sign}}\pi\ \iota( \pi \{t\} )( v_1, .., v_n ) \\
&=
\sum_{\pi_j} \prod_j {\operatorname{sign}}\pi_j\ \iota( \pi_1 .. \pi_w \{t\} )( v_1, .., v_n ) \\
&=
\sum_{\pi_j} \prod_j {\operatorname{sign}}\pi_j\
e^*_{\pi^{-1}_1(1)} \otimes .. \otimes e^*_{\pi^{-1}_1(d)}
\otimes
e^*_{(\pi^{-1}_2(d+1) {\operatorname{mod}}d) + 1} \otimes\cdots
\\&\qquad\qquad\cdots \otimes e^*_{(\pi^{-1}_w(n) {\operatorname{mod}}d) + 1} (v_1,..,v_n) \\
&=
\det[v_1..v_{d}] ..\det[v_{(w-1)d+1} .. v_n],
\end{aligned}$$
as desired.
Applying Lemma \[lem:oneToOne\] to Theorem \[thm:linearBasis\] we get the invariants in ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$.
\[prop:glInvariants\] A linear basis for the space of $GL$ invariants of order $n = w {d}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n \in \{1,\dots,d\}} g_\Sigma(i_1,i_2,\dots,i_n) x_{i_1} x_{i_2} \dots x_{i_n},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g_\Sigma(v) = \det[ v_{C_1} ] .. \det[ v_{C_w} ],
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i$ are the columns of $\Sigma$, and $\Sigma$ ranges over all standard Young tableaux corresponding to the partition $\lambda = \underbrace{(w, w, .., w)}_{d \text{ times}}$ of $n$.
By Lemma \[lem:projectionIsInvariant\], for any invariant $\phi \in {T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ and $n\ge 1$ we have that $\pi_n \phi$ is also invariant. Hence the previous theorem characterizes *all* invariants we are interested in (Definition \[def:invariant\]), not just homogeneous ones.
\[rem:hyperplane\] Note that each of these invariants $\phi$ consists only of monomials that contain *every* variable $x_1, \dots, x_{d}$ at least once. This implies that $\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \rangle$ consists only of iterated integrals that contain every component $X^1,\dots,X^d$ of the curve at least once. Hence, if at least one of these components is constant, the whole expression will be zero.
Since $\phi$ is invariant, this implies that $\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \rangle = 0$ as soon as there is some coordinate transformation under which one component is constant, that is whenever the curve $X$ stays in a hyperplane of dimension strictly less then $d$.
One of the simplest curves in ${d}$ dimensions that does *not* lie in any in a hyperplane of lower dimension is the *moment curve* $$\begin{aligned}
t \mapsto (t,t^2,..,t^d).
\end{aligned}$$ We will come back to this example in Lemma \[lem:momentCurve\].
Examples {#sec:explicit}
--------
We will use the following short notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\word{i_1 \dots i_n} := x_{i_1} \cdot x_{i_2} \cdot .. \cdot x_{i_n}\end{aligned}$$ so, for example $$\begin{aligned}
\word{1121} := x_1 x_1 x_2 x_1.\end{aligned}$$
We present the invariants described in Section \[sec:signature\] for some special cases of ${d}$ and $w$.
**The case ${d}=2$** Level $2$ ($w=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\word{12} - \word{21} \end{aligned}$$
\[rem:interpretation\]
Let us make clear that from the perspective of data analysis, the “invariant” of interest is really the action of this element in ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ on the signature of a curve.
In this example, the real number $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle
=
\int_0^T \int^{r_2} dX^1_{r_1} dX^2_{r_2}
-
\int_0^T \int^{r_2} dX^1_{r_1} dX^2_{r_2},
\end{aligned}$$ changes only by the determinant of $A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ when calculating it for the transformed curve $A X$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(A X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle = \det(A)\ \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
Level $4$ ($w=2$) $$\begin{aligned}
& \word{1212} - \word{1221} - \word{2112} + \word{2121} \\
& \word{1122} - \word{1221} - \word{2112} + \word{2211}\end{aligned}$$
\[rem:algebraicIndependence\] This is a *linear* basis of invariants in the fourth level. If one takes *algebraic* dependencies into consideration, the set of invariants becomes smaller. To be specific, assume that one already has knowledge of the invariant of level $2$ (i.e. $\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \rangle$). If, say in a machine learning application, the learning algorithm can deal sufficiently well with nonlinearities, one should not be required to provide additionally the square of this number. In other words $|\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \rangle|^2$ can also be assumed to be “known”. But, by the shuffle identity (Lemma \[lem:shuffleIdentity\]), this can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \rangle|^2&=\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle \cdot
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle
\\&=
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, (\word{12} - \word{21}) \shuffle (\word{12} - \word{21}) \Big\rangle \\
&=
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, 4\cdot \word{1122} - 4\cdot \word{1221} - 4\cdot \word{2112} + 4\cdot \word{2211} \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, given $\phi = 4\cdot \word{1122} - 4\cdot \word{1221} - 4\cdot \word{2112} + 4\cdot \word{2211}$ there is only one “new” independent invariant in the fourth level, namely $\word{1212} - \word{1221} - \word{2112} + \word{2121}$.
A similar analysis can also be carried out for the following invariants, but we refrain from doing so, since it can be easily done with a computer algebra system.
Level $6$ ($w=3$) $$\begin{aligned}
& \word{121212} - \word{121221} - \word{122112} + \word{122121} - \word{211212} + \word{211221} + \word{212112} - \word{212121} \\
& \word{112212} - \word{112221} - \word{122112} + \word{122121} - \word{211212} + \word{211221} + \word{221112} - \word{221121} \\
& \word{121122} - \word{121221} - \word{122112} + \word{122211} - \word{211122} + \word{211221} + \word{212112} - \word{212211} \\
& \word{112122} - \word{112221} - \word{122112} + \word{122211} - \word{211122} + \word{211221} + \word{221112} - \word{221211} \\
& \word{111222} - \word{112221} - \word{121212} + \word{122211} - \word{211122} + \word{212121} + \word{221112} - \word{222111}\end{aligned}$$
**The case ${d}=3$**
Level $3$ ($w=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\word{123} - \word{132} - \word{213} + \word{231} + \word{312} - \word{321}\end{aligned}$$
Level $6$ ($w=2$)
$$\begin{aligned}
& \word{123123} - \word{312132} + \word{312312} + \word{213132} - \word{213231} - \word{213123} + \word{321213} - \word{312321} - \word{132231} - \word{132123} \\
&\quad - \word{321231} + \word{321132} + \word{132321} + \word{132213} + \word{231231} + \word{321321} + \word{213321} + \word{123231} + \word{231123} - \word{312213}\\
&\quad - \word{321123} - \word{231132} + \word{213213} + \word{132132} + \word{312231} - \word{213312} - \word{231321} - \word{132312} - \word{123213} - \word{321312}\\
&\quad + \word{312123} - \word{231213} + \word{231312} - \word{123321} + \word{123312} - \word{123132} \\
& \word{211332} - \word{121332} + \word{212313} - \word{132231} - \word{313221} + \word{122331} - \word{211323} + \word{321132} + \word{132213} - \word{233121}\\
&\quad + \word{323121} - \word{122313} + \word{213321} + \word{231123} - \word{312213} + \word{121323} - \word{321123} - \word{212331} - \word{231132} + \word{133221}\\
&\quad - \word{131223} + \word{312231} + \word{233112} - \word{323112} - \word{311232} - \word{213312} + \word{313212} - \word{133212} + \word{131232} + \word{311223}\\
&\quad - \word{232113} + \word{322113} - \word{123321} - \word{322131} + \word{123312} + \word{232131} \\
& \word{112323} + \word{312132} + \word{332121} - \word{213132} + \word{211332} + \word{213123} - \word{321213} + \word{113232} - \word{331221} + \word{122331}\\
&\quad - \word{211323} + \word{321231} + \word{223131} - \word{332112} - \word{132321} - \word{233121} + \word{331212} - \word{122313} - \word{123231} - \word{223113}\\
&\quad + \word{133221} + \word{233112} - \word{311232} - \word{133212} - \word{221331} + \word{231321} + \word{132312} + \word{123213} - \word{312123} + \word{221313}\\
&\quad + \word{311223} - \word{231312} + \word{322113} - \word{322131} - \word{113223} - \word{112332} \\
& - \word{213132} + \word{211332} + \word{213231} - \word{133122} - \word{121332} - \word{321213} + \word{312321} + \word{212133} - \word{313221} + \word{122331}\\
&\quad + \word{132123} + \word{131322} + \word{232311} - \word{322311} - \word{132321} - \word{311322} - \word{123231} + \word{323211} - \word{212331} + \word{133221}\\
&\quad - \word{122133} - \word{131223} - \word{211233} + \word{233112} + \word{313122} - \word{233211} - \word{323112} + \word{321312} - \word{312123} + \word{231213}\\
&\quad + \word{311223} + \word{121233} - \word{231312} - \word{232113} + \word{322113} + \word{123132} \\
& \word{123123} + \word{312312} + \word{112233} + \word{211332} - \word{133122} - \word{132231} - \word{331221} + \word{122331} - \word{332112} - \word{322311}\\
&\quad + \word{231231} + \word{321321} + \word{332211} - \word{311322} - \word{312213} + \word{331122} - \word{223113} - \word{321123} - \word{231132} + \word{213213}\\
&\quad + \word{133221} + \word{132132} - \word{122133} - \word{211233} + \word{233112} - \word{233211} - \word{213312} - \word{221331} + \word{221133} + \word{311223}\\
&\quad + \word{223311} + \word{322113} - \word{123321} - \word{113223} + \word{113322} - \word{112332}\end{aligned}$$
**The case ${d}=4$**
Level $4$ ($w=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\word{1234} - \word{1243} - \word{1324} + \word{1342} + \word{1423} - \word{1432} - \word{2134} + \word{2143}\\&\qquad + \word{2314} - \word{2341} - \word{2413} + \word{2431} + \word{3124}
- \word{3142} - \word{3214} + \word{3241} \\&\qquad+ \word{3412} - \word{3421} - \word{4123} + \word{4132} + \word{4213} - \word{4231} - \word{4312} + \word{4321}\end{aligned}$$
The invariant of weight one, in dimension two {#sec:d2w1}
---------------------------------------------
**Geometric interpretation**\
The invariant for ${d}=2,w=1$, namely $\phi = x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1$ has a simple geometric interpretation: it picks out (two times)[^9] the area (signed, and with multiplicity) between the curve $X$ and the cord spanned between its starting and endpoint (compare Figure \[fig:area\]).
plot \[smooth, tension=0.8\] coordinates[(2,0)(0,2)(-3,2)(-7,-1)(-8,1)]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=0.8\] coordinates[(2,0)(0,2)(-3,2)(-7,-1)(-8,1)]{}; (2,0) – (-8,1); at (-1.5,1.4) [$+$]{}; at (-7,0.1) [$-$]{}; at (-1,2.7) [$X$]{};
For (smooth) non-intersecting curves, this follows from Green’s theorem [@bib:Rud1964 Theorem 10.33]. For self-intersecting curves, the mathematically most convenient definition of “signed area” is the integral (in the plane) of its winding number. The claimed relation to the invariant $\phi$ is for example proven in [@bib:LY2006 Proposition 1].
**Connection to correlation**\
Assume that $X$ is a continuous curve, piecewise linear between some time points $t_i,\ i=0,\dots,n$.[^10] The area is then explicitly calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T \int_0^r d X^1_u dX^2_r - \int_0^T \int_0^r dX^2_u dX^1_r \\
&\qquad=
\int_0^T \left( X^1_r - X^1_0 \right) dX^2_r - \int_0^T \left( X^2_r - X^2_0 \right) dX^1_r \\
&\qquad=
\frac12 \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left( X^1_{t_{i+1}} - X^1_{t_0} + X^1_{t_i} - X^1_{t_0} \right) \left(X^2_{t_{i+1}} - X^2_{t_i} \right)
\\&\qquad\qquad-
\frac12 \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left( X^2_{t_{i+1}} - X^2_{t_0} + X^2_{t_i} - X^2_{t_0} \right) \left(X^1_{t_{i+1}} - X^1_{t_i} \right) \\
&\qquad=
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} X^1_{t_i} \left[ X^2_{t_{i+1}} - X^2_{t_0} \right] - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left[ X^1_{t_{i+1}} - X^1_{t_0} \right] X^2_{t_i}
\\
&\qquad=
\operatorname{Corr}(X^2-X^2_{t_0},X^1)_1 - \operatorname{Corr}(X^1-X^1_{t_0},X^2)_1
$$ Here, for two vectors $a,b$ of length $n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Corr}(a,b)_1 := \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a_{i+1} b_i,\end{aligned}$$ the lag-one cross-correlation, which is a commonly used feature in data analysis, see for example [@bib:PTVF2007 Chapter 13.2]. In particular, if the curve starts at $0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T \int_0^r d X^1_u dX^2_r - \int_0^T \int_0^r dX^2_u dX^1_r
=
\operatorname{Corr}(X^2,X^1)_1 - \operatorname{Corr}(X^1,X^2)_1,\end{aligned}$$ which is an antisymmetrized version of the lag-one cross-correlation.
Note that it is immediate that the antisymmetrized version of the lag $\tau$ cross-correlation, $\tau \ge 2$ are also $GL({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ invariants of the curve. Where they can be found in the signature $S(X)$ is unknown to us.
The invariant of weight one, in any dimension {#sec:dXw1}
---------------------------------------------
Whatever the dimension ${d}$ of the curve’s ambient space, the space of invariants of weight $1$ has dimension $1$ and is spanned by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstInvariant}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} :=
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}(x_1,..,x_{d}) :=
\sum_{\sigma \in S_{d}}
{\operatorname{sign}}(\sigma)\
x_{\sigma(1)} .. x_{\sigma(d)}
=
\det
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & .. & x_{d}\\
.. & .. & .. \\
x_1 & .. & x_{d}\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
Here, for a matrix $C$ of non-commuting variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\det C := \sum_\tau {\operatorname{sign}}\tau \prod_i C_{i \tau(i)}.\end{aligned}$$
This invariant is of homogeneity ${d}$. The following lemma tells us that we can write ${\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}$ in terms of expressions on lower homogeneities.
To state it, we first define the operation ${\mathsf{InsertAfter}}(x_i,r)$ on monomials of order $n \ge r$, as the insertion of the variable $x_i$ after position $r$, and extend it linearly. For example $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{InsertAfter}}(x_1,1) {\operatorname{Inv}_{2}}(x_2,x_3)
&=
{\mathsf{InsertAfter}}(x_1,1) \Big( x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2 \Big) \\
&=
x_2 x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1 x_2.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:dxw1\]
In any dimension ${d}$ and for any $r=0,1,..,{d}-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}(x_1,..,x_{d})
=
(-1)^{r}
\sum_{j=1}^{{d}}
(-1)^{j+1} {\mathsf{InsertAfter}}(x_j,r) {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}( x_1, .., \widehat{x_j} .., x_{d}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{x_j}$ denotes the omission of that argument.
For ${d}$ odd, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}(x_1,..,x_{d})
&=
\sum_{j=1}^{d}(-1)^{j+1}
x_j \shuffle {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}( x_1, .., \widehat{x_j} .., x_{d}).
\end{aligned}$$
For completeness, we also note the related *de Bruijn’s formula*. For ${d}$ even, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}(x_1,..,x_{d})
=
\operatorname{Pf}_\shuffle[ A ],
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}
=
{\operatorname{Inv}_{2}}(x_i,x_j),
\end{aligned}$$ and the Pfaffian (with respect to the shuffle product), is $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Pf}_\shuffle[ A ]
=
\frac{1}{2^{{d}/2} ({d}/2)!}
\sum_{\sigma \in S_{{d}}} {\operatorname{sign}}(\sigma)
A_{\sigma(1),\sigma(2)}
\shuffle
A_{\sigma(3),\sigma(4)}
\shuffle
..
\shuffle
A_{\sigma({d}-1),\sigma({d})}.
\end{aligned}$$
For a proof see [@bib:DB1955] and [@bib:LT2002].
The first statement follows from expressing the determinant in \[eq:firstInvariant\] in terms of minors with respect to the row $r+1$ (since the $x_i$ are non-commuting, this does not work with columns!).
We demonstrate the proof for the second statement on the case ${d}=3$. Applying the first statement, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{3}}
&=
x_1 (x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2)
-
x_2 (x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1)
+
x_3 (x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1) \\
&=
-
\left(
x_2 x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1 x_2
-
(x_1 x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2 x_1)
+
x_1 x_3 x_2 - x_2 x_3 x_1 \right) \\
&=
(x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2) x_1
-
(x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1) x_2
+
(x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1) x_3.
\end{aligned}$$
Summing up and adding a $0$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
3 {\operatorname{Inv}_{3}}
&=
\left[
x_1 (x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2)
-
x_2 (x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1)
+
x_3 (x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1) \right] \\
&\quad
+
\left[
x_2 x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1 x_2
-
(x_1 x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2 x_1)
+
x_1 x_3 x_2 - x_2 x_3 x_1 \right] \\
&\quad
+
\left[
(x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2) x_1
-
(x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1) x_2
+
(x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1) x_3 \right]\\
&\quad-
2
\left[
x_2 x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1 x_2
-
(x_1 x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2 x_1)
+
x_1 x_3 x_2 - x_2 x_3 x_1 \right] \\
&=
x_1 \shuffle (x_2 x_3 - x_3 x_2)
-
x_2 \shuffle (x_1 x_3 - x_3 x_1)
+
x_3 \shuffle (x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1)
-
2 {\operatorname{Inv}_{3}},
\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows.
An immediate consequence is the following lemma.
\[lem:closedCurveOddDimension\] If the ambient dimension ${d}$ is odd and the curve $X$ is closed (i.e. $X_T = X_0$) then $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lem:dxw1\] and then by the shuffle identity (Lemma \[lem:shuffleIdentity\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
&=
\sum_{j=1}^d
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T},
(-1)^{j+1}
x_j \shuffle {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}( x_1, .., \widehat{x_j} .., x_{d}) \Big\rangle \\
&=
\sum_{j=1}^d
(-1)^{j+1}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_j \Big\rangle
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}( x_1, .., \widehat{x_j} .., x_{d}) \Big\rangle \\
&= 0,
\end{aligned}$$ since the increment $\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, x_j \Big\rangle = X^j_T - X^j_0$ is zero for all $j$.
In even dimension we have the phenomenon that closing a curve does not change the value of the invariant.
\[lem:lastPoint\] If the ambient dimension ${d}$ is even, then for any curve $X$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
=
\Big\langle S(\bar X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar X$ is $X$ concatenated with the straight line connecting $X_T$ to $X_0$.
Let $\bar X$ be parametrized on $[0,2T]$ as follows: $\bar X = X$ on $[0,T]$ and it is the linear path connecting $X_T$ to $X_0$ on $[T,2T]$. By translation invariance we can assume $X_0 = 0$ and by $GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$-invariance that $X_T$ lies on the $x_1$ axis. Then the only component of $\bar X$ that is non-constant on $[2T,T]$ is the first one, $\bar X^1$.
By Lemma \[lem:dxw1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}
=
-
\sum_{j=1}^{d}(-1)^{j+1}
{\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_1, .., \hat x_j, .. x_d) x_j.
\end{aligned}$$ Letting the summands act on $S(\bar X)_{0,t}$ we get $\pm 1$ times $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \Big\langle S(\bar X)_{0,r} {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_1, .., \hat x_j, .. x_d) \Big\rangle d\bar X^j_r.
\end{aligned}$$ For $j\not=1$ these expressions are constant on $[T,2T]$, since we arranged things so that those $\bar X^j$ do not move on $[T,2T]$. But also for $j=1$ this expression is constant on $[T,2T]$. Indeed, the integrand $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(\bar X)_{0,r} {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_2, x_3, .., x_d) \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ is zero on $[T,2T]$, since $X$, projected on the $x_2-..-x_d$ hyperplane, is a closed curve, and so Lemma \[lem:closedCurveOddDimension\] applies.
\[lem:invariantVolume\] Let $X$ be the piecewise linear curve through $p_0,..,p_{{d}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
=
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_0 & p_1 & .. & p_{{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]
\end{aligned}$$
First, for any $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_0 + v & p_1 + v & .. & p_{{d}} + v
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_0 & p_1 & .. & p_{{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Since the signature is also invariant to translation, we can therefore assume $p_0 = 0$. Now both sides of the statement transform the same way under the action of $GL({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ on the points $p_1,..p_{d}$. It is then enough to prove this for $$\begin{aligned}
p_0 &= 0 \\
p_1 &= e_1 \\
p_2 &= e_1 + e_2 \\
&.. \\
p_{{d}} &= e_1 + .. + e_{d}.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, for this particular choice of points the right hand side is clearly equal to $1$. For the left hand side, the only non-zero term is $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \word{12} .. \word{d} \Big\rangle
&=
\int dX^1 .. dX^d \\
&= 1.
\end{aligned}$$
The modulus of the determinant $$\begin{aligned}
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
0 & p_1 & .. & p_{{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
p_1 & .. & p_{{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]\end{aligned}$$ gives the Lebesgue measure of the parallelepiped spanned by the vectors $p_1-p_0,..,p_{d}-p_0$. The polytope spanned by the points $p_0,p_1,..,p_{d}$ fits ${d}!$ times into that parallelepiped. We hence have the relation to classical volume as follows.
\[lem:relationToClassicalVolume\] Let $p_0,..,p_{{d}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
| \operatorname{Convex-Hull}(p_0,..,p_{d}) |
=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\left|\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_0 & p_1 & .. & p_{{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]\right|
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\] Let $X$ be the piecewise linear curve through, $p_0,..,p_n \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, with $n \ge {d}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:invDet}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
=
\sum_i
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_{i_0} & p_{i_1} & .. & p_{i_{{d}}}
\end{matrix}
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Here, for ${d}$ even, the subsequences $i$ are chosen as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
i_0 = 0
\end{aligned}$$ and $i_1,..,i_{{d}}$ ranges over all possible increasing subsequences of $1,2,..,n$ such that for $\ell$ odd: $i_\ell + 1 = i_{\ell+1}$
For ${d}$ odd, they are chosen as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
i_0 &= 0 \\
i_{{d}} &= n,
\end{aligned}$$ and $i_1,..,i_{{d}-1}$ ranges over all possible increasing subsequences of $1,2,..,n-1$ such that for $\ell$ odd: $i_\ell + 1 = i_{\ell+1}$
In both the odd and the even case, there are $$\begin{aligned}
\binom{\lfloor d/2 \rfloor + n - {d}- 1 }{ n - d -1 }
\end{aligned}$$ indices summed over.
For ${d}=2$, $n=5$ we get the subsequences $$\begin{aligned}
[0, 1, 2] \\
[0, 2, 3] \\
[0, 3, 4]
\end{aligned}$$
For ${d}=4$, $n=7$ we get the subsequences $$\begin{aligned}
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4] \\
[0, 1, 2, 4, 5] \\
[0, 1, 2, 5, 6] \\
[0, 2, 3, 4, 5] \\
[0, 2, 3, 5, 6] \\
[0, 3, 4, 5, 6]
\end{aligned}$$
For ${d}=5$, $n=8$ we get the subsequences $$\begin{aligned}
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7] \\
[0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7] \\
[0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7] \\
[0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7] \\
[0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7] \\
[0, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
\end{aligned}$$
**The case ${d}=2$**\
Let $X$ be the curve through the points $p_0,p_1,..,p_n$, we can write it as concatenation of the curves $X^{(i)}$ where $X^{(i)}$ is the curve through the points $p_0 p_i, p_{i+1}, p_0$. The interval of definition for these curves (and all curves in this proof) do not matter, so we omit the subscript of $S(.)$. Then, by Chen’s lemma (Lemma \[lem:chen\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X), \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle
&=
\Big\langle S(X^{(n-1)}) \cdot .. \cdot S(X^{(1)}), \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle \\
&=
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Big\langle S(X^{(i)}), \word{12} - \word{21} \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ For the last equality we used that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle g h, \word{12} - \word{21}\Big\rangle
=
\Big\langle g, \word{12} - \word{21}\Big\rangle
+
\Big\langle h, \word{12} - \word{21}\Big\rangle
+
\Big\langle g, \word{1} \Big\rangle \Big\langle h, \word{2} \Big\rangle
-
\Big\langle g, \word{2} \Big\rangle \Big\langle h, \word{1} \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ and that the increments of all curves $X^{(i)}$ are zero. Now by Lemma \[lem:lastPoint\] we can omit the last straight line in every $X^{(i)}$ and hence by Lemma \[lem:invariantVolume\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle S(X^{(i)}), \word{12} - \word{21} \rangle
=
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 1 \\
p_{0} & p_{i} & p_{i+1}
\end{matrix}
\right],
\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof for ${d}=2$.
\
Now assume the statement is true for all dimensions strictly smaller than some ${d}$. We show it is true for ${d}$.
**${d}$ is odd**\
As before we can assume $p_0 = 0$ and that $p_n$ lies on the $x_1$ axis. Every sequence summed over on the right-hand side of is of the form $i = (0,...,n)$. For each of those, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 \\
p_{i_0} & p_{i_1} & .. & p_{i_{{d}-1}} & p_{i_{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 \\
0 & p_{i_1} & .. & p_{i_{{d}-1}} & \Delta \cdot e_1
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\Delta \cdot
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
0 & \bar p_{i_1} & .. & \bar p_{i_{{d}-1}}
\end{matrix}
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bar p_j \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{d}-1}$ is obtained by deleting the first coordinate of $p_j$, $e_1$ is the first canonical coordinate vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ and $\Delta := (p_0 - p_n)_1 = \langle S(X), x_1 \rangle$ is the total increment of $X$ in the $x_1$ direction. Here we used that ${d}$ is odd (otherwise we would get a prefactor $-1$).
This is the expression for the summands of the right-hand side of , with dimension ${d}-1$ and points $0 = \bar p_0, \bar p_1, .., \bar p_{n-1}$. By assumption, summing up all these determinants gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \cdot \Big\langle S(\bar X), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}} \Big\rangle
=
\Big\langle S(X), x_1 \Big\rangle \Big\langle S(\bar X), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}} \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar X$ is the curve in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{d}-1}$ through the points $\bar p_0, .. \bar p_{n-1}$. Since $\bar p_n = \bar p_0 = 0$, we can attach the additional point $\bar p_n$ to $\bar X$ without changing the value here (Lemma \[lem:lastPoint\]). Hence the sum of determinants is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X), x_1 \Big\rangle \Big\langle S(X), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_2,..,x_{d}) \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:dxw1\] this is equal to $\langle S(X), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \rangle$, which finishes the proof for odd ${d}$.
\
**${d}$ is even**
We proceed by induction on $n$. For $n={d}$ the statement follows from Lemma \[lem:invariantVolume\].
Let it be true for some $n$. Write $X = X'' \sqcup X'$ where $X'$ is the linear interpolation of $p_0, .., p_n$, $X''$ is the linear path from $p_n$ to $p_{n+1}$ and we recall concatenation $\sqcup$ of paths from Lemma \[lem:chen\]. Adding an additional point $p_{n+1}$, the sum on the right hand side of gets additional indices of the form $$\begin{aligned}
(p_{j_0}, .., p_{j_{d-1}}, p_{n+1}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
j_0 &= 0 \\
j_{{d}-1} &= n,
\end{aligned}$$ and $j_1,..,j_{{d}-2}$ ranges over all possible increasing subsequences of $1,2,..,n-1$ such that for $\ell$ odd $j_\ell + 1 = j_{\ell+1}$.
Assume $p_{n+1} - p_n = \Delta \cdot e_1$ lies on the $x_1$-axis. Then, summing over those $j$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & p_{j_1} & .. & p_{j_{{d}-2}} & p_{n} & p_{n+1}
\end{matrix}
\right]
&=
\sum_j
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
- p_n & p_{j_1} - p_n & .. & p_{j_{d-2}} - p_n & 0 & p_{n+1} - p_n
\end{matrix}
\right] \\
&=
\sum_j
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
- p_n & p_{j_1} - p_n & .. & p_{j_{d-2}} - p_n & 0 & \Delta \cdot e_1
\end{matrix}
\right] \\
&=
\Delta \cdot
\sum_j
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 \\
- \bar p_n & \bar p_{j_1} - \bar p_n & .. & \bar p_{j_{d-2}} - \bar p_n & 0
\end{matrix}
\right] \\
&=
\Delta \cdot
\sum_j
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 & 1 \\
0 & \bar p_{j_1} & .. & \bar p_{j_{d-2}} & \bar p_n
\end{matrix}
\right] \\
&=
\Delta
\cdot
\Big\langle S(X'), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_2, .., x_{d}) \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used that the indices $j$ range over the ones used in dimension ${d}-1$ on the points $\bar p_0, .., \bar p_n$.
On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
&=
\Big\langle S(X'') S(X'), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle \\
&=
\Big\langle S(X'), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
+
\Big\langle S(X''), x_1 \Big\rangle
\Big\langle S(X'), {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}-1}}(x_2, .., x_{d}) \Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used that $S(X'') = \exp( \Delta \cdot x_1 ) = 1 + \Delta \cdot x_1 + O(x_1^2)$ and that each monomial in ${\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}}$ has exactly one occurrence of $x_1$. This finishes the proof.
Let $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ be any curve. Define its **signed volume** to be the following limit, if it exists, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Signed-Volume}(X)
:=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\lim_{|\pi| \to 0}
\sum_i
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
X_{t^\pi_{i_0}} & X_{t^\pi_{i_1}} & .. & X_{t^\pi_{i_{d}}}
\end{matrix}
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\pi = (0=t^\pi_0, .., t^\pi_{n^\pi}=T)$ is a partition of the interval $[0,T]$ and $|\pi|$ denotes its mesh size. The indices $i$ are chosen as in Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\].
Let $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ a continuous curve of bounded variation. Then its signed volume exists and $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Signed-Volume}(X)
=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$
Fix some sequence $\{\pi^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, of partitions of $[0,T]$ with $|\pi^n| \to 0$ and interpolate $X$ linearly along each $\pi^n$ to obtain a sequence of linearly interpolated curves $X^n$. Then by Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\] $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Signed-Volume}(X^n)
=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\Big\langle S(X^n)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ By stability of the signature in the class of continuous curves of bounded variation ([@bib:FV2010 Proposition 1.28, Proposition 2.7]), we get convergence $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X^n)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
\to
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ and this is independent of the particular sequence $\pi^n$ chosen.
The previous theorem is almost a tautology, but there are relations to classical objects in geometry. For ${d}=2$, as we have seen in Section \[sec:d2w1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{2}} \Big\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ is equal to the signed area of the curve $X$. In general dimension, the value of the invariant is related to some kind of classical “volume” if the curve satisfies some kind of monotonicity. This is in particular satisfied for the “moment curve”.
\[lem:momentCurve\] Let $X$ be the moment curve $$\begin{aligned}
X_t = (t,t^2,...,t^{d}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $T > 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{{d}!} \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
=
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( X_{[0,T]} )|
\end{aligned}$$
It is easily verified that for integers $n_1 .. n_{d}$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n_1 \cdot .. \cdot n_{d}}
\int_0^T dt_1^{n_1} .. dt_{d}^{n_{d}}
=
\frac{1}{n_1}
\frac{1}{n_1+n_2}
..
\frac{1}{n_1+..+n_{d}}
T^{n_1+..+n_{d}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( X_{[0,T]} )|
=
T^{1+2+..+{d}}
\sum_{\sigma\in S_{d}} {\operatorname{sign}}\sigma
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)}
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)+\sigma(2)}
..
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)+..+\sigma({d})}.
\end{aligned}$$
In [@bib:KS1953 Section 15], the value of this volume is determined, for $T=1$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{\ell=1}^{d}\frac{(\ell-1)! (\ell-1)!}{((2\ell-1)!}.
\end{aligned}$$
We hence get the combinatorial identity $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{\ell=1}^{d}\frac{(\ell-1)! (\ell-1)!}{(2\ell-1)!}
=
\sum_{\sigma\in S_{d}}
{\operatorname{sign}}\sigma
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)}
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)+\sigma(2)}
..
\frac{1}{\sigma(1)+..+\sigma({d})}.
\end{aligned}$$
For $n\ge {d}$ let $0 = t_0 < .. < t_n \le T$ be time-points, let $p_i := X_{t_i}$ be the corresponding points on the moment curve and denote by $X^n$ the piecewise linear curve through those points. We will show $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{{d}!} \Big\langle S(X^n)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle
=
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( X^n_{[0,T]} )|.
\end{aligned}$$
The convex hull of the point $\{p_i\}$ (equivalently: the convex hull of $X^n$) is known as the *cyclic polytope* $C_{d}(n)$ [@bib:TOG2004 Section 15.5.1.4]. A *triangulation of a polytope* in dimension ${d}$ concerns its (disjoint, up to to measure zero) decomposition into simplices of dimension ${d}$ ([@bib:TOG2004 Chapter 16]). In particular $\{p_0, .., p_n \} = \cup_\ell S_\ell$ with $|S_\ell| = {d}+1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( p_0,..,p_n )|
=
\sum_\ell |\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( S_\ell )|.
\end{aligned}$$
We will show that the index sets summed over in Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\] form a certain kind of triangulation for $p_0,..,p_n$.
The *pulling triangulation* of $p_0,..,p_n$ with respect to $p_0$ is formed as follows: form all subset $p_0 \cup I$ where $I$ ranges over all ${d}$ points in $p_1,..,p_n$ such that they form a ${d}-1$-dimensional face (a facet) of the cyclic polytope. For any polytope, successively pulling each vertex results in a triangulation, see [@bib:TOG2004 Chapter 16]. For the polytope under consideration it is sufficient to pull one vertex, since all vertices lie on the boundary of the convex hull.
By Gale’s evenness criterion ([@bib:Gal1963 Theorem 3]) the points $p_{i_1}, .., p_{i_{d}}$, with distinct $i_j \in \{0,..,n\}$ form a facet if and only if any two elements of $\{0,..,n\} \setminus \{i_1, .., i_{d}\}$ are separated by an even number of elements in $\{i_1, .., i_{d}\}$. [^11]
**${d}$ odd**\
For the pulling triangulation, we are looking for such $\{i_j\}$ such that $i_1 \ge 1$. Those are exactly the indices with
- $i_{\ell+1} = i_\ell + 1$ for $\ell$ odd
- $i_{d}= n$.
Together with $i_0 := 0$ these form the indices of Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\].
**${d}$ even**\
We are looking for such $\{i_j\}$ such that $i_1 \ge 1$. Those are exactly the indices with
- $i_{\ell+1} = i_\ell + 1$ for $\ell$ odd.
Together with $i_0 := 0$ these form the indices of Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\].
Hence $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( X^n_{[0,T]} )|
=
\sum_i |\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( p_{i_0}, .., p_{i_{d}} )|.
\end{aligned}$$ Now by Lemma \[lem:relationToClassicalVolume\] $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( p_{i_0}, .., p_{i_{d}} )|
=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\left|
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_{i_0} & p_{i_1} & .. & p_{i_{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right]
\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ The determinant is in fact positive here, since it is a Vandermonde determinant and can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{0\le \ell < k \le n} ( t_{i_k} - t_{i_\ell} ) > 0.
\end{aligned}$$ We can hence omit the modulus and get $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Convex-Hull}( p_{i_0}, .., p_{i_{d}} )|
&=
\frac{1}{{d}!}
\det\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & .. & 1 \\
p_{i_0} & p_{i_1} & .. & p_{i_{d}}
\end{matrix}
\right] \\
&=
\Big\langle S(X^n)_{0,T}, {\operatorname{Inv}_{{d}}} \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lem:generalPiecewiseLinearCurve\].
The statement of the lemma now follows by piecewise linear approximation of $X$ using continuity of the convex hull, which follows from [@bib:EN2010 Lemma 3.2], and of iterated integrals [@bib:FV2010 Proposition 1.28, Proposition 2.7].
Rotations {#sec:so}
=========
Let $$\begin{aligned}
SO({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) = \{ A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) : A A^\top = \operatorname{id}, \det( A ) = 1 \},\end{aligned}$$ be the group of rotations of ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$.
We call $\phi \in T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ an **SO invariant** if $$\begin{aligned}
\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \rangle = \langle S(A X)_{0,T}, \phi \rangle
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in SO({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ and all curves $X$.
Alternatively, as explained in Section \[sec:gl\], $$\begin{aligned}
A^\top \phi = \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in SO({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, where the action on ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ was given in Definition \[def:action\].
Since $\det(X) = 1$, any $GL$ invariant of weight $w \ge 1$ (Section \[sec:gl\]) is automatically an $SO$ invariant. But there are $SO$ invariants that are not $GL$ invariants (of any weight), for example, for $d=2$, $\phi := x_1 x_1 + x_2 x_2$.
Switching to the perspective on multilinear maps, this is the map $(v_1,v_2) \mapsto \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle$. It is shown, see for example [[@bib:Wey1946 Theorem 2.9.A]]{}, that all invariants are built from the inner product and the determinant.
Recently, a linear basis for these invariants has been constructed. To formulate the result, we need to introduce some notation from [@bib:LK2007]. Define $$\begin{aligned}
I(r,n) := \{( i_1, .., i_r ) : 1 \le i_1 < .. < i_r \le n \}.\end{aligned}$$ Use the following partial order on these sequences: for $a \in I(r,n), b \in I(r',n)$ $$\begin{aligned}
a \ge b\end{aligned}$$ if $r \le r'$ and $a_j \ge a'_j$ for $j \le r$.
For $c \in I({d},n)$ and $v_1, .., v_n \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
u(c)( v_1,..,v_n ) := \text{ ${d}$-minor of the $m \times n$ matrix $(v_1,..,v_n)$, with columns given by $c$ }.\end{aligned}$$
For $a,b \in I(r,n) \times I(r,n)$ with $r \le {d}$ and $v_1,..,v_n \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
p(a,b)( v_1,..,v_n ) := \text{ $r$-minor of the matrix $\langle v_i, v_j \rangle$, rows given by $a$, columns given by $b$ } \end{aligned}$$
Let $V$ be a ${d}$-dimensional vector space with inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$. A basis for the space of multilinear maps $$\begin{aligned}
\psi: \underbrace{V \times \dots \times V}_{n \text{ times}} \to {\mathbb{R}}\end{aligned}$$ that satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(A v_1, A v_2, \dots, A v_n) = \psi(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in \operatorname{SO}(V)$ and $v_1, \dots, v_n \in V$ is given by the maps $$\begin{aligned}
F = p\left(a^{(1)},b^{(1)}\right) \cdot .. \cdot p\left(a^{(r)},b^{(r)}\right) u\left(c^{(1)}\right) \cdot .. \cdot u\left(c^{(s)}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ with $c^{(j)} \in I({d},n)$, $a^{(j)},b^{(j)} \in I(r,n), 1 \le r \le {d}-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
a^{(1)} \ge b^{(1)} \ge a^{(2)} \ge .. \ge b^{(r)} \ge c^{(1)} \ge .. \ge c^{(s)},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\cup_j a^{(j)} \bigcup \cup_j b^{(j)} \bigcup \cup_j c^{(j)} = \{1, .., n\},
\end{aligned}$$ is a *disjoint* union (that is, every number $1,..,n$ appears in exactly one of the sequences $a^{(j)},b^{(j)},c^{(j)}$). In particular $n = C_1 \cdot 2 + C_2 \cdot {d}$ for some $C_1,C_2 \in {\mathbb{N}}$.
${d}=2$
$n=1$: There is no such set of sequences.
$n=2$: Allowed sets of sequences are
- $c^{(1)} = (1,2)$\
$\leadsto F(v_1,v_2) = \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle$
- $a^{(1)} = (2), b^{(1)} = (1)$\
$\leadsto F(v_1,v_2) = \det[ v_1 v_2 ]$
$n=3$: There is no such set of sequences.
$n=4$: Allowed sets of sequences are
- $a^{(1)} = (4), b^{(1)} = (3), a^{(2)} = (2), b^{(2)} = (1)$\
$\leadsto F(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4) = \langle v_4, v_3 \rangle \langle v_2, v_1 \rangle$
- $a^{(1)} = (4), b^{(1)} = (3), c^{(1)} = (1,2)$\
$\leadsto F(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4) = \langle v_4, v_3 \rangle \det[ v_1 v_2 ]$
- $a^{(1)} = (4), b^{(1)} = (2), c^{(1)} = (1,3)$
- $a^{(1)} = (3), b^{(1)} = (2), c^{(1)} = (1,4)$
- $c^{(1)} = (3,4), c^{(2)} = (1,2)$
- $c^{(1)} = (2,4), c^{(2)} = (1,3)$
In the setting of ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ we have
\[prop:soInvariants\] The $SO$ invariants of homogeneity $n$ are spanned by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{poly}}( \Psi ),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi$ ranges over the invariants of the previous theorem and ${\mathsf{poly}}$ is given in Lemma \[lem:oneToOne\].
In the case ${d}=2$, there is another way to arrive at a basis for the invariants. Taking inspiration from [@bib:Flu2000], which concerns rotation invariants of images, we work in the complex vector space $T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$.
\[thm:soInvariants\] Define $$\begin{aligned}
z_1 &= x_1 + i x_2 \\
z_2 &= x_1 - i x_2.
\end{aligned}$$ The space of $SO$ invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ is spanned freely by $$\begin{aligned}
z = z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} \quad \text{ with } \quad \#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \}.
\end{aligned}$$
The space of $SO$ invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is spanned freely by $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Re}[ z ], \operatorname{Im}[ z ] \quad \text{ with } \quad \#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \} \text{ and } z_1 = 1.
\end{aligned}$$
In particular for ${d}=2$ and $n$ even, the dimension of rotation invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is equal to $\binom{n}{n/2}$.
1\. **$z$ is invariant**\
Let $$\begin{aligned}
A_\theta :=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) \\
-\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
Then (recall Definition \[def:action\]) $$\begin{aligned}
A_\theta^\top z_1
&=
A_\theta^\top (x_1 + i x_2) \\
&=
\cos(\theta) x_1 + \sin(\theta) x_2
+
i \left( -\sin(\theta) x_1 + \cos(\theta) x_2 \right) \\
&=
e^{-i\theta} z_1 \\
A_\theta^\top z_2 &= e^{i\theta} z_2.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
A_\theta^\top z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} = z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} \forall \theta
\quad
\text{ if and only }
\quad
\#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \}.
\end{aligned}$$
2\. **They form a basis**\
Now $x_{j_1} .. x_{j_n}: j_\ell \in \{1,2\}$ is a basis of $\pi_n T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ with respect to ${\mathbb{C}}$. Hence $z_{j_1} .. z_{j_n}$ is (the map $(x_1,x_2) \mapsto (z_1,z_2)$ is invertible). By Step 1 we have hence exhibited a basis (with respect to ${\mathbb{C}}$) for all invariants in $\pi_n T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$.
3\. **Real invariants**\
The space of $SO$ invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ is spanned freely by the set of $$\begin{aligned}
z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} \quad \text{ with } \quad \#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Adding and subtracting the elements with $j_1=2$ from the elements with $j_1=1$, we get that the space of $SO$ invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ is spanned freely by the set of $$\begin{aligned}
& (z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} + z_{3-j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{3-j_n}) \quad\text{and}\quad (z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n} - z_{3-j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{3-j_n})
\\&\quad \text{ with } \quad \#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \}\text{ and $j_1=1$}.
\end{aligned}$$ Because $z_{3-j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{3-j_n}$ is the complex conjugate of $z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n}$, this means that the space of $SO$ invariants on level $n$ in $T({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ is spanned freely by the set of $$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Re}(z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n}) \quad\text{and}\quad \operatorname{Im}(z_{j_1} \cdot .. \cdot z_{j_n})
\\&\quad \text{ with } \quad \#\{ r : j_r = 1 \} = \#\{ r : j_r = 2 \}\text{ and $j_1=1$}.
\end{aligned}$$ This is an expression for a basis of the SO invariants in terms of real combinations of basis elements of the tensor space. They thus form a basis for the SO invariants for the free *real* vector space on the same set, namely $\pi_n T({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
\[ex:soInvariants\] Consider ${d}=2$
Order $2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\word{11} + \word{22} \\
- \word{12} + \word{21}
\end{aligned}$$
Order $4$ $$\begin{aligned}
\word{1111} - \word{1122} + \word{1212} + \word{1221} + \word{2112} + \word{2121} - \word{2211} + \word{2222} \\
- \word{1112} - \word{1121} + \word{1211} - \word{1222} + \word{2111} - \word{2122} + \word{2212} + \word{2221} \\
\word{1111} + \word{1122} - \word{1212} + \word{1221} + \word{2112} - \word{2121} + \word{2211} + \word{2222} \\
- \word{1112} + \word{1121} - \word{1211} - \word{1222} + \word{2111} + \word{2122} - \word{2212} + \word{2221} \\
\word{1111} + \word{1122} + \word{1212} - \word{1221} - \word{2112} + \word{2121} + \word{2211} + \word{2222} \\
\word{1112} - \word{1121} - \word{1211} - \word{1222} + \word{2111} + \word{2122} + \word{2212} - \word{2221}
\end{aligned}$$
Consider ${d}=3$
Order $3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\word{123} - \word{132} + \word{312} - \word{321} + \word{231} - \word{213}
\end{aligned}$$
Consider ${d}=4$
Order $2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\word{11} + \word{22} + \word{33} + \word{44}.
\end{aligned}$$
Order $4$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\word{1144} + \word{4422} + \word{4444} + \word{3333} + \word{1122} + \word{4433} + \word{1133} + \word{4411} + \word{2211} + \word{3344} + \word{1111}\\
&\qquad + \word{2244} + \word{2222} + \word{3322} + \word{2233} + \word{3311} \\
&\word{4343} + \word{3232} + \word{3131} + \word{4444} + \word{3333} + \word{4242} + \word{2121} + \word{1212} + \word{2323} + \word{4141} + \word{2424}\\
&\qquad + \word{1313} + \word{1111} + \word{3434} + \word{1414} + \word{2222} \\
&\word{4334} + \word{2332} + \word{3223} + \word{4444} + \word{3333} + \word{1441} + \word{2442} + \word{1221} + \word{1331} + \word{3113} + \word{3443}\\
&\qquad + \word{1111} + \word{2112} + \word{4114} + \word{2222} + \word{4224} \\
&\word{1423} - \word{1432} - \word{1324} - \word{4231} + \word{3412} - \word{2341} - \word{1243} - \word{4123} - \word{2413} + \word{1234} + \word{3124}\\
&\qquad + \word{4213} + \word{1342} + \word{2431} - \word{2134} + \word{2143} + \word{3241} + \word{2314} + \word{4321} - \word{4312} - \word{3214}\\&\qquad - \word{3142}
- \word{3421} + \word{4132}
\end{aligned}$$
Permutations {#sec:permuations}
============
Denote by $S_{d}$ the group of permutations of $[d] := \{1, .., {d}\}$.
For $\sigma \in S_{d}$, define $M(\sigma) \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
M(\sigma)_{ij} = 1 \qquad \text{ if } i = \sigma(j).
\end{aligned}$$
Then $M: S_{d}\to GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ is a group homomorphism and moreover $M(\sigma^{-1}) = M(\sigma)^\top$. [^12]
Regarding the first point, for $i=\{1,..,{d}\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
M(\sigma) M(\tau) e_i
=
M(\sigma) e_{\tau(i)}
=
e_{\sigma(\tau(i))}
=
M(\sigma \tau) e_i.
\end{aligned}$$
Regarding the last point $$\begin{aligned}
M_{ij} &= 1 \qquad \text{ if } i = \sigma^{-1}(j) \\
&\Leftrightarrow \\
M_{ij} &= 1 \qquad \text{ if } \sigma( i ) = j \\
&\Leftrightarrow \\
M_{ij} &= 1 \qquad \text{ if } j = \sigma( i ).
\end{aligned}$$
$S_{d}$ then acts on ${T(({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))}$ and ${T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ via Definition \[def:action\]. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma \cdot x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n} = x_{\sigma(i_1)} .. x_{\sigma(i_n)}.\end{aligned}$$
We call $\phi \in T({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ a **permutation invariant** if $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S( M(\sigma) X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle = \Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\sigma \in S_{d}$ and all curves $X$. Alternatively, as explained in Section \[sec:gl\], $$\begin{aligned}
M(\sigma)^\top \phi = \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\sigma \in S_{d}$. Equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
M(\sigma) \phi = \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\sigma \in S_{d}$,
We follow [@bib:BRRZ2005 Section 3]. To a monomial $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i_1}\cdot .. \cdot x_{i_n},\end{aligned}$$ we associate the following set partition of $[n] := \{1, .., n \}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla( x_{i_1} \cdot .. \cdot x_{i_n} )
:=
\{ \{ \ell : i_\ell = p \} : p \in [d] \} \setminus \{ \{ \} \}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $d=3$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla( x_2 x_3 x_2 x_2 x_1 )
=
\{ \{1, 3, 4\}, \{2\}, \{5\} \}.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that for every permutation $\sigma \in S_{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:permuation}
\nabla( x_{i_1}\cdot .. \cdot x_{i_n} ) = \nabla( x_{\sigma(i_1)} \cdot .. \cdot x_{\sigma(i_n)} ).\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:permInvariants\] Define $$\begin{aligned}
M_A := \sum_{i: \nabla( x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n} ) = A} x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then $\{ M_A : A \text{ is set partition of } [n] \text{ and } |A| \le {d}\}$ is a linear basis for the space of permutation invariants of homogeneity $n$.
By , each $M_A$ is permutation invariant. Moreover, since $|A| \le {d}$, $M_A$ is nonzero.
For $A, A'$ distinct set partitions of $[n]$ the monomials in $M_A$ and the monomials in $M_{A'}$ do not overlap. Hence the proposed basis is linearly independent.
Now, if $\phi$ is permutation invariant and if for some $i, i'$, $\nabla( x_{i_1} .. x_{i_n} ) = \nabla( x_{i'_1} .. x_{i'_n} )$ then the coefficient of $x_i$ and $x_{i'}$ must coincide. Hence the proposed basis spans invariants of homogeneity $n$.
\[ex:permInvariants\] Consider ${d}=3$
Order $n=1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\word{1} + \word{2} + \word{3}
\end{aligned}$$
Order $n=2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\word{33} + \word{22} + \word{11} \\
&\word{32} + \word{31} + \word{23} + \word{21} + \word{13} + \word{12}
\end{aligned}$$
Order $n=3$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\word{333} + \word{222} + \word{111} \\
&\word{332} + \word{331} + \word{223} + \word{221} + \word{113} + \word{112} \\
&\word{323} + \word{313} + \word{232} + \word{212} + \word{131} + \word{121} \\
&\word{322} + \word{311} + \word{233} + \word{211} + \word{133} + \word{122} \\
&\word{321} + \word{312} + \word{231} + \word{213} + \word{132} + \word{123}
\end{aligned}$$
An additional (time) coordinate {#sec:time}
===============================
Assume now that $X = (X^0,X^1,..,X^{d}): [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{1+{d}}$. Here $X^0$ plays a special role, in that we assume that it is not affected by the space transformations under consideration. Adding an “artificial” $0$-th component, usually keeping track of time, $X^0_t := t$, is a common trick to improve the expressiveness of the signature. In particular, if such an $X^0$ is monotonically increasing, the enlarged curve $(X^0,X^1,..,X^{d})$ never has any “tree-like” components (compare Section \[sec:discussion\]), no matter what the original $(X^1,..,X^{d})$ was.
Consider $GL$ invariants for the moment.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) := \{ A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{1+{d}}) : A e_0 = A^{-1} e_0 = e_0 \},
\end{aligned}$$ the space of invertible maps of ${\mathbb{R}}^{1+{d}}$ leaving the first direction unchanged. We call $\phi \in T({\mathbb{R}}^{1+{d}})$ a **$\widetilde{GL}$ invariant of weight $w$** if $$\begin{aligned}
A^\top \phi = (\det A)^w \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $A \in GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$.
Consider the $GL({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ invariant of weight $1$ $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 x_2 - x_2 x_1.\end{aligned}$$ Since elements of $GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ leave the variable $x_0$ unchanged, a straightforward way to produce $GL_0$ invariants presents itself: insert $x_0$ at the same position in every monomial. For example $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 x_0 x_2 - x_2 x_0 x_1\end{aligned}$$ is a $GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ invariant of weight $1$. We now formalize this idea and show that we get every $GL_0$ invariant this way.
\
Define the linear map ${\mathsf{Remove\ }}$ of “removing instances of $x_0$” on monomials, as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Remove\ }}x_{i_1} .. x_{i_m} := \prod_{\ell : i_\ell \not= 0} x_{i_\ell},\end{aligned}$$ so for example $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Remove\ }}x_0 x_1 x_1 x_0 x_3 &= x_1 x_1 x_3 \\
{\mathsf{Remove\ }}x_0 x_0 &= 1.\end{aligned}$$
Define for $U \subset [m]$ and $i = (i_1, .., i_m)$ $$\begin{aligned}
i|_U = (i_\ell : \ell = 1,.., m; \ell \in U).\end{aligned}$$
Define the linear map of restriction to $U$ on polynomials of order $m$ by defining on monomials $$\begin{aligned}
x_i|_U := x_{i|_U}\end{aligned}$$ so for example $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i_1} x_{i_2} x_{i_3} |_{\{1,3\}} = x_{i_1} x_{i_3}.\end{aligned}$$
For $z = (z_1,..,z_{m+1}) \in {\mathbb{N}}^{m+1}$ denote by ${\mathsf{Insert}}_z$ the linear operator on polynomials of order $m$ by defining it on monomials as follows. For a monomial $x_{i_1} .. x_{i_m}$ of order $m$, ${\mathsf{Insert}}_z$ inserts $z_1$ occurrences of $x_0$ before $x_{i_1}$, $z_2$ occurrences of $x_0$ before $x_{i_2}$, .., $z_m$ occurrences of $x_0$ before $x_{i_m}$ and $z_{m+1}$ occurrences of $x_0$ after $x_{i_m}$. For example $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Insert}}_{(2,1,4)} x_1 x_2 = x_0 x_0 x_1 x_0 x_1 x_0 x_0 x_0 x_0.\end{aligned}$$
A basis for the space of $GL_0$ invariant of weight $w$, homogeneous of degree $m$ is given by the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Insert}}_z \psi,
\end{aligned}$$ with $0 \le n \le m$, $\psi$ ranges over the basis for $GL$ invariant of weight $w$ and homogeneity $n$ (Proposition \[prop:glInvariants\]) and $z \in {\mathbb{N}}^{n+1}$ such that $\sum_\ell z_\ell = m - n$.
Let $n, \psi, z$ be as in the statement, then ${\mathsf{Insert}}_z \psi$ is $GL_0$ invariant of weight $w$. Indeed: for $A_0 = \operatorname{diag}(1, A) \in GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, with $A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, $$\begin{aligned}
A_0\ {\mathsf{Insert}}_z \psi
=
{\mathsf{Insert}}_z A \psi
=
(\det A)^w {\mathsf{Insert}}_z \psi.
\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, let $\phi$ of order $m$ be a $GL_0$ invariant modulo time of weight $w$. Define for $U \subset [m]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^U := \sum_{i : i_\ell = 0, \ell \in U; i_j \not= 0, j \not\in U} \langle \phi, x_i \rangle x_i,
\end{aligned}$$ which collects all monomials having $x_0$ exactly at the positions in $U$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\phi = \sum_{U \subset [m]} \phi^U.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, since $\phi$ is $GL_0$ invariant of weight $w$ and since $GL_0$ leaves $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{span} \{ x_i : i_\ell = 0, \ell \in U; i_j \not= 0, j \not\in U \}
\end{aligned}$$ invariant, we get that $\phi^U$ is $GL_0$ invariant of weight $w$. Clearly, there is $0 \le n \le m$ and $i \in {\mathbb{N}}^{n+1}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Insert}}_z {\mathsf{Remove\ }}\phi^U = \phi^U.
\end{aligned}$$ Lastly, ${\mathsf{Remove\ }}\phi^U$ is $GL$ invariant, since for $A_0 = \operatorname{diag}(1, A) \in GL_0({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, with $A \in GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, $$\begin{aligned}
A \ {\mathsf{Remove\ }}\phi^U = {\mathsf{Remove\ }}A_0 \phi^U = (\det A_0)^w {\mathsf{Remove\ }}\phi^U = (\det A)^w {\mathsf{Remove\ }}\phi^U.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence every invariant is in the span of the set given in the statement. They are linearly independent, and hence form a basis.
The corresponding statements for rotations and permutations are completely analogous, so we omit stating them.
Discussion and open problems {#sec:discussion}
============================
We have presented a novel way to extract invariant features of ${d}$-dimensional curves, based on the iterated-integrals signature. We have identified all those features that can be written as a finite linear combination of terms in the signature.
There is a vast literature on invariants of, mostly $2d$, curves in the literature. Among the techniques used, the method of “integral invariants” [@bib:FKK2010] is closest to our setting (it has been used for example in [@bib:GMW2009] for character recognition). In that work, for a curve $X: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, ${d}=2,3$, the building blocks for invariants are expressions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:expression}
\int_0^T (X^1_r)^{\alpha_1} .. (X^{d}_r)^{\alpha_{d}} dX^i_r, \qquad i=1,..,{d}.\end{aligned}$$ Using an algorithmic procedure, some invariants to certain subgroups of $G \subset GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ are derived. In particular for ${d}=2$ and $G=GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ the following invariants are given $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 &= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T X^1_{0,r} dX^2_r - \frac{1}{2} X^1_{0,t} X^2_{0,t} \\
I_2 &= \int_0^T X^1_{0,r} X^2_{0,r} dX^2_r\ X^1_{0,t} - \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t (X^1_r)^2 dX^2_r\ X^2_{0,t} \\
I_3 &= \int_0^T X^1_{0,r} (X^2_{0,r})^2 dX^2_r\ X^2_{0,T} - \int_0^T (X^1_{0,r})^2 X^2_{0,r} dX^2_r\ X^1_{0,T} X^2_{0,T}
+ \frac{1}{3} \int_0^T (X^1_{0,r})^3 dX^2_r\ X^2_{0,r} X^2_{0,r} \\
&\qquad
- \frac{1}{12} (X^1_{0,t})^3 (X^2_{0,t})^3.
$$ By the shuffle identity (Lemma \[lem:shuffleIdentity\]), we can write these as $I_i = \langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi_i \rangle$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_1 &:= \frac{1}{2} \word{12} - \frac{1}{2} \word{12} \\
\phi_2 &:= \frac13 \word{1221}
+\frac13 \word{1212}
-\frac23 \word{1122}
+\frac13 \word{2121}
+\frac13 \word{2112}
-\frac23 \word{2211} \\
\phi_3 &:= - \word{121212} - \word{211122} + \word{212121} + \word{221112} - \word{121221} + \word{122211} - \word{112212}
\\&\qquad + \word{122112}
- \word{211212} - \word{211221} - \word{121122} + \word{122121} -3 \word{222111} +3 \word{111222}
\\&\qquad+ \word{221121} + \word{212211}
- \word{112122}
+ \word{212112} - \word{112221} + \word{221211}.\end{aligned}$$ One can easily check that these lie in the linear span of the invariants given in Proposition \[prop:soInvariants\] (or Theorem \[thm:soInvariants\]), as expected.
We note that expressions of the form are *not* enough to uniquely characterize a path. Indeed, the following lemma gives a counterexample to the conjecture on p.906 in [@bib:FKK2010] that “signatures of non-equivalent curves are different” (here, the “signature” of a curve means the set of expressions of the form ).
Consider the two closed curves $X^+$ and $X^-$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, given for $t$ in $[0,2\pi]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
X^{\pm,1}_t &=\pm\cos t\\
X^{\pm,2}_t &=\sin 2t.
\end{aligned}$$
Then all the expressions coincide on $X^+$ and $X^-$.
These curves both trace a figure called the *lemniscate of Gerono* which is illustrated in Figure \[fig:lemniscate\].
([cos(x)]{}, [sin(2\*x)]{}); (axis cs:1.07,0)–(axis cs:1.07,0.3); at (axis cs: 1.22,0.14) [$\displaystyle X^+$]{}; (axis cs:-0.93,0)–(axis cs:-0.93,0.3); at (axis cs: -0.77,0.14) [$\displaystyle X^-$]{};
Consider the function $f^m_n(t):=\cos^m t\;\sin^n t$, where $m$ and $n$ are nonnegative integers. If $n$ is odd, then $f^m_n(t)=-f^m_n(2\pi- t)$ so $\int_0^{2\pi}f^m_n(t)\,dt$ is zero. If $m$ is odd, then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}f^m_n(t)\,dt=-\int_{\frac\pi2}^{-\frac{3\pi}2}f^m_n(\frac\pi2-t)\,dt=\int^{\frac\pi2}_{-\frac{3\pi}2}f^n_m(t)\,dt=\int^{2\pi}_0f^n_m(t)\,dt=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\int_0^{2\pi}f^m_n(t)\,dt$ can only be nonzero if $m$ and $n$ are both even.
Any expression like is either of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}x^my^n\,dx&=\int_0^{2\pi}(\pm1)^m\cos^m t\;\sin^n 2t \;(\mp\sin t)\,dt
\\&=\mp2^n(\pm1)^m\int_0^{2\pi}\cos^{m+n}t\sin^{n+1}t\,dt
\\&=\begin{cases}0&\text{$n$ even or $m$ even}\\-2^n\int_0^{2\pi}\cos^{m+n}t\sin^{n+1}t\,dt&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ or of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}x^my^n\,dy&=\int_0^{2\pi}(\pm1)^m\cos^m t\;\sin^n 2t \;(2\cos t)\,dt
\\&=2^{n+1}(\pm1)^m\int_0^{2\pi}\cos^{m+n+1}t\;\sin^{n}t\,dt
\\&=\begin{cases}0&\text{$n$ odd or $m$ odd}\\2^{n+1}\int_0^{2\pi}\cos^{m+n+1}t\;\sin^{n}t\,dt&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore these two curves have the same values on terms of the form . [^13]
Moreover, the algorithmic nature of the construction in [@bib:FKK2010] makes it difficult to proceed to invariants of higher order. In contrast, our method gives an explicit linear basis for the invariants under consideration up to *any* order.
Regarding the question of whether our invariants are complete we propose the following conjecture. As shown in [@bib:HL2010], if $S(X)_{0,T} = S(Y)_{0,T}$ for some curves $X,Y$, then $X$ is “tree-like equivalent” to $Y$. For the concrete definition of this equivalence we refer to their paper, but let us give one example. Consider in ${d}=2$, the constant path $X_t := (0,0), t \in [0,T]$ and the piecewise linear path $Y$, between the points $(0,0),(1,0)$ and $(0,0)$. One can check that $$\begin{aligned}
S(X)_{0,T} = S(Y)_{0,T} = 1.\end{aligned}$$ The signature has no chance of picking up these kind of “excursions” in a path; this concept is formalized in “tree-like equivalence”. We suspect that the following holds true (with corresponding formulations for the other subgroups of $GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$).
Let $X, Y: [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ be two curves such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle S(X)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle = \Big\langle S(Y)_{0,T}, \phi \Big\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $SO$ invariants given in Proposition \[prop:soInvariants\]. Then, there is a curve $\bar X$, tree-like equivalent to $X$, and a rotation $A \in SO({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
A \bar X = Y.
\end{aligned}$$
\
Lastly, in Proposition \[prop:glInvariants\], Proposition \[prop:soInvariants\] and Proposition \[prop:permInvariants\] we have established a linear basis for invariants for every homogeneity. As already mentioned in Remark \[rem:algebraicIndependence\], owing to the shuffle identity, there are algebraic relations between elements of different homogeneity. An interesting open problem is then to find a minimal set of generators for the set of invariants, considered as a subalgebra of the shuffle algebra. (This applies to all subgroups of $GL({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ and their corresponding invariants).
[99]{} Bergeron, N., Reutenauer, C., Rosas, M., and Zabrocki M. “Invariants and coinvariants of the symmetric group in noncommuting variables.” arXiv preprint math/0502082 (2005).
Calabi, E., Olver, P. J., Shakiban, C., Tannenbaum, A., and Haker, S. “Differential and numerically invariant signature curves applied to object recognition.” International Journal of Computer Vision 26.2 (1998): 107-135.
Cass, T. and Friz, P. “Densities for rough differential equations under Hörmander’s condition.” Annals of mathematics (2010): 2115-2141.
Chen, K.-T. “Integration of paths, geometric invariants and a generalized Baker-Hausdorff formula.” Annals of Mathematics (1957): 163-178.
Chevyrev, I. and Kormilitzin, A. “A Primer on the Signature Method in Machine Learning”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03788 (2016).
Chuang, G. C. H. and Kuo, C.-C. J. “Wavelet descriptor of planar curves: Theory and applications.” Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on 5.1 (1996): 56-70.
De Bruijn, N. G. “On some multiple integrals involving determinants.” J. Indian Math. Soc 19 (1955): 133-151.
Diehl, J. signature-invariants, GitHub repository, <https://github.com/diehlj/signature-invariants>.
Dieudonné, J. A. and Carrell, J. B. “Invariant theory, old and new.” Advances in Mathematics 4.1 (1970): 1-80.
Engström, Alexander, and Patrik Norén. “Polytopes from subgraph statistics.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.3552 (2010).
Ewald, A., Marzetti, L., Zappasodi, F., Meinecke, F.C., and Nolte G. “Estimating true brain connectivity from EEG/MEG data invariant to linear and static transformations in sensor space.” Neuroimage 60.1 (2012): 476-488.
Feng, S., Kogan, I., and Krim, H. “Classification of curves in 2D and 3D via affine integral signatures.” Acta applicandae mathematicae 109.3 (2010): 903-937.
Flusser, J. “On the independence of rotation moment invariants.” Pattern recognition 33.9 (2000): 1405-1410.
Friz, P. and Victoir, N. “Multidimensional stochastic processes as rough paths: theory and applications.” Vol. 120. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Gale, David. “Neighborly and cyclic polytopes.” Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Vol. 7. 1963.
Gardner, R. B. “The fundamental theorem of vector relative invariants.” Journal of Algebra 36.2 (1975): 314-318.
Golubitsky, Oleg, Vadim Mazalov, and Stephen M. Watt. “Orientation-independent recognition of handwritten characters with integral invariants.” Proc. Joint Conf. ASCM. 2009.
Graham, B. “Sparse arrays of signatures for online character recognition.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.0371 (2013).
Granlund, G.H. “Fourier preprocessing for hand print character recognition.” Computers, IEEE Transactions on 100.2 (1972): 195-201.
Hambly, B. and Lyons, T. “Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group.” Annals of Mathematics (2010): 109-167.
Johnson, H. H. “A generalization of KT Chen’s invariants for paths under transformation groups.” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 105.3 (1962): 453-461.
Karlin, S., and Shapley, L.S. “Geometry of moment spaces.” No. 12. American Mathematical Soc., 1953.
Kuhl, F.P. and Giardina, C.R. “Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour.” Computer graphics and image processing 18.3 (1982): 236-258.
Kormilitzin, A., Saunders, K.E.A., Harrison, P.J., Geddes, J.R., and Lyons, T. “Detecting early signs of depressive and manic episodes in patients with bipolar disorder using the signature-based model.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01206 (2017).
Lakshmibai, V., and Komaranapuram, N.R. “Standard monomial theory: invariant theoretic approach.” Vol. 137. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
Landsberg, Joseph M. “Tensors: geometry and applications.” Representation theory 381 (2012): 402.
Leclerc, Bernard. “On identities satisfied by minors of a matrix.” Advances in Mathematics 100.1 (1993): 101-132.
Levin, D., Lyons, T., and Ni, H.. Learning from the past, predicting the statistics for the future, learning an evolving system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.0260, 2013.
Luque, J.-G., and Thibon, J.-Y. “Pfaffian and Hafnian identities in shuffle algebras.” Advances in Applied Mathematics 29.4 (2002): 620-646.
Lyons, T. J., and Phillip S.Y. “On Gauss-Green theorem and boundaries of a class of Hölder domains.” Journal de mathématiques pures et appliquées 85.1 (2006): 38-53.
Manay, S., Cremers, D., Hong, B.W., Yezzi, A.J., Soatto, S. “Integral invariants for shape matching.” Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 28.10 (2006): 1602-1618.
Morales, J., and Akopian, D. “Physical activity recognition by smartphones, a survey.” Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering 37.3 (2017): 388-400.
Mokhtarian, F. and Mackworth, A. “Scale-based description and recognition of planar curves and two-dimensional shapes.” Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 1 (1986): 34-43.
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P. “Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing.” Cambridge university press, 2007.
Reutenauer, C. “Free Lie algebras.” Volume 7 of London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series. (1993).
Ree, R. “Lie elements and an algebra associated with shuffles.” Annals of Mathematics (1958): 210-220.
Reizenstein, J. “Calculation of iterated-integral signatures and log signatures.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.02757 (2017).
Rudin, W. “Principles of mathematical analysis.” Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-hill, 1964.
Sagan, B. “The symmetric group: representations, combinatorial algorithms, and symmetric functions.” Vol. 203. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Sturmfels, Bernd, and Neil White. “Gröbner bases and invariant theory.” Advances in Mathematics 76.2 (1989): 245-259.
Toth, C.D., O’Rourke, J., and Goodman, J.E., eds. “Handbook of discrete and computational geometry.” CRC press, 2004.
Weyl, H. “The Classical Groups, Their Invariants and Representations.” Princeton University Press, 1946.
Yang, W., Lyons,T., Ni,H., Schmid, C., Jin, L., and Chang, J. “Leveraging the Path Signature for Skeleton-based Human Action Recognition.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03993 (2017).
Zahn, C.T. and Roskies, R.Z. “Fourier descriptors for plane closed curves.” Computers, IEEE Transactions on 100.3 (1972): 269-281.
[^1]: MPI for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig
[^2]: Centre for Complexity Science, University of Warwick. Supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
[^3]: The signature is notorious for being hard to interpret in geometric terms.
[^4]: The reader might prefer to just think of a (piecewise) smooth curve.
[^5]: Since $X$ is of bounded variation the integrals are well-defined using classical Riemann-Stieltjes integration (see for example Chapter 6 in [@bib:Rud1964]). This can be pushed much further though. In fact the following considerations are purely algebraic and hence hold for any curve for which a sensible integration theory (in particular: obeying integration by parts) exists. A relevant example is Brownian motion which, although being almost surely nowhere differentiable, nonetheless admits a stochastic (Stratonovich) integral.
[^6]: Also called the “rough path signature”.
[^7]: In contrast to a power series, a polynomial only has finitely many terms.
[^8]: One can also think of a tabloid as the following element of the vector space spanned by Young tableaux, $$\begin{aligned}
\{ t \} = \sum_{\pi} \pi t.
\end{aligned}$$ Here the sum is over all permutations $\pi$ that leave the elements of each *row* of $t$ unchanged.
[^9]: The prefactor $1/2$ is irrelevant, so we will speak of $\phi$ and also of $\tfrac12 \phi$ as picking out the area.
[^10]: The standard example is a curve that is discretely observed at times $t_i$ and linearly interpolated in between.
[^11]: For example, with $n=4$ and dimension ${d}=2$, the indices $\{0,1,2\}$,$\{0,2,3\}$,$\{0,3,4\}$,$\{0,1,4\}$,$\{1,2,4\}$,$\{2,3,4\}$ lead to facets.
[^12]: $M$ is sometimes called the *defining representation* of $S_d$.
[^13]: Note that they are not not tree-equivalent and therefore have different (iterated-integral) signatures. The lowest level on which they differ is level 4.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Laser wakefield acceleration permits the generation of ultra-short, high-brightness relativistic electron beams on a millimeter scale. While those features are of interest for many applications, the source remains constraint by the poor stability of the electron injection process. Here we present results on injection and acceleration of electrons in pure nitrogen and argon. We observe stable, continuous ionization-induced injection of electrons into the wakefield for laser powers exceeding a threshold of 7 TW. The beam charge scales approximately linear with the laser energy and is limited by beam loading. For 40 TW laser pulses we measure a maximum charge of almost $1$ nC per shot, originating mostly from electrons of less than 10 MeV energy. The relatively low energy, the high charge and its stability make this source well-suited for applications such as non-destructive testing. Hence, we demonstrate the production of energetic radiation via bremsstrahlung conversion at 1 Hz repetition rate. In accordance with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Geant4</span> Monte-Carlo simulations, we measure a $\gamma$-ray source size of less than $100$ microns for a 0.5 mm tantalum converter placed at 2 mm from the accelerator exit. Furthermore we present radiographs of image quality indicators.'
author:
- 'A. Döpp'
- 'E. Guillaume'
- 'C. Thaury'
- 'A. Lifschitz'
- 'F. Sylla'
- 'J-P. Goddet'
- 'A. Tafzi'
- 'G. Iaquanello'
- 'T. Lefrou'
- 'P. Rousseau'
- 'E. Conejero'
- 'C. Ruiz'
- 'K. Ta Phuoc'
- 'V. Malka'
bibliography:
- 'bremsstrahlung.bib'
title: |
A bremsstrahlung gamma-ray source based on stable\
ionization injection of electrons into a laser wakefield accelerator
---
Introduction
============
Since the first proposal in the late 1970s [@Tajima:1979un], laser wakefield accelerators have gone a long way from a theoretical concept to a reliable source of highly relativistic electrons. While mostly known for its compactness, resulting from the gigavolt to teravolt per meter field gradients inside the plasma cavity [@Esarey:2009ks], this type of accelerator also inherently provides beams of femtosecond duration [@Lundh:2011js] and micrometer diameter [@Kneip:2012gx]. Driven by ambitious goals like table-top free electron lasers [@Nakajima:2008cs], many efforts have been dedicated to improvements of the transverse emittance [@Plateau:2012he] and the energy spread [@Faure:2006vy] as well. However, these developments usually result in an increased experimental complexity and a reduced beam charge of a few picocoulomb per shot.
In contrast, temporally incoherent radiation sources are less constraint in terms of beam quality and work well at high beam charge ($>100$ pC). Most prominent examples are the synchrotron-like betatron [@Rousse:2004tc; @Kneip:2010kk] and Compton [@TaPhuoc:2012cg; @Schwoerer:2006dw] sources. It has been shown that these sources can be used for single-shot X-ray imaging [@Fourmaux:2011cs; @Dopp:2015tl], yet their robustness is still not sufficient to compete with conventional solutions. A more simple mechanism is to create high energy radiation via bremsstrahlung emission in a high-Z material. This technique, analogous to conventional X-ray tubes [@Coolidge:1913wr], was first demonstrated in 2002 [@Edwards:2002cl] and subsequent experiments have demonstrated that the source is suitable for high resolution imaging in non-destructive testing [@Glinec:2005ve; @BenIsmail:2011uq].
However, the electrons used in these experiments originated from spontaneous self-injection into the wake [@Corde:2013gj] and typically reached energies in the order of 100 MeV. Not only is this kind of electron injection very unstable and therefore unsuitable for many applications, but furthermore it is desirable to operate at energies below 10 MeV. The reason for this is that significant neutron contamination occurs at higher energies [@Chen:2006ho] and such a source would then require additional radioprotection [@Soriani:2010id].
It is the injection method which determines many source parameters such as the energy spread, charge and stability. The aforementioned self-injection is the most common injection method and it was shown that this process can lead to the production of quasi-monoenergetic electron beams [@Faure:2004tj; @Geddes:2004vs; @Mangles:2004vr]. Unfortunately its spontaneous nature results in an unreliable performance and different controlled injection schemes have been developed to address this issue, including heating of electrons with a colliding laser pulse [@Faure:2006vy; @Malka:2008fm] or controlled cavity expansion in a density downramp [@Geddes:2008tj; @Schmid:2010ih]. Here we have employed the ionization injection method [@McGuffey:2010wy], which is well-suited to fulfill the above requirements of the source concerning stability and beam energy. As we will discuss in the following sections, ionization-induced injection can provide highly charged electron beams and we use short jets of pure high-Z gases in order to reduce the beam energy.
Ionization-induced injection
============================
Laser wakefield accelerators usually operate at peak laser intensities in excess of $10^{18}$ W.cm$^{-2}$. At such intensities already the leading edge of the laser pulse can entirely ionize gas targets consisting of hydrogen or helium. The situation changes when high Z gases like nitrogen (N), carbon-dioxyde (CO$_2$) or argon (Ar) are employed. Here the outer shells, whose binding energies are typically below 100 eV, are likewisely ionized at the very front of the laser pulse. However, higher ionization states such as Ar$^{9+}$ and N$^{7+}$ will only be reached close to the peak of the pulse and are therefore ionized with a delay. This is illustrated in figure 1, which shows both ionization and wakefield excitation for a laser pulse propagating through argon. The driver is modeled as a $\sin^2$ shaped 800 nm pulse with a peak amplitude of $a_0=1.0$ at a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of half a plasma wavelength $\lambda_p$ at a density of $n_e=10^{19}$cm$^{-3}$ ($\lambda_p/c_0\sim$ 35 fs). The wakefields and possible electron trajectories are calculated using the one-dimensional wakefield model [@Esarey:1995uh]. Trapped - and therefore accelerated - electron orbits are plotted in solid green lines, while non-trapped trajectories are dashed. The injection threshold - the separatrix - is marked in black. Ionization rates are calculated using the ADK tunneling ionization model [@Delone:1998gw] and the early (late) ionization region is marked with a yellow (red) shaded rectangle. As a result of their late ionization, the inner shell electrons experience asymmetric longitudinal wakefields, meaning that they can gain a signifiant amount of longitudinal momentum in direction of the propagation and therefore trapping into the wake is facilitated [@Oz:2007tz; @Chen:2012du].
![Illustration of ionization-induced injection in Argon. The plasma has a density of $n_e=10^{19}$cm$^{-3}$ and the laser (red) has a peak amplitude of $a_0=1.0$ at a full width at half maximum of half a plasma wavelength $\lambda_p$ ($\sim$ 17.5 fs). Trapped electron orbits are shown in solid green lines, while non-trapped trajectories are dashed. The separatrix is marked in black. Also shown is the ionization of argon according to the ADK ionization model (yellow solid line). In this representation is becomes clear that the early ionized outer shell electrons (1-7, yellow box) need more energy to get trapped than the higher ionization states (red box).[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1){width="0.85\linewidth"}
As a consequence of this, a laser plasma accelerator based on ionization-induced injection can be operated at lower plasma densities than accelerators relying on self-injection. This can mitigate effects like electron dephasing or laser depletion, and consequently accelerators using ionization-induced injection have shown to lead to higher electron energies [@Clayton:2010kh]. However, the ionization (and thus injection) occurs continuously during the laser propagation, which is why ionization-induced injection usually leads to broad energy spectra, see for example [@McGuffey:2010wy]. Once a significant amount of electrons are trapped, their proper fields counteract the wakefields and this beam loading limits the maximum charge which is attainable in the accelerator.
Most studies on ionization-induced injection rely on helium-dominated gas mixtures, with only a few percent of the high-Z gas. The laser propagation is then similar to pure helium. In contrast, this study has been performed using pure nitrogen and argon. In this regime the laser propagation is affected by ionization-induced defocusing, as seen in the shadowgraphy (Fig.\[fig2\]b). In the next section we will discuss the performance of the accelerator in this configuration. More details on electron acceleration in this regime have been published elsewhere [@Guillaume:2015gy].
The laser plasma accelerator
============================
The experimental setup is shown in figure \[fig2\]. As driver of the accelerator we use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Salle Jaune</span> Ti:Sa laser system, which delivers 28 fs pulses of up to 2.1 joule energy at a central wavelength of $\lambda_0=800$ nm. The 70 mm diameter flat-top laser pulses are focused on a gas target using a 690 mm off-axis parabolic mirror. Aberrations are corrected with a deformable mirror, finally leading to an Airy-like focal spot with a central mode of 22 $\mu$m 1/e$^2$ diameter that contains 52 percent of the total beam energy. The beam energy can be tuned using a $\lambda/2$ plate followed by a polarizer. For the experiment we scanned over peak intensities of $1.6 \times 10^{18}$ W.cm$^{-2}$ to $8.9 \times 10^{18}$ W.cm$^{-2}$.
The gas target consists of a parker series 9 valve onto which an exit nozzle of 0.7 mm diameter is mounted, connected to a reservoir of either argon or nitrogen. The valve opens 10 milliseconds before the laser pulse arrives, letting the gas expand sonically into the vacuum. At the laser focus (0.4 mm above the exit of the jet) the gas profile extends over a length of 1.4 mm.
The plasma electron density is measured with a probe beam using a Nomarski interferometer [@Benattar:1979uha]. The electron energy distribution and charge are measured via dispersion of electrons through a dipole magnet. The electrons are detected using a Kodak Lanex phosphor screen, imaged onto a 16-bit CCD camera.
![Schematic setup of the experiment. The multi-TW laser pulse is focussed into a gas jet of nitrogen or argon. Inner shell electrons are injected via delayed tunneling ionization into the wake of the pulse and accelerated. Once they exit the gas jet they penetrate a tantalum foil, leading to the emission of bremsstrahlung, cf. inlet (a). This bremsstrahlung (green) is then detected on an image plate, while the charge and energy of the electron beam (blue) is measured in an absolutely calibrated spectrometer. (b) shows a typical shadowgraphy image of the plasma channel created by the laser. (c) shows a cropped image plate scan, where regions of highest radiation exposure have turned dark. The triangular shape around the object is the shadow cast by the lead shielding. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2){width="0.97\linewidth"}
![Frame (a): Angularly resolved electron spectra for 5 consecutive shots. The accelerator operates extraordinary stable in this regime. (b) Average beam spectra for various beam energies, The line width corresponds to the error, showing the high stability of the source. (c) Scaling of the integrated beam charge with laser energy.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Due to the continuous injection, the electron spectra are not monoenergetic, but rather thermal. Below 10 MeV the distribution has a temperature of around $2$ MeV, while the temperature between 10 and 30 MeV is about $4$ MeV. This rather low beam energy is a consequence of plasma defocusing and the short length of the jet.
The beam divergence is energy dependent. For the ’cold’ part of the spectrum the divergence reaches up to 20 mrad, while the divergence above 10 MeV is about 10 mrad (FWHM). With argon as target gas we observe an injection threshold of 0.2 J at an ion density of $\sim 2.4\times 10^{18}$cm$^{-3}$. From there on we observe that the beam charge increases linearly by 110 pC/100 mJ, leading to 910 pC maximum beam charge above 7 MeV at full laser energy (1.1 joule). The electron source is remarkably stable, both in terms of charge and energy. Furthermore the accelerator is less sensitive to the focal spot quality than in the self-injection regime.
Conversion to bremsstrahlung
============================
Because of its superior stability and robustness the source is well suited for applications. Here we have applied it for the production of X/$\gamma$-rays via conversion into bremsstrahlung. In contrast to the preceding studies of this type, which relied on self-injection [@Glinec:2005ve; @BenIsmail:2011uq], using ionization-induced injection we could provide a stable electron source that was operated at the nominal laser repetition rate of 1 Hz.
Just as in a conventional X-ray tube, radiation is generated via penetration of a solid target with electrons. For the convertion we use tantalum foils of different thicknesses (0.5 mm, 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm) in order to study their influence on the source size. Using the continuous-slowing-down approximation we estimate a stopping range of $0.5$ mm for 1 MeV electrons, which means that they will slow down to rest within the converter. Though most of the stopping power goes into coulomb collisions, about $10\:\%$ of electron energy is converted into radiation. At 10 MeV the stopping range increases to $3.7$ mm, meaning that these electrons are not stopped within the converter. However, the ratio of radiative stopping power to collision stopping power increases significantly between 1 and 10 MeV, and accordingly we estimate a radiation yield of around $6-20$ percent for targets of $0.5-1.5$ millimeter thickness. As a first rough estimation we expect the production of $\sim10^{-4}$ Joule of radiation per shot.
As illustrated in figure 2 the converter foils are placed behind the gas jet, at distances between 5 and 20 millimeters. The X-ray signal is measured using photostimulable phosphor plates (Fuiji BAS TR). The response of these image plates depends essentially on the energy deposited in the phosphor layer and therefore drops significantly for photon energies above 100 keV [@Meadowcroft:2008fo]. We estimate the photon spectrum using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Geant4</span> [@Agostinelli:2003iv] simulations, which is shown in figure 4.
![Images of step-hole image quality indicators. Dark areas are where part of the lead shielding is in front of the image plate.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig4.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Images of step-hole image quality indicators. Dark areas are where part of the lead shielding is in front of the image plate.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig5.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Images of step-hole image quality indicators. Dark areas are where part of the lead shielding is in front of the image plate.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Using a knife-edge we have measured the X-ray source size for different distances between the gas jet exit and the converter. At $0.5$ mm from the exit the source size is estimated to be $65$ $\mu$m and no significant influence of the converter thickness (0.5 mm,1 mm and 1.5 mm) is observed. As shown in figure 5 the source size remaines below $100$ microns at 1.5 mm distance and at 3.5 mm from the gas jet it augments to $350$ $\mu$m. While the results are roughly in accordance with Monte-Carlo simulations of the source size for a 0.5 mm tantalum converter placed at $2$ millimeters from the exit, it should be noted that the source size depends strongly on the properties of the scattered electrons. As discussed above, we expect low energy electrons to undergo strong scattering, up to complete stopping inside the converter. Furthermore the initial beam divergence is about an order of magnitude larger for low energy electrons than it is for electrons with energies above 10 MeV. This tendency is reproduced in simulations (see figure 5), where we see that the $\gamma$ source size increases significantly at lower energies.
During the experiment we initially noticed a very low image contrast, due to a high background noise level. It is found that this noise originates from electrons hitting the chamber wall and the image quality is significantly improved with additional lead shielding. Still, radiographic applications are limited by the relatively bad signal-to-local-noise ratio $\sigma_S/\langle S \rangle\sim 0.1$, where the local noise $\sigma_S$ is the standard deviation of the signal in the region taken for calculation of the average signal $\langle S \rangle$. While this prevents imaging of weakly absorbing objects, we are able to perform some radiographies in order to assess the suitability of the source for imaging applications. As an example, figure 6 shows radiographies of industry standard (DIN EN 462) image quality indicators. The smallest features resolved have a size in the order of 200 micrometers.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion we have demonstrated a bremsstrahlung $\gamma$-ray source that relies on a stably operating laser-plasma accelerator. Its performance is a result of the ionization injection mechanism in pure argon and nitrogen, which leads to continuous electron injection starting from a threshold of 200 mJ pulse energy ($a_0\sim 0.8$). The electron beams have a quasi-Maxwellian spectrum and exhibit a high beam charge of almost 1 nC at 1 J pulse energy. The shot-to-shot stability is very good for a laser plasma accelerator and the source was in permanent 1 Hz operation over hundreds of shots. Using a tantalum converter, we have demonstrated the production of gamma radiation with less than 100 micrometer source size and features of 200 micrometer size can be resolved on radiographs of image quality indicators. We have deduced the radiation spectrum using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Geant4</span> simulations and show that most of the radiation is less energetic than 10 MeV, which is important for radioprotection. In conjunction with next generation high-repetition rate laser systems, this configuration could soon serve as competitive radiation source for applications such as non-destructive imaging.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the European Research Council through the PARIS ERC project (Contract No. 226424), the X-Five ERC project (Contract No. 339128), LA3NET (Grant Agreement No. GA-ITN-2011-289191), Areva NDE, the NANOBIODOS INCA project and by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche through the projects ANR-10-EQPX-CILEX and FENICS ANR-12-JS04-0004-01. We acknowledge Areva NDE Solutions for providing image quality indicators.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We evaluate the impact of heavy-quark masses on transverse momentum ($q_{T}$) distributions of $W$, $Z$, and supersymmetric neutral Higgs bosons at the Tevatron and LHC. The masses of charm and bottom quarks act as non-negligible momentum scales at small $q_{T}$ and affect resummation of soft and collinear radiation. We point out inconsistencies in the treatment of heavy-flavor channels at small $q_{T}$ in massless and fixed-flavor number factorization schemes, and formulate small-$q_{T}$ resummation in a general-mass variable flavor number factorization scheme. The improved treatment of the quark mass dependence leads to non-negligible effects in precision measurements of the $W$ boson mass at the LHC and may cause observable modifications in production of Higgs bosons and other particles in heavy-quark scattering.'
author:
- 'Stefan Berge,$^{1}$[^1] Pavel M. Nadolsky,$^{2}$[^2] and Fredrick I. Olness,$^{1}$[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bibolness4.bib'
title: 'Heavy-flavor effects in soft gluon resummation for electroweak boson production at hadron colliders '
---
Introduction\[sec:Introduction\]
================================
Key electroweak observables of the standard model (SM), such as the mass and width of $W$ bosons, will be measured with high precision in production of $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ bosons in hadron collisions at the Fermilab (Tevatron) and Large Hadron Collider at CERN (LHC). The uncertainty in the $W$ boson mass $M_{W}$ will be reduced to 30-40 MeV per experiment in the Tevatron Run-2 and to about 15 MeV at the LHC [@Brock:1999ep; @Haywood:1999qg][.]{} At this level of accuracy, the theory framework must incorporate effects were dismissed in less precise analyses.
One such feature is the dependence on masses of quarks, which is frequently neglected in hard-scattering reactions. While the massless approximation is clearly appropriate in channels involving only light quarks ($u$, $d$, and perhaps $s$), it may be less adequate when heavy quarks ($c$ and $b$) are involved, particularly when the cross section depends on a small momentum scale close to the mass ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ of the heavy quark. The distributions of heavy electroweak bosons over their transverse momenta $q_{T}$ may be sensitive to the masses of $c$ and $b$ quarks, given that the transverse momenta of most bosons (of order, or less than a few GeV) are comparable to ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$. The impact of the quark masses on the $q_{T}$ distributions of bosons with invariant masses $Q\geq M_{W}$ is suppressed by properties of soft parton radiation, as demonstrated below. Nonetheless, the quark mass effects are relevant in high-precision studies, such as the measurement of $M_{W}$, or in reactions dominated by scattering of heavy quarks (particularly bottom quarks), such as Higgs boson production in $b\bar{b}$ annihilation.
In the present paper, we quantify the effects of the heavy-quark masses on $q_{T}$ distributions in Drell-Yan production of $W^{\pm}$, $Z^{0}$, and Higgs bosons. We evaluate the associated impact on the $W$ boson mass measurement and demonstrate the importance of the quark-mass corrections in the processes initiated by bottom quarks, like $b\bar{b}\rightarrow\mbox{Higgs}$. This latter channel can have a large cross section in supersymmetric extensions of the standard model [@Carena:2002es; @Spira:1997dg; @Assamagan:2004mu].
The description of the heavy-quark scattering is complex because of the presence of the heavy-quark mass scale ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$, in addition to the boson’s transverse momentum $q_{T}$ and its virtuality $Q$. Two popular factorization schemes (fixed-flavor number (FFN) scheme [@Gluck:1982cp; @Gluck:1988uk; @Nason:1989zy; @Laenen:1992cc; @Laenen:1993zk; @Laenen:1993xs] and zero-mass variable flavor number (ZM-VFN) scheme) were applied recently to calculate various observables in the $b$-quark channels [@Harlander:2003ai; @Campbell:2002zm; @Maltoni:2003pn; @Dawson:2003kb; @Dawson:2004sh; @Dawson:2005vi; @Dittmaier:2003ej; @Campbell:2003dd; @Maltoni:2005wd]. However, neither of the two schemes is entirely consistent when describing logarithmic corrections in processes like $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H$ in the small-$q_{T}$ region. When $q_{T}$ is much smaller than $Q$, the calculation of the $q_{T}$ distribution in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (PQCD) must evaluate an all-order sum of large logarithms $\ln(q_{T}^{2}/Q^{2})$, arising as a consequence of the recoil of the electroweak bosons against unobserved hadrons of relatively low energy or transverse momentum (soft and collinear hadrons). The resummation of Drell-Yan $q_{T}$ distributions for massless initial-state quarks has been developed in a variety of forms [@Dokshitzer:1978dr; @Parisi:1979se; @Altarelli:1984pt; @Collins:1985kg; @Ellis:1998ii; @Kulesza:2002rh; @Ji:2004xq]. In the present paper we use the Collins-Soper-Sterman formalism (CSS) [@Collins:1985kg], which excellently describes the available $q_{T}$ data from fixed-target Drell-Yan experiments and $Z^{0}$ boson production at the Tevatron. When applied to heavy-quark scattering, small-$q_{T}$ resummation indispensably involves logarithms depending on both the transverse momentum, $\ln(q_{T}^{2}/Q^{2})$, and heavy-quark mass, $\ln(\mu_{F}^{2}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}^{2})$. To correctly treat both types of large contributions, Ref. [@Nadolsky:2002jr] extended the CSS formalism to a general-mass variable flavor number (GM-VFN) scheme [@Collins:1998rz]. The extended resummation formalism was then applied to describe heavy-flavor production in deep inelastic scattering (DIS). We review the $q_{T}$ resummation formalism for heavy quarks in Section \[sec:Formalism\].
The present study was motivated by the results of Ref. [@Nadolsky:2002jr], where the correct treatment of the heavy-quark masses was found to substantially change the differential cross sections for heavy quark production in DIS at small $q_{T}\approx{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. In Section \[sec:Numerical-results\], we extend that study to examine the heavy-flavor effects on $q_{T}$ distributions of $W^{\pm}$, $Z^{0}$, and Higgs bosons produced at the Tevatron and LHC. To get a first idea about the magnitude of the mass effects, we consider fractional contributions of reaction channels with initial-state $c$ and $b$ quarks to the entire production rate (see Table \[tab:WZfraction\]). At the Tevatron, the heavy-quark channels contribute only $8\%$ ($3\%$) of the inclusive cross section in $W^{\pm}$ ($Z^{0}$) boson production, and consequently the quark masses can be usually neglected. At the LHC, the heavy-quark channels add up to $22\%$ in $W^{+}$ and $31\%$ in $W^{-}$ boson production. Modifications caused by the heavy-quark masses at the LHC are comparable to the other uncertainties and must be considered in precision measurements of $M_{W}$. We then turn to Higgs boson production in the $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H$ channel. We show that the nonzero mass of the bottom quark substantially modifies the small-$q_{T}$ Higgs distribution. Furthermore, we note that other processes with initial-state heavy quarks, like $bg\rightarrow Z^{0}b,\, H^{-}t,\, H^{+}\bar{t},\, H^{0}b$, etc. will be affected by the heavy-quark masses in a similar way. We summarize the results of this study in Section \[sec:Conclusion\].
\[sec:Formalism\]Transverse momentum resummation for massive quarks
===================================================================
General form of the resummed form factor\[sub:GeneralFormW\]
------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we define the essential elements for the transverse momentum resummation in the presence of massive quarks. The resummed differential cross section for the inclusive production of heavy electroweak bosons in scattering of initial-state hadrons $A$ and $B$ takes the form [@Collins:1985kg]$$\frac{d\sigma}{dQ^{2}dydq_{T}^{2}}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{bdb}{2\pi}\, J_{0}(q_{T}b)\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\,\,+\,\, Y(q_{T},Q,y,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}),\label{WYDY}$$ where $y=\left(1/2\right)\ln\left[(E+p_{z})/(E-p_{z})\right]$ is the rapidity of the vector boson, $x_{{A,B}}\equiv Qe^{\pm y}/\sqrt{S}$ are the Born-level partonic momentum fractions, $S$ is the square of the center-of-mass energy of the collider, and $J_{0}(q_{T}b)$ is the Bessel function. The integral is the Fourier-Bessel transform of a form factor $\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{{A}},x_{{B}},\{ m_{q}\}$) in impact parameter ($b$) space, which contains the all-order sum of the logarithms $\alpha_{s}^{n}\,\ln^{m}(q_{T}^{2}/Q^{2})$. The $b$-space form factor is given by$$\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{{A}},x_{{B}},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})=\frac{\pi}{S}\,\sum_{j,k}\sigma_{jk}^{(0)}\, e^{-\mathcal{S}(b,Q,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})}\,\,{\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{j/A}(x_{A},b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\,\,{\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{k/B}(x_{{B}},b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}),\label{WCSS}$$ where the summation is performed over the relevant parton flavors $j$ and $k$. Here, $\sigma_{jk}^{(0)}$ is the product of the Born-level prefactors, $e^{-{\mathcal{S}}(b,Q,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})}$ is an exponential of the Sudakov integral $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}(b,Q,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\equiv\int_{b_{0}^{2}/b^{2}}^{Q^{2}}\frac{d\bar{\mu}^{2}}{\bar{\mu}^{2}}\biggl[{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu}),\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\,\mathrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{Q^{2}}{\bar{\mu}^{2}}\biggr)+{\mathcal{B}}(\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu}),\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\biggr],\label{Sudakov}\end{aligned}$$ and ${\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{j/A}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ are the $b$-dependent parton distributions. The constant factor $b_{0}\equiv2e^{-\gamma_{E}}\approx1.123$ appears in several places when a momentum scale is constructed from the impact parameter, as in the lower limit $b_{0}^{2}/b^{2}$ of integration in Eq. (\[Sudakov\]). The Sudakov exponential and $b$-dependent parton densities resum contributions from soft and collinear multi-parton radiation, respectively. In the perturbative region ($b^{2}\ll\nolinebreak\Lambda_{QCD}^{-2}$), the distributions ${\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{j/A}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ factorize as$$\begin{aligned}
\left.\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{j/A}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\right|_{b^{2}\ll\Lambda_{QCD}^{-2}} & = & \sum_{a=g,u,d,...}\,\int_{x}^{1}\,\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\,{\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x/\xi,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})\, f_{a/A}(\xi,\mu_{F})\nonumber \\
& \equiv & \left({\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}\otimes f_{a/A}\right)(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})\label{Pja}\end{aligned}$$ into a sum of convolutions of the Wilson coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})$ and $k_{T}$-integrated parton distributions $f_{a/A}(\xi,\mu_{F})$. Note that the initial state $A$ can be a hadron as well as a parton, in which case we denote the partonic initial state as $A^{\prime}$.
If quark masses $\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}$ are neglected in the coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})$, it depends on $b$ and $\mu_{F}$ only through the logarithm $\ln(\mu_{F}b/b_{0})$:$$\lim_{\{ b{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}\rightarrow\{0\}}{\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})={\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x,\ln\frac{b\mu_{F}}{b_{0}}).\label{smallbmHQ}$$ For this reason, we set the factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ equal to $b_{0}/b$ to prevent the large logarithms $\ln(\mu_{F}b/b_{0})$ from appearing in ${\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}$ in the limit $b\rightarrow0$.
$Y(q_{T},Q,y,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ in Eq. (\[WYDY\]) is the regular part, defined as the difference of the fixed-order cross section and the expansion of the Fourier-Bessel integral to the same order of $\alpha_{s}$; it dominates at $q_{T}\sim Q$ and is small at $q_{T}\rightarrow0$. The regular piece $Y$ and the dominant contributions in $\widetilde{W}$ can be calculated in PQCD, if $Q$ is sufficiently large. A small nonperturbative component in $\widetilde{W}$ contributing at $q_{T}$ less than a few GeV can be approximated within one of the available models. Our specific choice of the nonperturbative model is described in Section \[sub:Non-perturbative-contributions\].
Extension to the case of massive quarks \[sub:ExtensionToTheMassiveCase\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eqs. (\[WYDY\]) and (\[WCSS\]) indicate that $\widetilde{W}$ and $Y$ may explicitly depend on the masses of heavy quarks $\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},$ with ${{\mathcal Q}}=c,$ $b,$ and $t$. Masses of the light $u,$ $d,$ and $s$ quarks ($m_{u,d,s}{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.4ex\hbox{$<$}} {\lower.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\Lambda_{QCD}$) are neglected by definition in hard-scattering contributions and implicitly retained in the nonperturbative functions, *i.e.*, parton densities $f_{a/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ and power corrections to $\widetilde{W}$ at large impact parameters $b>1$ $\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$. Indeed, the nonperturbative dynamics described by $f_{a/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ and power corrections does depend on the light-quark masses, but this dependence is not separated explicitly from the other nonperturbative effects.
In contrast to the masses of $u,$ $d,$ and $s$ quarks, masses of the heavy quarks must be retained in the hard-scattering terms in some cases. Several viable options exist for the treatment of $\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}$, depending on the energy and flavor composition of the scattering reaction. In two common approaches, the heavy quark contributions to the PDF’s $f_{a/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ and other resummed functions are either neglected or, alternatively, treated on the same footing as contributions from the light quarks ($u,d,$ and $s$) above the respective heavy-quark mass thresholds, often placed, for convenience, at $\mu_{F}={m_{\mathcal Q}}$. These choices correspond to the FFN and ZM-VFN factorization schemes, respectively. The FFN scheme optimally organizes the perturbative QCD series at energies of order of the heavy-quark mass ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$. The ZM-VFN scheme is the best choice for inclusive (depending on one momentum scale) distributions at energies much larger than ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$. It commonly utilizes dimensional regularization to expose collinear singularities of massless partonic matrix elements as $1/\epsilon^{p}$ poles in $n=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions.
Neither of the two schemes is entirely satisfactory when applied to differential distributions depending on two or more momentum scales of distinct magnitudes, as is the case of small-$q_{T}$ resummation at large $Q$. At sufficiently large $\sqrt{S}$, the heavy-flavor quarks are copiously produced by quasi-collinear splittings of gluons along the directions of the initial-state hadrons. Such collinear contributions must be resummed at $Q\gg{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ in the parton density $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ for the heavy quarks ${{\mathcal Q}}$, so that a VFN factorization scheme is needed. If all scales (including $q_{T}$) are of order $Q$, the heavy-quark mass ${m_{\mathcal Q}}\ll q_{T}\sim Q$ can be neglected in the hard-scattering matrix elements, reducing the result to the ZM-VFN scheme. But ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ cannot be omitted at small $q_{T}$ (${m_{\mathcal Q}}\sim q_{T}\ll Q$), where it is not small compared to the momentum of the soft and collinear radiation.
In $b$-space, the form factor $\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ is not well-defined in the ZM-VFN scheme in the heavy-quark channels at impact parameters $b>b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$, corresponding to factorization scales $\mu_{F}$ below the heavy-quark mass threshold, $\mu_{F}=b_{0}/b<{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. For charm quarks with mass $m_{c}=1.3\mbox{\, GeV}$ and bottom quarks with mass $m_{b}=4.5$ GeV, the ZM-VFN form factor $\widetilde{W}$ is not well-defined at $b>\nolinebreak0.86$ and $0.25\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$, respectively. The problem lies with the heavy-quark Wilson coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/a}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$, which is derived by using the factorization relation of Eq. (\[Pja\]) with the densities ${\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A^{\prime}}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ and $f_{a/A^{\prime}}(x,\mu_{F})$ of heavy quarks in partonic initial states $A^{\prime}=q,{{\mathcal Q}},g$. At $\mu_{F}$ below the threshold, the $k_{T}$-integrated heavy-quark density $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A^{\prime}}(x,\mu_{F})$ is set identically equal to zero, in accordance with the definition of $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A^{\prime}}(x,\mu_{F})$ in the ZM-VFN scheme. Consequently the collinear poles $1/\epsilon$ arising in the calculation of the $b$-dependent density ${\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A^{\prime}}(x,b)$ for massless splittings ${{\mathcal Q}}\leftarrow A^{\prime}$ in $n\neq4$ dimensions cannot be canceled by $f_{a/A^{\prime}}(x,\mu_{F})$ at such $\mu_{F}$. Eq. (\[Pja\]) then implies that the Wilson coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/a}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$ may be also infinite (contain the $1/\epsilon$ poles) below the heavy-quark threshold. The infinity arises because the ZM-VFN scheme incorrectly neglects the heavy-quark mass ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ at energies $\mu_{F}=b_{0}/b$ of order or less than ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$. The solution to this problem is to retain the dependence on ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ at $b\gtrsim b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}},$ which can be realized by formulating the CSS resummation in the GM-VFN factorization scheme.
The GM-VFN scheme [@Collins:1998rz] consistently implements the heavy-quark masses at all energy scales $\mu_{F}$, and it reproduces the FFN and ZM-VFN schemes in the limits $\mu_{F}\lesssim{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ and $\mu_{F}\gg{m_{\mathcal Q}}$, respectively. Several versions of the GM-VFN scheme have been developed in the past years [@Aivazis:1994pi; @Kniehl:1995em; @Buza:1998wv; @Thorne:1998ga; @Thorne:1998uu; @Cacciari:1998it; @Chuvakin:1999nx; @Kramer:2000hn; @Tung:2001mv]. A general procedure for the implementation of the GM-VFN scheme in $q_{T}$ resummation was outlined in Ref. [@Nadolsky:2002jr], where an application of the CSS resummation in the simplified Aivazis-Collins-Olness-Tung (S-ACOT) factorization scheme [@Collins:1998rz; @Kramer:2000hn] was presented for production of heavy quarks at HERA.
The S-ACOT scheme is a variant of the GM-VFN scheme, which simplifies computations by neglecting the heavy-quark masses in hard subgraphs with incoming heavy quarks (flavor-excitation graphs), such as ${{\mathcal Q}}+g\rightarrow{{\mathcal Q}}+g$. The heavy-quark masses are retained in the hard subgraphs with explicit production of heavy quarks (flavor-creation graphs), such as $g+g\rightarrow{{\mathcal Q}}+\bar{{{\mathcal Q}}}$. As demonstrated in Ref. [@Nadolsky:2002jr], application of the S-ACOT rules to the CSS resummed cross section efficiently retains the dependence on the heavy-quark masses where it is important, and drops it where it is not essential.
In production of heavy gauge bosons ($Q\gg{m_{\mathcal Q}}$), the S-ACOT rules allow us to drop the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence at $q_{T}\gg{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ and keep the essential ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence at $q_{T}\lesssim{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. We assume that the heavy quarks are pairwise produced in perturbative splittings of gluons. We neglect possible, but yet experimentally unconfirmed, nonperturbative “intrinsic” heavy-quark contributions to the proton wavefunction [@Brodsky:1980pb]. We neglect the mass dependence entirely in the $Y$-term, as it is non-negligible only at $q_{T}\gg{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. In the $\widetilde{W}$-term, we drop the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence in all flavor-excitation hard subgraphs and keep it in all flavor-creation hard subgraphs. By this rule, ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ is dropped in the perturbative Sudakov form factor ${\mathcal{S}}$ and the coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}_{a/{{\mathcal Q}}}$ with the incoming heavy quarks, both of which are described by the flavor-excitation Feynman graphs. We evaluate ${\mathcal{S}}$ up to ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}^{2}/\pi^{2})$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_{a/{{\mathcal Q}}}$ up to ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}/\pi)$ by using their massless expressions.
We keep the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence in the gluon-initiated coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}$, since those are computed from the flavor-creation Feynman graphs. The mass-dependent ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}/\pi)$ coefficient ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}$ in ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}$ is given by [@Nadolsky:2002jr]$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F}) & = & T_{R}x(1-x)\, b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}}\, K_{1}(b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}})\nonumber \\
& & +P_{q/g}^{(1)}(x)\left[K_{0}(b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}})-\theta(\mu_{F}-{m_{\mathcal Q}})\ln\Bigl(\frac{\mu_{F}}{{m_{\mathcal Q}}}\Bigr)\right],\label{CHQg}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{q/g}^{(1)}(x)=T_{R}\left[x^{2}+(1-x)^{2}\right]$ is the $q\leftarrow g$ splitting function, $T_{R}=1/2$, and $K_{0}(z)$ and $K_{1}(z)$ are the modified Bessel functions [@AbramowitzStegun]. The term proportional to the step function $\theta(\mu_{F}-{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ is nonzero above the heavy-quark threshold ($\mu_{F}\geq{m_{\mathcal Q}}$), where the collinear logarithm $P_{q/g}^{(1)}(x)\ln\left(\mu_{F}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}\right)$ is subtracted from ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$ and absorbed into the heavy-quark PDF $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})$. The subtraction is not performed below the heavy-quark threshold, because $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})=0$ at $\mu_{F}<{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. For $b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}}\ll1$, the gluon-initiated coefficient function reduces to its massless expression, $$\lim_{b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}}\rightarrow0}{\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})=T_{R}x(1-x)-P_{q/g}^{(1)}(x)\ln\left(\mu_{F}b/b_{0}\right).\label{CHQgmeq0}$$
\
(a)(b)\
Convolutions of the Wilson coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/a}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$ and $k_{T}$-integrated PDF’s $f_{a/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ are combined into the $b$-dependent parton density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ according to Eq. (\[Pja\]). At an $n$-th order of $\alpha_{s}$, $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ and its derivatives are continuous in $\ln(b)$ up to order $n$, if computed in the S-ACOT scheme. Here the order of $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ is determined by a formal counting of powers of $\alpha_{s}$ appearing both in the coefficient functions and PDF’s. In this counting, the PDF $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A^{\prime}}(x,\mu_{F})$ for perturbatively generated heavy quarks is one order higher in $\alpha_{s}$ than the light-parton PDF’s.
At leading order (LO), the function $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ is composed of the heavy-quark-initiated coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/{{\mathcal Q}}}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$, evaluated at order $\alpha_{s}^{0}$, and the gluon coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$, evaluated at order $\alpha_{s}/\pi$:$$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}) & = & \left({\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/{{\mathcal Q}}}^{(0)}\otimes f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}\right)(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{F})}{\pi}\left({\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}\otimes f_{g/A}\right)(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})+{\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2}/\pi^{2}).\label{PHQALO}\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/{{\mathcal Q}}}^{(0)}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})=\delta(1-x)$. The dependence of the leading-order (LO) parton density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ on $b$ is shown for the charm quarks in Fig. \[fig:PbA\](a) and bottom quarks in Fig. \[fig:PbA\](b). The factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ is set equal to $b_{0}/b$ to correctly resum the collinear logarithms in $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ in the small-$b$ limit (cf. Eq. (\[smallbmHQ\])). Together with the S-ACOT predictions (solid lines), we show the ZM-VFN predictions (dashed lines).
As discussed above, the ZM-VFN parton density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ is not properly defined below the threshold $\mu_{F}={m_{\mathcal Q}}$ (or above $b=b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$). We formally define the “ZM-VFN” density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ at $b>b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ according to Eq. (\[PHQALO\]) by using massless Wilson coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}_{j/a}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}=0,\mu_{F})$, as it was done in the previous resummation calculations. Such a definition provides just one of many possible continuations of the “ZM-VFN” coefficient functions below the heavy-quark threshold, which render different results in $q_{T}$ space. We indicate this ambiguity by enclosing “ZM-VFN” in quotes and placing a question mark by the dashed line in Fig. \[fig:PbA\]. At $b>b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$, the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[PHQALO\]) vanishes ($f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})=0$), so that $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ becomes equal to the second term:$$\begin{aligned}
"\mbox{ZM-VFN}",\, b>b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}:\nonumber \\
\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}=0) & = & \frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{F})}{\pi}\left({\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}\otimes f_{g/A}\right)(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}=0,\mu_{F})+{\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2}/\pi^{2}).\label{ZM-VFNPqHQA}\end{aligned}$$ The massless ${{\mathcal Q}}\leftarrow g$ coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}=0,\mu_{F})$ in Eq. (\[ZM-VFNPqHQA\]) is given by Eq. (\[CHQgmeq0\]).
As in the ZM-VFN scheme, the heavy-quark PDF $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})$ vanishes below the heavy-quark threshold in the S-ACOT scheme. However, the S-ACOT scheme properly preserves the mass-dependent terms below the threshold as a part of the gluon-initiated coefficient function ${\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/g}^{(1)}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$. The S-ACOT parton density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ is well-defined at all $b.$ It reduces to the ZM-VFN result at $b\ll b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ and is strongly suppressed at $b\gg b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ by the modified Bessel functions $K_{0}(b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ and $K_{1}(b\,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$. The large-$b$ suppression is particularly strong in the case of the bottom quarks, where $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{b/p}(x,b,m_{b})$ is essentially negligible at $b>1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:PbA\]b). The suppression is caused by the decoupling of the heavy quarks in the parton densities at $\mu_{F}$ much smaller than ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ ($b$ much larger than $b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$). This suppression is independent from the suppression of contributions with $b\gtrsim0.5-1\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$ by the Sudakov exponential $e^{-{\cal S}(b,Q)}$ (see Section \[sec:W-space-form-factor\]), and it does not depend on $Q.$ Consequently the impact of the nonperturbative contributions from $b\gtrsim1\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$ is reduced in the heavy-quark channels comparatively to the light-quark channels.
Nonperturbative contributions\[sub:Non-perturbative-contributions\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To gauge the effect of the nonperturbative contributions on the form factor $\widetilde{W}$, we must estimate the behavior of the Sudakov exponential $e^{-{\mathcal{S}}(b,Q)}$ and $b$-dependent parton densities ${\mathcal{\overline{P}}}_{j/A}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ at large $b$. Many studies have investigated the nonperturbative contributions to the resummed form factor; see, e.g., Refs. [@Collins:1982uw; @Davies:1984sp; @Collins:1985kg; @Ladinsky:1994zn; @Ellis:1997sc; @Landry:1999an; @Guffanti:2000ep; @Kulesza:2001jc; @Kulesza:2002rh; @Landry:2002ix; @Ji:2004xq; @Qiu:2000hf]. Here we opt to use a new parameterization of the nonperturbative component found in a global analysis [@KonychevNadolsky:2005xx] of Drell-Yan pair and $Z$ boson production. This parameterization is obtained in the revised $b_{*}$ model [@Collins:1982va; @Collins:1985kg], with the free model parameters chosen as to maximally preserve the exact form of the perturbative contributions at $b<1\mbox{ \, GeV}^{-1}$ [@KonychevNadolsky:2005xx].
The $b_{*}$ model introduces a function $b_{*}(b,b_{max})\equiv b/\sqrt{1+b^{2}/b_{max}^{2}}$ and defines the resummed form factor $\widetilde{W}$ as$$\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})\equiv\widetilde{W}_{pert}\left(b_{*}(b,b_{max}),Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}\right)\,\,\, e^{-{\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)}\,\label{Wbstar}$$ at all $b$, with $\widetilde{W}_{pert}\left(b_{*}(b,b_{max}),Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}\right)$ being the finite-order (“perturbative”) approximation to $\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$. The higher-order corrections in $\alpha_{s}$ and “power-suppressed” terms proportional to positive powers of $b$ are cumulatively described by the nonperturbative function ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$, defined as $${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)\equiv-\ln\left(\frac{\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})}{\widetilde{W}_{pert}\left(b_{*}(b,b_{max}),Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\}\right)}\right)$$ and found by fitting to the data.
In accordance with Ref. [@KonychevNadolsky:2005xx], we choose $b_{max}=1.5\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$. We also choose the factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ in $\left({\mathcal{C}}\otimes f\right)(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\},\mu_{F})$ such that it stays above the initial scale $Q_{0}\sim1\,$ GeV for the PDF’s $f_{a/A}(x,\mu_{F})$. Specifically, we define $\mu_{F}\equiv b_{0}/b_{*}(b,b_{0}/Q_{0})=(Q_{0}^{2}+b_{0}^{2}/b^{2})^{1/2}$, so that $\mu_{F}$ is approximately equal to $b_{0}/b$ at $b\rightarrow0$ and asymptotically approaches $Q_{0}$ at $b\rightarrow\infty$.
The function ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ found in the fit of Ref. [@KonychevNadolsky:2005xx] has the form $${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)\equiv b^{2}\left[0.201+0.184\,\,\mathrm{ln}\left(Q/(3.2\mbox{\, GeV})\right)-0.026\,\,\mathrm{ln}\left(100\, x_{A}x_{B}\right)\right].\label{KNform}$$ This parameterization has several advantages compared to the previous nonperturbative models. First, it minimizes modifications in $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(b,Q,x_{A},x_{B},\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ by the $b_{*}$ prescription in the small-$b$ region, where perturbation theory is valid. Second, Eq. (\[KNform\]) is in a good agreement with both the available $q_{T}$ data and theoretical expectations. ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ has a quadratic form, ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}\propto b^{2},$ and follows a nearly linear dependence on $\ln(Q)$, which can be seen in Eq. (\[KNform\]) if the small term $-0.026\ln(100\, x_{A}x_{B})$ is neglected. The quadratic form leads to Gaussian smearing by nonperturbative “intrinsic-$k_{T}$” effects: $\widetilde{W}(b,Q)\sim e^{-0.5\langle k_{T}^{2}\rangle b^{2}}$, with $\langle k_{T}^{2}\rangle\lesssim1\mbox{ GeV}^{2}$ in the observable $Q$ range. Both the quadratic form and linear $\ln(Q)$ dependence of ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ are suggested by the infrared renormalon analysis of the large-$b$ contributions [@Korchemsky:1999kt]. The coefficient $a_{2}=0.184\mbox{\, GeV}^{2}$ of the $\ln(Q)$ term (found in the fit) agrees well with its independent estimate $\,0.19_{-0.09}^{+0.12}\mbox{\, GeV}^{2}$ obtained within the renormalon analysis [@Tafat:2001in]. The $\ln(Q)$ term arises from the Sudakov factor as a consequence of the renormalization-group invariance of the resummed form factor [@Collins:1982va]. It does not depend on the quark flavors, and it contributes about 70% to the magnitude of ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ at $Q\sim M_{Z}$. Therefore, we expect the large flavor-independent term $0.184\, b^{2}\ln(Q/3.2\mbox{\, GeV})$ to be also present in the heavy-quark scattering channels.
The other terms in Eq. (\[KNform\]) may in principle depend on the flavor of the participating quarks. However, no obvious dependence on the quark flavor or nucleon isospin was observed in the global $q_{T}$ fit to the Drell-Yan pair and $Z$ boson production data [@KonychevNadolsky:2005xx], perhaps because these data are mostly sensitive to the scattering of light $u$ and $d$ quarks. Additional nonperturbative contributions may be present in the heavy-quark sector, especially if the “intrinsic” heavy-quark states [@Brodsky:1980pb] constitute a non-negligible part of the proton’s wavefunction. In the classical realization, the intrinsic heavy quarks contribute at large momentum fractions ($x\rightarrow1$), while the bulk of $W$ and $Z$ boson production happens at much smaller $x,$ $x=10^{-3}-10^{-1}$. Since the existence of the “intrinsic” heavy quarks remains an open question, we do not consider them in this study. We therefore parametrize the nonperturbative contributions by Eq. (\[KNform\]), which neglects the flavor dependence. We vary the parameters of ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ in the heavy-quark channels in order to evaluate the uncertainty in the physical observables arising from this approximation.
An example of the $b$-space form factor\[sec:W-space-form-factor\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Fig. \[fig:bWb\] $\,$shows an example of the full resummed form factor $b\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ (cf. Eq. (\[WCSS\])) in $Z$ boson production via $b\bar{b}$ annihilation in the Tevatron Run-2. The form factor is computed in the S-ACOT scheme at the leading-order (LO) and in the S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” schemes at the partial next-to-leading-order (NLO). The leading-order “ZM-VFN” contribution is computed by using the formal definition of $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,m_{{{\mathcal Q}}}=0)$ in Eq. (\[PHQALO\]). The NLO curves are obtained by adding the massless flavor-excitation contribution $\left({\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/{{\mathcal Q}}}^{(1)}\otimes f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}\right)(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}}=0,\mu_{F})$ of order ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}/\pi)$ to the LO parton density $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ in Eq. (\[PHQALO\]). We do not include the ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}^{2}/\pi^{2})$ flavor-creation contribution $\left({\mathcal{C}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/a}^{(2)}\otimes f_{a/A}\right)(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}},\mu_{F})$, with $a=q,\, g$, needed to evaluate $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,\{{m_{\mathcal Q}}\})$ at the full NLO accuracy. The partial NLO approximation results in a discontinuity of the derivative $d\widetilde{W}(b,Q)/d\ln b$ at the bottom quark threshold, which has little impact on our results. The perturbative contribution to the Sudakov factor ${\mathcal{S}}(b,Q)$ is evaluated up to order $\alpha_{s}^{2}/\pi^{2}$. The nonperturbative terms are included according to Eqs. (\[Wbstar\]) and (\[KNform\]), assuming flavor independence of ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$. Furthermore, the CTEQ5HQ1 parton distributions [@Lai:1999wy] were used.
According to the figure, the form factor $b\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ in $b\bar{b}\rightarrow Z$ exhibits a maximum at $b\approx0.07\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$. Larger impact parameters are suppressed by the Sudakov exponential $e^{-{\cal S}(b,Q)}$ by an amount growing with $Q$, independently of the quark flavor and factorization scheme. In the S-ACOT scheme, the form factor is also suppressed by the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ decoupling in $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$. Consequently the mass-dependent variations in $b\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ are more pronounced in production of not too heavy bosons, such as $Z^{0}$, and in bottom quark channels, where they occur at relatively small $b\approx0.25\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:PbA\]).
The “ZM-VFN” form factor underestimates the S-ACOT form factor in a wide range of $b$, and it exhibits non-smooth behavior in the vicinity of the bottom quark threshold. The NLO S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” form factors agree well at $b<0.05\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$. The NLO correction to $\overline{{\mathcal{P}}}_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,b,{m_{\mathcal Q}})$ mainly contributes at $b\approx0.02-0.25\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$, where it enhances the LO form factor. The NLO correction is turned off at $b>0.25\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$ by the condition $f_{{{\mathcal Q}}/A}(x,\mu_{F})=0$ for $\mu_{F}<{m_{\mathcal Q}}$. It is also suppressed at $b<0.02\mbox{\, GeV}^{-1}$ by the small $\alpha_{s}(b_{0}/b)$.
The differences between the S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” form factors seen at $b\approx b_{0}/{m_{\mathcal Q}}$ will affect the cross sections in $q_{T}$ space at small and moderate transverse momenta.
Numerical results\[sec:Numerical-results\]
==========================================
In the present section we compare the resummed $q_{T}$ distributions calculated in the massive (S-ACOT) and massless (“ZM-VFN”) schemes, defined according to Eq. (\[ZM-VFNPqHQA\]). We examine Drell-Yan production of $W^{\pm}$, $Z^{0}$, and Higgs bosons in the Tevatron Run-2 (the c.m. energy $\sqrt{S}=1.96$ TeV) and at the LHC ($\sqrt{S}=14$ TeV). In the case of $W$ boson production, we consider the leptonic decay mode $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and discuss the impact of the different schemes on the measurement of the $W$ boson mass. We apply the resummation formalism described in the previous section. The numerical calculation was performed using the programs Legacy and ResBos [@Balazs:1997xd; @Landry:2002ix] with the CTEQ5HQ1 parton distribution functions [@Lai:1999wy]. We use the parameterization (\[KNform\]) for the nonperturbative function ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$, unless stated otherwise. The $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ boson masses are assumed to be $M_{W}=80.423$ GeV and $M_{Z}=91.187$ GeV, respectively. The heavy quark masses are taken to be $m_{c}=1.3$ GeV and $m_{b}=4.5$ GeV.
Partonic subprocesses in $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ boson production
---------------------------------------------------------------
We first compare contributions of various partonic subprocesses to the total $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ production cross sections. These contributions will be classified according to the types of the quarks $q$ and antiquarks $\bar{q^{\prime}}$ entering the $q\bar{q^{\prime}}W$ or $q\bar{q}Z$ electroweak vertex. At the Born level, the cross section for production of narrow-width $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ bosons in a $q\bar{q^{\prime}}$ partonic channel is approximately given by$$\sigma_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}\approx\sigma_{0}\,\mathcal{L}_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}(\tau)\, g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}\,\,,$$ where $\tau\equiv Q^{2}/S,$ $Q=M_{W}$ ($M_{Z}$) in $W^{\pm}$ ($Z^{0}$) boson production,$$\mathcal{L}_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}(\tau)=\int_{\tau}^{1}\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\left[f_{q/A}(\xi,Q)\, f_{\bar{q}'/B}(\frac{{\tau}}{\xi},Q)+f_{\bar{q^{\prime}}/A}(\xi,Q)\, f_{q/B}(\frac{{\tau}}{\xi},Q)\right]$$ is the parton luminosity in the $q\bar{q^{\prime}}$ channel, $g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}$ is the flavor-dependent prefactor, and $\sigma_{0}$ includes the remaining flavor-independent terms [@Collins:1985kg]. In $W^{\pm}$ boson production, $$g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}=V_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}^{2},$$ where $V_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}$ is the appropriate CKM matrix entry. In $Z^{0}$ boson production, $$g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}=\delta_{qq^{\prime}}\left[(1-4\left|e_{q}\right|\sin^{2}\theta_{w})^{2}+1\right],$$ where $e_{q}=2/3$ or $-1/3$ is the quark electric charge in units of the positron charge, and $\theta_{w}$ is the weak mixing angle. The partial cross sections $\sigma_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}/\sigma_{tot}$ (where $\sigma_{tot}\equiv\sum_{q,\bar{q^{\prime}}}\sigma_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}$) in the different $q\bar{q^{\prime}}$ channels are evaluated as $\mathcal{L}_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}/\left(\sum_{q,\bar{q^{\prime}}}\mathcal{L}_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}g_{q\bar{q^{\prime}}}\right)$ and listed in Table \[tab:WZfraction\]. These values will be modified somewhat by the NLO radiative corrections included in the following subsections.
[|c|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|]{} & [\
]{} Subprocesses& $u\bar{d}$& $u\bar{s}$& $c\bar{d}$& $c\bar{s}$& $c\bar{b}$[\
]{} Tevatron Run-2& $90$& $2$& $1$& $7$& $0$[\
]{} LHC& $74$& $4$& $1$& $21$& $0$[\
]{}
[|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|]{} [\
]{} $d\bar{u}$& $s\bar{u}$& $d\bar{c}$& $s\bar{c}$& $b\bar{c}$[\
]{} $90$& $2$& $1$& $7$& $0$[\
]{} $67$& $2$& $3$& $28$& $0$[\
]{}
[|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|>m[7mm]{}|]{} [\
]{} $u\bar{u}$& $d\bar{d}$& $s\bar{s}$& $c\bar{c}$& $b\bar{b}$[\
]{} $57$& $35$& $5$& $2$& $1$[\
]{} $36$& $34$& $15$& $9$& $6$[\
]{}
According to the Table, the contributions of the heavy-quark channels at the Tevatron are small. In $W$ boson production, only $8\%$ of the cross section involves heavy (charm) quarks, while light quarks account for $92\%$. In $Z$ boson production, heavy quarks contribute even less, with only $3\%$. Due to the small fractional contribution of the heavy quarks at the Tevatron, the differences between the massive and the massless calculations are negligible given the expected experimental uncertainties.
The LHC probes smaller momentum values $x$, where the fractional contributions of the initial charm and bottom quarks are much larger. These channels sum up to $22\%$ in $W^{+}$ boson production, $31\%$ in $W^{-}$ boson production, and $15\%$ in $Z^{0}$ boson production. Therefore, the following discussion will concentrate on the LHC and only briefly mention the Tevatron processes.
$Z^{0}$ boson production at LHC\[sub:Numerical-results-Zboson\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
\
(a)(b)\
We first examine the influence of the charm and bottom quark masses on the resummed $Z^{0}$ boson cross section at the LHC. Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\] compares the transverse momentum distribution of $Z^{0}$ boson production in the heavy-quark ($c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$) channels at the LHC, calculated in the S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” schemes. Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\](a) shows the distribution in the $b\bar{b}$ channel only, where the effect is the largest due to the large $b$ quark mass. In the approximate “ZM-VFN” scheme (black dashed line), the $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ distribution is shifted in the maximum region at $\sim13$ GeV to larger transverse momenta by about $2$ GeV. This reflects the enhancement of the form factor $b\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ at $b\sim b_{0}/m_{b}\approx0.25\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$ in the S-ACOT scheme. The region of large transverse momenta ($q_{T}\gtrsim25$ GeV) is essentially sensitive only to small impact parameters ($b\lesssim0.1\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$), where the S-ACOT and ZM-VFN form factors are very close. Consequently, the two schemes give very close predictions in the large-$q_{T}$ region.
The shift to the larger values of $q_{T}$ is similar in the $c\bar{c}$ channel, albeit smaller due to the lower charm mass. Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\](b) shows the combined distribution in the $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ channels. The mass-induced shift of the peak of the $q_{T}$ distribution is much smaller, but clearly visible. One should notice that the distribution of Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\](b) peaks around $7.5$ GeV, since it is dominated by the charm contribution, whereas the bottom distribution peaks at $15$ GeV (Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\](a)). The combined effect, displayed in Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\](b), is an enhancement of the rate in the peak region of about $2.5\%$.
For comparison, the dot-dashed (blue) line shows the shift of the “ZM-VFN” $q_{T}$ distribution due to the choice of a different parameterization for the nonperturbative function ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$ [@Landry:2002ix]. The difference between the dotted (black) line and the dot-dashed (blue) line provides a conservative estimate of the current experimental uncertainty in ${\mathcal{F}}_{NP}(b,Q)$. The mass-induced effect is at least comparable to the other uncertainties, when the $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ channels are taken alone. However, these channels cannot be isolated from the light-quark channels in the single-particle inclusive observables. According to Table \[tab:WZfraction\], the heavy-quark channels contribute about $15\%$ to the total $Z^{0}$ boson cross section. If the light-quark flavors are included, the S-ACOT rate is enhanced in the maximum region by a small value of *$\sim0.3\%$,* which is beyond the experimental precision of the LHC.
$W^{\pm}$ boson production at LHC\[sub:Numerical-results-Wboson\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
$W^{\pm}$ boson production at the LHC is of particular interest, as it will be utilized to measure the $W$ boson mass $M_{W}$ with high precision (tentatively less than 15 MeV). The $W$ boson mass can be extracted in the leptonic decay $W\rightarrow e\nu$ by fitting the theoretical model for different values of $M_{W}$ to kinematical Jacobian peaks, arising at $M_{T}^{e\nu}\approx M_{W}$ in the leptonic transverse mass ($M_{T}^{e\nu}$) distribution [@Smith:1983aa], and at $p_{T}^{e}\sim M_{W}/2\approx40$ GeV in the electron $p_{T}^{e}$ spectrum.
The S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” schemes yield essentially identical results for the $M_{T}^{e\nu}$ distribution, suggesting that the error caused by the massless approximation is likely negligible in the $M_{T}^{e\nu}$ method. This conclusion follows from the low sensitivity of the $M_{T}^{e\nu}$ distribution to variations $\delta q_{T}$ in the bosonic $q_{T}$ distributions (suppressed by $\delta q_{T}^{2}/M_{W}^{2}\ll1$). However, the $p_{T}^{e}$ distribution may be strongly affected.
To better display percent-level changes in $d\sigma/dp_{T}^{e}$ associated with the effects of the heavy quarks, Fig. \[fig:W-LHC\] shows the fractional difference $\left(d\sigma^{mod}/dp_{T}^{e}\right)/\left(d\sigma^{S-ACOT}/dp_{T}^{e}\right)-1$ of the “modified” (e.g. “ZM-VFN”) cross section and the “standard” (S-ACOT) cross section. We compare the modifications due to the approximate massless “ZM-VFN” treatment to the modifications due to explicit variations of $M_{W}$ in the S-ACOT result.
\
(a)(b)\
We first examine the partonic production channels with at least one $c$ or $b$ quark (or their antiparticles) in the initial state. Fig. \[fig:W-LHC\](a) shows the fractional change of the $p_{T}^{e}$ distribution for these channels in $W^{-}$ boson production. The solid red line shows the reference result, calculated using the S-ACOT scheme with $M_{W}=80.423$ GeV. The dotted (green) and dot-dashed (blue) lines show the variation of the S-ACOT $p_{T}^{e}$ distribution, if the $W$ boson mass is shifted by $\pm30$ MeV. A small increase of $M_{W}$ results in a positive shift of the Jacobian peak (dotted green line), which reduces the cross section at $p_{T}^{e}<M_{W}/2$ and increases the cross section at $p_{T}^{e}>M_{W}/2.$ Smaller values of $M_{W}$ result in a shift in the opposite direction.
The dashed black curve is the ratio of the $p_{T}^{e}$ distributions calculated in the “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT schemes for $M_{W}=80.423$ GeV. In the heavy-quark channels only (Fig. (\[fig:W-LHC\](a)), the “ZM-VFN” approximation shifts the Jacobian peak in the positive direction. The size of this effect is comparable to a shift in $M_{W}$ of about $+35$ MeV.
Fig. \[fig:W-LHC\](a) is also representative of $W^{+}$ boson production at the LHC, because the dominant heavy-quark contributions ($c\bar{s}\rightarrow W^{+}$ and $\bar{c}s\rightarrow W^{-}$) are charge-conjugated, and the parton density functions of $c\,(s)$-quarks and $\bar{c}\,(\bar{s})$-anti-quarks are almost identical. Hence, the rates for $W^{+}$ and $W^{-}$ boson production in heavy-quark scattering are very similar.
Fig. \[fig:W-LHC\](b) shows the fractional change in the $p_{T}^{e}$ distribution for $W^{-}$ bosons, summed over all possible partonic states. The total shift of the differential cross section due to the “ZM-VFN” approximation is comparable with a positive $M_{W}$ shift of about $10$ MeV. This value is consistent with the shift of $35$ MeV in the $c$ and $b$ channels, in view of the fact that the $c,b$-channels contribute $\sim30\%$ to the total $W^{-}$ cross section according to Table \[tab:WZfraction\]. The $q_{T}$ shift is independent of the rapidity $y$ of the $W^{-}$ boson, because the rapidity distributions of $W^{-}$ bosons have similar shapes in the heavy-quark and combined channels (see Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(b)\]). Consequently the mass-induced shift in the $W^{-}$ boson $q_{T}$ distribution is not affected by the rapidity cuts.
We contrast this result with $W^{+}$ boson production, where the profile of the rapidity distribution for the heavy-quark channels differs from that for the combined channels. The rapidity distribution of $W^{+}$ bosons in all channels (solid line in Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(b)\]) has characteristic shoulders at $y\approx\pm3$. These shoulders are produced by $u\bar{d,}\, u\bar{s}\rightarrow W^{+}$ scattering, enhanced at large momentum fractions $x$ by the valence $u$-quark distribution. The fraction of $c$ and $b$ channels (dashed line) is the largest at central rapidities, $-1<y<1$. In this region, $c$ and $b$ contribute $\sim29\%$ to the cross section. The difference between the “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT $p_{T}^{e}$ distributions is comparable here to a change in $M_{W}$ of about $9$ MeV. In the full rapidity range, this difference is comparable to $\delta M_{W}\approx6$ MeV. If experimental cuts appropriate for the ATLAS experiment ($|y_{e}|<2.5$, $p_{T}^{e}>25$ GeV and ${E_{T}\hspace{-13pt}/\hspace{8pt}}>25$ GeV) are applied, the difference is comparable to $\delta M_{W}\approx7.5$ MeV.
The presented estimates may be modified by additional nonperturbative contributions arising in the heavy-quark channels, such as those associated with the “intrinsic” heavy quarks. Our model has neglected such contributions, in view that their magnitude is uncertain, and they are less likely to contribute at the small $x$ typical for $W$ and $Z$ boson production. We assumed that the dominant nonperturbative contribution at $Q\sim M_{Z}$ ($\approx70\%$ of ${\cal F}_{NP}(b,Q)$) arises from $Q$ dependence of the Sudakov factor, which does not depend on the quark flavor (cf. Section \[sub:Non-perturbative-contributions\]). The “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT functions differ in $b$ space by several tens of percent in the threshold region (cf. Figs. \[fig:PbA\] and \[fig:bWb\]). The extra nonperturbative terms must contribute at a comparable level to be non-negligible. We confirmed this estimate numerically by repeating the analysis of the $p_{T}^{e}$ distributions for a varied (rescaled by a factor of two) function ${\cal F}_{NP}(b,Q)$ in the heavy-quark channels. The resulting variation in $p_{T}^{e}$ distribution for the heavy-quark channels, comparable with $\delta M_{W}$ of a few tens MeV (???), is consistent with the effect of the rescaling of ${\cal F}_{NP}(b,Q)$ in $b$ space, of order of the difference of the “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT form factors $\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ in the large-$b$ region.
$Z^{0}$ and $W^{\pm}$ boson production at the Tevatron
------------------------------------------------------
The dependence on the heavy-quark masses in $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ boson production at the Tevatron follows nearly the same pattern as that at the LHC. In $Z^{0}$ boson production via $c$ and $b$ quark channels at the Tevatron, the $q_{T}$ distribution in the “ZM-VFN” approximation is shifted toward larger $q_{T}$ with respect to the S-ACOT distribution, in analogy to the similar shift at the LHC (cf. Fig. \[fig:ZLHC-Wrap(a)\]). The maximum of the $q_{T}$ distribution in the $b\bar{b}$ channel is shifted by approximately $2.5$ GeV if the masses of the quarks are neglected; this is slightly larger than the shift at the LHC. However, modifications in the $q_{T}$ distribution in the combined initial-state channels are negligible, because $c$ and $b$ scattering contributes only $3\%$ to the total $Z^{0}$ cross section (cf. Table \[tab:WZfraction\]).
The analysis of $W$ boson production at the Tevatron is less involved, given that the rates for the processes $p\bar{p}\rightarrow W^{+}X$ and $p\bar{p}\rightarrow W^{-}X$ are related by charge conjugation. The electron $p_{T}^{e}$ distributions in the $c$ and $b$ quark channels at the Tevatron qualitatively follow the pattern shown in Fig. \[fig:W-LHC\](a) for the LHC. The difference between the $p_{T}^{e}$ distributions in the “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT schemes at the Tevatron is comparable to the effect of a $M_{W}$ increase by $45$ MeV (vs. $35$ MeV at the LHC). The heavy-quark channels contribute just $8\%$ to the total $W^{\pm}$ cross section at the Tevatron. Consequently the net $M_{W}$ shift in all channels ($3$ MeV in the $p_{T}^{e}$ method and $0$ in the $M_{T}^{e\nu}$ method) is tiny compared to the expected experimental uncertainty of $\sim30-40$ MeV.
Higgs boson production\[sub:bbH\]
---------------------------------
In light of our analysis of the $b\bar{b}\to Z^{0}$ channel (Sec. \[sub:Numerical-results-Zboson\]), we anticipate that production of Higgs bosons $H^{0}$ via $b\bar{b}$ annihilation is also sensitive to the heavy-quark mass effects. In the standard model, the gluon-gluon fusion process $gg\rightarrow H^{0}$ is the dominant production channel for a wide range of Higgs boson masses at both the Tevatron and LHC (see, e.g., [@Assamagan:2004mu; @Carena:2002es; @Spira:1997dg] and references therein). Following the gluon-gluon fusion, the next most important channels at the Tevatron are associated $WH^{0}$ and $ZH^{0}$ production, and vector boson fusion. At the LHC, the next largest production modes are the electroweak boson fusion and Higgs-strahlung processes. The process $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H^{0}$ typically contributes less than $1\%$ of the total production cross section. In view of the current uncertainty in the Higgs transverse momentum distribution [@Dobbs:2004bu], effects due to the heavy quark mass in the $b\bar{b}$ channel will be negligible in the standard model.
The question becomes more interesting in extensions of the standard model containing two Higgs doublets, like the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), where the Yukawa couplings of the bottom quarks to the neutral Higgs bosons $h^{0}$, $H^{0}$ and $A^{0}$ depend on the supersymmetric parameter $\tan\beta$. If $\tan\beta$ is large, the bottom Yukawa coupling is strongly enhanced, while the top quark Yukawa coupling remains nearly constant or is suppressed (see Ref. [@Spira:1997dg]). The $b\bar{b}$ annihilation rate is comparable to the gluon-gluon fusion rate for medium values of $\tan\beta$ and can dominate the cross section for $\tan\beta\gtrsim30$.
We implemented the heavy-quark mass effects in the resummation subroutine for $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H^{0}$ developed in an earlier study [@Balazs:1998sb].[^4] Fig. \[fig:bbh\_lhc\] displays $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ for $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H^{0}$ boson production at (a) the Tevatron and (b) LHC. The Higgs boson mass is chosen to be $M_{H}=120$ GeV. The supersymmetric $b\bar{b}-\mbox{Higgs}$ couplings are obtained at leading order by rescaling the standard model coupling: $g_{b\bar{b}\{ h^{0},H^{0},A^{0}\}}^{MSSM}=\{-\sin\alpha,\cos\alpha,\sin\beta\,\gamma_{5}\} g_{bbH}^{SM}/\!\cos\beta$ [@Gunion:1984yn; @Gunion:1989we]. The net effect of the bottom quark masses on $q_{T}$ distributions will be the same for both SM and MSSM neutral Higgs bosons, up to an overall normalization constant. For this reason, Fig. \[fig:bbh\_lhc\] does not specify the overall normalization of $q_{T}$ distributions.
(a)(b)
The S-ACOT and “ZM-VFN” distributions $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ are shown by the solid (red) and dashed (black) lines, respectively. A significant shift of the distribution to larger values of $q_{T}$ is seen in the “ZM-VFN” approximation. As in $b\bar{b}\to Z^{0}$ process (Sec. \[sub:Numerical-results-Zboson\]), the enhancement of the $q_{T}$ distribution at small $q_{T}$ is caused by the enhancement in the S-ACOT form factor $b\,\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ at intermediate and large $b$ ($b>0.1\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$). At the Tevatron, Fig. \[fig:bbh\_lhc\](a), the $q_{T}$ maximum shifts in the “ZM-VFN” approximation to larger $q_{T}$ by about $2$ GeV out of $11.7$ GeV (about $17\,$%). For a Higgs mass $M_{H}=200$ GeV, the maximum of $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ shifts by about 1.9 GeV out of $12.7$ GeV.
The corresponding $q_{T}$ distributions for the LHC are shown in Fig. \[fig:bbh\_lhc\](b). The difference between the “ZM-VFN” and S-ACOT calculations is smaller compared to the Tevatron, because the influence of the region $b>0.1\,\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$ is reduced at smaller momentum fractions $x$ probed at the LHC [@Qiu:2000hf]. The maximum of the transverse momentum distribution shifts in the “ZM-VFN” approximation by about $1.3$ GeV (9% out of $14.1$ GeV) to larger $q_{T}$. The results for two other Higgs masses ($M_{H}=250$ and $600$ GeV) are summarized in Table \[tab:H\_peakshift\_LHC\]. The full $q_{T}$ dependence of the $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H$ process is affected by additional factors, such as the constraints on phase space available for QCD radiation (less relevant at small $q_{T}$). The full $q_{T}$ dependence is investigated elsewhere [@BelyaevNadolskyYuan].
[|>p[50mm]{}|>p[20mm]{}||>m[20mm]{}|>m[20mm]{}|>m[18mm]{}|]{} [\
]{} & 120& 250& 600[\
]{} Position of the& “ZM-VFN”& 15.4& 16.8& 18.8[\
]{}maximum [\[]{}GeV[\]]{}& S-ACOT& 14.1& 15.8& 18.2[\
]{} & 1.3& 1.0& 0.6[\
]{}
Conclusion\[sec:Conclusion\]
============================
In the present paper, we make use of recent theoretical developments to estimate the impact of heavy-quark masses ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ on transverse momentum ($q_{T}$) distributions in production of $W,$ $Z,$ and Higgs bosons at the Tevatron and LHC. We note that the the zero-mass (“massless”) variable flavor number scheme is not consistent in the heavy-quark channels, if $q_{T}$ is of order of the heavy-quark mass ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$. To properly assess the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence, we perform resummation of the large logarithms $\ln(q_{T}^{2}/Q^{2})$ in the Collins-Soper-Sterman approach, formulated in a general variable flavor number factorization scheme (S-ACOT scheme) to correctly resum the collinear logarithms $\ln(\mu_{F}/{m_{\mathcal Q}})$.
We compare our consistent treatment of the heavy-quark mass dependence with an approach based on the ZM-VFN scheme. The proper treatment of the heavy-quark masses leads to an enhancement of the form factor $\widetilde{W}(b,Q)$ at intermediate and large impact parameters, which in turn increases the transverse momentum distribution at small $q_{T}$. In Drell-Yan production of heavy bosons, the cumulative effect in the S-ACOT scheme shifts the peak of the $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ distribution to smaller values of $q_{T}$. The mass effects are negligible if $q_{T}$ is of order $Q$.
The mass dependence is magnified in subprocesses dominated by scattering of initial-state bottom quarks, as a consequence of the larger $b$-quark mass. In the production of $Z^{0}$ and light Higgs bosons via $b\bar{b}$ annihilation at the LHC, the maximum of $d\sigma/dq_{T}$ shifts from $13.5-14$ GeV in the S-ACOT scheme to $\approx15$ GeV in the “ZM-VFN” approximation. At the Tevatron, the maximum shifts from $\approx10$ to $12$ GeV. Our computation is applied to single-particle inclusive production, when no heavy quarks are observed in the final state. Since the single-particle inclusive cross sections receive contributions from both the heavy-quark channels and intensive light-quark channels, the ${m_{\mathcal Q}}$ dependence is reduced below the experimental sensitivity in several cases, notably in $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ boson production at the Tevatron, and $Z^{0}$ boson production at the LHC. On the other hand, the signal from the heavy-quark channels may be enhanced by tagging one or two heavy quarks in the final state. In that case, mass-dependent effects of a similar magnitude may be observed in some regions of phase space, *e.g.,* at small $q_{T}$ of the boson-heavy quark system.
Since the LHC plans to measure the $W$ boson mass $M_{W}$ to a high precision, we must fully account for all potential uncertainties, including the heavy-quark mass effects. At the LHC, the massless “ZM-VFN” approximation introduces a bias in the measurement of $M_{W}$ from the transverse momentum distribution $d\sigma/dp_{T}^{e}$ of the electrons, comparable to a positive $M_{W}$ shift by $\sim10$ MeV. In $W^{+}$ boson production the bias is comparable to the $M_{W}$ shift of $9$ MeV at central rapidities of $W$ bosons ($|\, y\,|\leq1$) and $6$ MeV in the whole rapidity range. These effects are not negligible in view of the desired precision of the $M_{W}$ measurement of $\sim15$ MeV.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank A. Belyaev and C.-P. Yuan for valuable discussions. An independent study [@BelyaevNadolskyYuan] of the resummation in the $b\bar{b}\rightarrow\mbox{Higgs}$ process, including the heavy-quark mass effects, has been brought to our attention as we completed this paper. We also thank U. Baur and S. Heinemeyer for helpful communications. F.$\,$I.$\,$O. and S.$\,$B. acknowledge the hospitality of Fermilab and BNL, where a portion of this work was performed. The work of S. B. and F. I. O. was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG03-95ER40908 and the Lightner-Sams Foundation. The work of P. M. N. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: We thank A. Belyaev and C.-P. Yuan for pointing out a typo in the ${\cal C}_{q/q}$ function in Ref. [@Balazs:1998sb], which does not affect the results shown in this section.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Question classification is an important task with wide applications. However, traditional techniques treat questions as general sentences, ignoring the corresponding answer data. In order to consider answer information into question modeling, we first introduce novel group sparse autoencoders which refine question representation by utilizing group information in the answer set. We then propose novel group sparse CNNs which naturally learn question representation with respect to their answers by implanting group sparse autoencoders into traditional CNNs. The proposed model significantly outperform strong baselines on four datasets.'
author:
- |
Mingbo Ma Liang Huang\
School of EECS\
Oregon State University\
Corvallis, OR 97331, USA\
\
Bing Xiang Bowen Zhou\
IBM Watson Group\
T. J. Watson Research Center\
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA\
\
bibliography:
- 'acl2017.bib'
title: Group Sparse CNNs for Question Classification with Answer Sets
---
Conclusions
===========
In order to better represent question sentences with answer sets and group structure, we first presented a novel GSA framework, a neural version of dictionary learning. We then proposed group sparse convolutional neural networks by embedding GSA into CNNs, which result in significantly better question classification over strong baselines.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. This work is supported in part by NSF IIS-1656051, DARPA FA8750-13-2-0041 (DEFT), DARPA XAI, a Google Faculty Research Award, and an HP Gift.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
{width="25.00000%"}
[ **Adaptive Event Dispatching in Serverless Computing Infrastructures**]{}
A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the\
requirements for the degree of Masters of Science
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Deep neural networks have achieved significant improvements in information retrieval (IR). However, most existing models are computational costly and can not efficiently scale to long documents. This paper proposes a novel End-to-End neural ranking framework called Reinforced Long Text Matching (RLTM) which matches a query with long documents efficiently and effectively. The core idea behind the framework can be analogous to the human judgment process which firstly locates the relevance parts quickly from the whole document and then matches these parts with the query carefully to obtain the final label. Firstly, we select relevant sentences from the long documents by a coarse and efficient matching model. Secondly, we generate a relevance score by a more sophisticated matching model based on the sentence selected. The whole model is trained jointly with reinforcement learning in a pairwise manner by maximizing the expected score gaps between positive and negative examples. Experimental results demonstrate that RLTM has greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the state-of-the-art models.'
author:
- Chen Zheng
- Yu Sun
- Shengxian Wan
- 'Dianhai Yu Baidu Inc., Beijing, China {zhengchen02, sunyu02, wanshengxian, yudianhai}@baidu.com'
bibliography:
- 'ijcai19.bib'
title: 'RLTM: An Efficient Neural IR Framework for Long Documents'
---
Introduction
============
Ranking models based on deep neural networks have achieved significant improvements in information retrieval (IR). Given a query and a list of documents, the goal of a ranking model is to generate a list of ranking scores, which can well present the relevance matching degree of the documents and the corresponding query. Compared to handcrafted features based learning to rank models where feature engineering is usually time-consuming, models based on deep learning can automatically learn features from raw texts of query and document.
Deep learning based ranking models mainly include two classes: representation based models, such as DSSM [@huang2013learning] and CDSSM [@shen2014learning] and interaction based models, such as DRMM [@guo2016deep], MV-LSTM [@wan2016deep], K-NRM [@xiong2017end], Conv-KNRM [@dai2018convolutional], MatchPyramid [@pang2016text], Match-SRNN [@wan2016match], PACRR [@hui2017pacrr] etc. Representation models prefer to directly obtain the representations of query and document and generate the relevance score through the similarity between the representations, meanwhile, interaction models further consider the local interaction between terms of a query and a document. These models are mainly based on deep neural networks, such as Convolutional Neural Network [@lecun1999object] and Recurrent Neural Networks [@graves2013speech], and also based on the interactions between query terms [@fang2004formal] and documents terms. Although these models achieved good performance, they are usually computationally expensive and are not efficient to scale to long documents. This is mainly because the time complexity of these models is linear or quadratic respect to the query and document length, which may range from a few hundred to many thousands.
However, the vast majority of these studies have overlooked a problem: Not every sentence in a source long document has the same importance for relevance matching. Consider the human judgment process [@wu2007retrospective], given a query and a document, the human annotator firstly skim the whole document quickly to locate the most relevant part of the document, and then the human annotator matches the query with the selected parts carefully to decide the relevance label. Based on this observation, we can reduce the computational burden through selecting relevant sentences to prune down long document. DeepRank [@pang2017deeprank] also adopts this idea to model the matching for long documents. However, DeepRank selects relevant parts from the documents in a trivial way, which is based on hand-crafted rules. The trivial handcrafted rules may lead to extracting wrong parts in this step and the errors will make a big limit to the final performance. Same as PACRR [@hui2017pacrr], which described two strategies: first$k$ and $k$window. In fact, PACRR-first$k$ simply keeps the first k terms in the document without knowing all the document information, and PACRR-$k$window only chooses top $k$ terms with the simple position’s similarity measure. If we extract the wrong parts from a document in the first step, how could we expect any model can obtain the correct relevance degree in the next steps?
In this paper, we propose a novel Reinforced End-to-End neural IR framework for Long Text Matching (RLTM). The framework combines with two models, a sentence selection model and a sentence matching model. The sentence selection model selects relevant sentences in the long documents by an efficient sentence selection model. Then, the sentence matching model generates a relevance score by a more sophisticated matching model based on the sentence selected. In order to avoid the error accumulation problem, the two models are trained jointly with reinforcement learning. By joint training, the two models can learn to cooperate with each other during the training process. Specifically, the sentence selection model will learn to select the sentences with the best discriminability for the sentence matching model to discriminate between the positive and negative documents. We can consider our framework as a reinforcement learning agent, where the state is a query and a document, and the actions are which sentences to select from the document, and the reward is obtained by discriminating the positive and negative documents. The framework is trained pairwise and the training object of reinforcement learning is to maximize the expected relevance score gap between positive and negative documents. To the best of our knowledge, the RLTM framework is the first time to train the whole model jointly with reinforcement learning for the relevance matching task.
We conduct extensive experiments based on two datasets, a human-labeled dataset and a click-through dataset, and compare our framework with state-of-the-art IR models. Experimental results show that the RLTM framework not only achieves higher accuracy but also accomplish lower computational cost compared to the baselines.
Related Work
============
Learning to Rank
----------------
Over the years, with the rapid development of machine learning and deep learning, Learning to Rank(LTR) area has also made tremendous progress. The essence of LTR can be divided into three categories: Point-wise, Pair-wise and List-wise methods. These three different methods correspond to three different input and output, and three different loss functions. Point-wise methods take document vectors as input and the ranking score as output, and logistic regression [@gey1994inferring] is the most representative of this method. Pair-wise methods, like RankSVM [@joachims2002optimizing], take a positive document and negative document pair as input and generate the ranking score pair as output, which loss function usually take hinge loss as loss function. List-wise methods take a list of documents which match the same query as input and generate a list of ranking scores, such as ListNet [@cao2007learning] and AdaRank [@xu2007adarank]. In this paper, we consider the Pair-wise method for our experiment.
{width="80.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
Neural IR Models
----------------
In recent years, with the development of IR research, neural IR models can be divided into two classes: representation based IR models and interaction based IR models [@guo2016semantic]. For the representation based IR models, especially like DSSM [@huang2013learning] and CDSSM [@shen2014learning], these models usually learn that how to generate a good representation for query and document separately, and then compute a simple similarity score based on dense representations, such as cosine similarity methods. However, these models ignore the importance of exact matching signal and the significant of relevance matching. Furthermore, these models only consider that how to build up directly representations between the document and query. For the interaction based IR models, such as DRMM [@guo2016deep], MV-LSTM [@wan2016deep], K-NRM [@xiong2017end], MatchPyramid [@pang2016text], Match-SRNN [@wan2016match], PACRR [@hui2017pacrr], these models are more inclined to further consider the local interaction between terms of a query and a document. In addition to these two classes of models, a hybrid version of the model, named DUET model [@mitra2017learning], combines the representation based model and interaction based model.
However, regardless of the first class of representation based model or the second class of interaction based model, they all overlook a problem: Not every sentence in a source long document has the same importance for relevance matching. The work of DeepRank [@pang2017deeprank] proposed a deep learning model to handle long document, by finding the relevant location, measuring the local relevance, and determining the relevance score. However, DeepRank selects relevant parts from the documents in a trivial way, which is based on hand-crafted rules. This trivial handcrafted rules may extract wrong parts from the long document and even produce the negative influence on the final performance.
Reinforced Long Text Matching (RLTM) Framework
==============================================
In this section, we first describe the high-level overview of our End-to-End framework for long text matching (RLTM). Furthermore, we separately introduce the implementation of the two components of RLTM.
High-Level Overview of RLTM
---------------------------
Given a query $q$ and a document $d$, the object of RLTM is to output a relevance score for them. A document can be considered as a collection of semantic units (e.g. paragraphs or sentences). Without loss of generality, in this paper we take sentences as the semantic units and $d = \{u_1, u_2, ..., u_T\}$, where $T$ is the sentence count of the document. In general, RLTM consists of two parts: a sentence selection model and a fine grained sentence matching model, as shown in Figure 1. The sentence selection model compares each sentence in the document with the query and outputs a policy of how to select the sentences, i.e., a probabilistic distribution $\pi(u|q, d)$ over the sentences, $$\begin{aligned}
& P = \mbox{softmax}(\Phi(q, u_1),...,\Phi(q, u_T)) , \\
& \pi(u = u_t | q, d) = P_t,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(q, u)$ is a matching model which outputs the relevance score between $q$ and $u$ before normalization. According to the descending order of the probabilistics, we can select the most $K$ important sentences, notated as $U' = \{u'_1, ..., u'_K\}$, for the following comparison. Then, the sentence matching model takes the query and the sentences selected as inputs, and outputs a overall relevance score for the whole documents, $$s = F(q, U') = \Lambda( \Psi(q,u'_1) ,..., \Psi(q,u'_K)),$$ where $\Psi(q, u)$ is also a matching model which outputs the relevant representation between $q$ and $u$, $\Lambda$ is a aggregation function to aggregate the relevance representations of all the selected sentences and outputs the final relevance score between the query and the document (i.e. $s$). In practice, $\Psi$ is more sophisticated and computation expensive than $\Phi$ and thus our framework can reduce the computation significantly without loss of performance. In general, this framework is not restricted to specific matching models, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$, we will describe the models implemented in this paper in next sections.
Sentence Selection Model
------------------------
In this section, we describe the implementation of the function $\Phi$, which matches each sentence with the query in order to select the most important sentences. Since all the sentences in the document are considered, this model should be effective and efficient. In this paper, we adopt the BoW model which represents a text by averaging the embeddings of all the terms in the text. There are several advantages to the BoW model. Firstly, comparing to sophisticated matching models, such as CNN and RNN based matching models, BoW is extremely efficient. Secondly, BoW is an embedding based model which conducts matching at the semantic level. Lastly, BoW is also very flexible with a huge number of embedding parameters that can be learned End-to-End.
Specifically, to obtain the representation for each text, $u = \{x_1, x_2, ..., x_L\}$, we firstly use BoW model which averages all the term embeddings $\{e_1, e_2, ..., e_L\} $ and then the result is transformed to a new semantic space by a nonlinear full connected neural layer.
Afterward, cosine similarity is adopted to obtain the relevance score between the query $q$ and the sentence $u$. Finally, we use softmax operation to normalize the relevance score overall sentences in a document. $$\begin{aligned}
&h_q = \mbox{tanh}(W_q(\mbox{BoW}(q)) + b_q), \\
&h_{u} = \mbox{tanh}(W_u(\mbox{BoW}(u)) + b_u),\\
&c = \mbox{cos}(h_q, h_{u}) = \frac{h_q^T h_{u}}{||h_q|| \cdot ||h_{u}||},\\
&\pi(u=u_t | q, d) = \frac{e^{c_t}}{\sum_{k}{e^{c_k}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_q, W_u, b_q, b_u$ are the parameters. Since the sentence selection model is not differentiable, with respect to the supervised loss commonly used, we use reinforcement learning to train this model, as shown in the next section.
Fine-grained Sentence Matching Model
------------------------------------
In this section, we describe the implementation of the function $\Psi$ and $\Lambda$. Since that the object in this step is to compare the selected sentences with the query in fine grained, for $\Psi$ we adopt two existing state-of-the-art matching models: MatchPyramid and K-NRM. The two models are interaction based matching models which model the interaction between two texts at term level. The document level relevance is aggregated from the fine grained term level matching signals.
MatchPyramid firstly builds up a matching matrix through term level matching signals between a query and a document. Afterward, a convolutional neural network is adopted to extract different levels of matching patterns in the matching matrix. Finally, the relevance score is generated through a full connection neural layer. In our experiment, we use cosine similarity as the interaction function [@pang2016text].
K-NRM is a kernel based neural ranking model [@xiong2017end]. Like MatchPyramid, a translation layer is adopted to build a term level matching matrix. Then, soft-TF counts are generated as ranking features by a kernel pooling layer. Finally, the relevance score is also generated through a full connection neural layer.
For $\Lambda$, while some complex aggregation functions such as neural networks can be adopted, for simplicity, we sum all the relevance scores generated by $\Psi$ in this paper.
Pairwise End-to-End Learning with Policy Gradient
=================================================
We describe the learning method for RLTM in this section. Since that the sentence selection model is non-differentiable with respect to the supervised loss used in traditional supervised learning, we used reinforced learning to learn the parameters. The action is which sentences to select by the sentence selection model for the sentence matching model and the policy function is $\pi(u | q, d)$. Since the model is trained pairwise and the object is to discriminate between the positive and the negative documents, we define the reward as the relevance score gap between the positive and negative documents. Given a triple of query, a positive document and a negative document (i.e. $(q, d^+, d^-)$), the reward function is defined as $$R(U^+, U^-) = s^+ - s^-,$$ where $R(U^+, U^-)$ is the reward function, $U^+=\{u'^+_1,...,u'^+_K\},U^-=\{u'^-_1,...,u'^-_K\}$ are the sampled sentences, $s^+ , s^-$ are ranking scores. Our Training object is to maximize the expectation of reward, $$J(\theta) = \mathbf{E}_{{U^+}\sim \pi({u}|q,d^+,\theta), {U^-}\sim \pi({u}|q,d^-,\theta)}R(U^+, U^-).$$
The whole training process is showed in Algorithm 1.
\[algorithm:alg1\]
**Input:** dataset of ${(q, d^+, d^-)}$ **Output:** $\theta$ **Initialize:** $\theta \gets$ pre-trained $\theta$ by supervised learning shown in Sec 5.2. For $({q,d^+})$, randomly sample $K$ sentences from ${d^+}$ for training, $U^+ = \{u'^+_1, ..., u'^+_K\}\sim \pi (u | {q}, {d^+})$. For $({q,d^-})$, randomly sample $K$ sentences from ${d^-}$ for training, $U^- = \{u'^-_1, ..., u'^-_K\} \sim \pi (u | {q}, {d^-})$. Generate the ranking score $s^+, s^-$ by fine-grained matching model $F$ Get reward $r=R(U^+, U^-)$ according to $s^+ - s^-$ Updating the sentence selection model through policy gradient $r\sum_{k=1}^{K}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\log\pi(u'^+_k | q, d^+)+\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\log\pi(u'^-_k | q, d^-)]$ Updating the Fine-grained matching model through gradient $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} {R(U^+, U^-)} $
Experiments
===========
In this section, we conduct a series of experiments to show the performance improvement against baselines.
------------------------------------------------- -- --
**Statistics & **Human-Label & **Click-Through\
Queries for train & 81922 & 37381\
Queries for validation & 6228 & 2951\
Queries for test & 7312 & 3426\
Avg Docs Per Query & 13 & 14.5\
Avg Doc Length & 2644.2 & 2724.0\
label & Human-annotated & DCTR\
******
------------------------------------------------- -- --
: \[font-table\] Data statistics.
Experimental Setup
------------------
#### Datasets.
We conduct our experiments on two large-scale datasets, both of them are from one Chinese search engine. The first dataset, named Human-Label dataset, is a human-annotated dataset. Each query-document pair is labeled with five level labels. The second dataset, named Click-Through data, is sampled from the click-through search log. The search log records all searching, browsing and clicking behaviors of hundreds of millions anonymous users. In the Click-Through dataset, we use DCTR click model to generate relevance labels through user clicks [@chuklin2015click]. The DCTR labels have 5-grade labels from 0 to 4.
Because all of the documents are retrieved by the complex and complicate back-end algorithms by one Chinese search engine, these two datasets have very high quality. Each document is a Web page and we extract the title and body texts from the Web page for matching. The title is an important representative of the document semantics and it is usually quite short. In all of our experiments, we always select the title as the first sentence and the sentence selection model will select other sentences from the body texts. The statistics of the datasets are listed in Table 1.
#### Implementation Details.
We implemented all the models using TensorFlow. Due to the model complexity constraint, we chose the most 1 million as the vocabulary size by word frequent of training corpus. Meanwhile, we set word embedding dimension to 128 according to past experimental experience. We used stochastic gradient descent method, Adam[@kingma2014adam], as our optimizer for the training. We set the batch size to 32 and selected the learning rate from \[1e-1, 1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5\].
For the reinforced sentence selection model, the fully connected hidden size is 128, and we choose the number of sentences as $({1,3,5})$. For the fine-grained matching model, because we separately employ three different interaction based models, we will introduce their hypermeters individually. For MatchPyramid, we set the query window size to 2, sentence and sentence window size to 4. And the kernel size is 128. For K-NRM, we set the number of bins to 11. Those are the same settings using the hyper-parameters described in their respective papers.
Evaluation Measure
------------------
For our experiments, we use the common assessment methods in information retrieval and learning to rank field, mean average precision (MAP) and normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG), to evaluate our model and baseline models. We computed NDCG@1, NDCG@3, NDCG@5, and NDCG@10 separately. The formula of NDCG are as follows: $$NDCG(q,k) = \frac{1}{|q|}\sum_{j=1}^{|q|}Z_{j,k}\sum_{m=1}^k\frac{2^{R(j,m)}-1}{log(1+m)}$$ For the NDCG formula above, $Z_{j,k}$ means normalization factor, $R(j,m)$ means the score of relevance between the ith document’s ranking result and the jth query. The value of k is [1, 3, 5, 10]{} in our experiments.
Baselines
---------
Our baselines include two classes of models: feature-based ranking models and neural ranking models.
#### Feature-based Ranking Models.
This part of baselines include BM25, which is a popular unsupervised retrieval baseline for IR, and RankSVM, which is a strong feature-based and pairwise learning-to-rank baseline. Both BM25 and RankSVM use long document title and body.
-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Models
**NDCG@1 & **NDCG@3 & **NDCG@5 & **NDCG@10 & **MAP & **NDCG@1 & **NDCG@3 & **NDCG@5 & **NDCG@10 & **MAP\
BM25 & 0.235 & 0.343 & 0.400 & 0.478 & 0.413 & 0.300 & 0.473 & 0.484 & 0.507 & 0.443\
RankSVM & 0.239 & 0.350 & 0.406 & 0.481 & 0.420 & 0.302 & 0.477 & 0.488 & 0.509 & 0.454\
DSSM & 0.226 & 0.331 & 0.389 & 0.462 & 0.387 & 0.298 & 0.466 & 0.479 & 0.502 & 0.411\
CDSSM & 0.232 & 0.342 & 0.401 & 0.475 & 0.382 & 0.305 & 0.471 & 0.486 & 0.509 & 0.413\
MatchPyramid & 0.280 & 0.398 & 0.455 & 0.495 & 0.412 & 0.376 & 0.491 & 0.510 & 0.522 & 0.458\
K-NRM & 0.283 & 0.404 & 0.460 & 0.503 & 0.426 & 0.389 & 0.498 & 0.524 & 0.533 & 0.456\
DeepRank & 0.302 & 0.424 & 0.479 & 0.522 & 0.455 & 0.418 & 0.531 & 0.555 & 0.566 & 0.481\
RLTM-MP & 0.316 & 0.439 & 0.498 & 0.536 & 0.468 & 0.445 & 0.554 & 0.575 & 0.589 & 0.490\
RLTM-KNRM & 0.320 & 0.441 & 0.501 & 0.544 & 0.470 & 0.462 & 0.577 & 0.593 & 0.606 & 0.487\
********************
-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
#### Neural Ranking Models.
This part of baselines includes DSSM, CDSSM, MatchPyramid, K-NRM and DeepRank. DSSM builds the representations of query and document by multilayer fully connected neural network, and finally generates the matching score by cosine similarity. CDSSM is the convolutional version of DSSM.
MatchPyramid and K-NRM directly take the full long documents as inputs and produce the relevance score. Since the computation costs of MatchPyramid and K-NRM are linear to the document length, they are not efficient compared with RLTM. DeepRank firstly selects relevance parts from the documents in a trivial way, which is based on handcrafting rules and only considers term exact match signal, and then adopts MatchPyramid and Match-SRNN to produce the relevance score.
Results and Analysis
--------------------
In this section, we will show the speed gain for our framework and the performance of our framework and a series of baselines on the two datasets. Furthermore, we will offer the detailed analysis of our framework.
{width="50.00000%" height="0.25\textheight"}
#### Speed Gain for RLTM.
Since our RLTM framework chooses several sentences by the reinforced sentence selection model instead to handle with the whole long document, our framework has a significant acceleration effect compared with baselines in theory. we measure the inference time on human-label test data to give a detailed comparison. We uniformly separately set batch size to 32, 64 and 128 for the inference time comparison between RLTM and other matching models which cope with the whole long document. Figure 2 shows us the speed gain. Experimental results show that RLTM-MP has 9.2 times faster acceleration than MatchPyramid, and RLTM-KNRM has 4.3 times of speed up compared to K-NRM.
As the number of words in the content increases, the text matching matrix for MatchPyramid or CDSSM also becomes larger, resulting in a sudden increase in the computation time of the CNN layer’s operation. The reason for the inefficient running time of DSSM is the Word Hashing and multi-layer neural network. Because DeepRank selects relevant parts from the documents in term exact matching signal, which is based on handcrafted rules, we do not show the running time of DeepRank in the figure2.
This result demonstrates that our RLTM framework can better cope with ranking tasks with long documents, and is more suitable for applications in the real scenario, especially in industry.
#### Performance Results.
All experimental results are listed in Table 2. From the results, we can get a series of observations and draw several conclusions.
Comparing feature-based models with representation based models, we can see that RankSVM slightly outperforms DSSM and CDSSM on both datasets. This demonstrates that although representation based models are good at matching at the semantic level, exact term matching signals are quite effective for relevance matching tasks. Interaction based models, such as MatchPyramid and K-NRM, perform significantly better than representation based models and feature-based models. This demonstrates that term level interactions are important signals for relevance matching. End-to-End neural models are more powerful and flexible to learn the matching relationship of term pairs than manual features. These conclusions are consistent with previous works [@pang2017deeprank; @xiong2017end]. We describe more details in Further Analysis for RLTM model.
Finally, our framework achieves the best performance over all baselines in both NDCG and MAP. The improvement of RLTM-KNRM against K-NRM is about $ 7.3\% $ on NDCG@1. More importantly, RLTM-KNRM is able to outperform DeepRank by more than $ 4.4\% $ on NDCG@1 and $ 4.0\% $ on NDCG@10. In DeepRank, handcrafted rules may lead to extract wrong relevant parts and the errors will make a limit to the final performance. Comparing with DeepRank, the sentence selection model of RLTM is a more powerful and flexible embedding based model, which can learn the term matching relationship End-to-End. Comparing with other baseline models, the sentence selection model in RLTM is trained by policy gradient, which directly optimizes the final reward. Through joint training, the sentence selection model and sentence matching model can learn to cooperate with each other during the training process, and it can effectively solve the problems of other baseline models.
#### RL Strategy for RLTM Model.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the reinforcement learning strategy adopted in our framework, we also introduce two other baselines, notated as pipeline models (Pipeline-MP and Pipeline-KNRM). Pipeline models have the same inference process as RLTM framework. Take Pipeline-MP as an example, Pipeline-MP also selects sentences by BoW model first and then uses MatchPyramid to match the sentences selected. The difference lies in that pipeline models are trained in a pipeline way instead of jointly trained by reinforcement learning. Firstly, the sentence selection model is trained the same as the pre-training step of RLTM. Lastly, given the sentence selected by the trained sentence selection model, the sentence matching model is trained by traditional pairwise supervised learning. Table 3 shows us that RLTM models obtain the better performance for both NDCG and MAP compared with pipeline model. The improvement of RLTM-KNRM against Pipeline-KNRM is about $ 5.0\% $ on NDCG@1 in the human-label test dataset.
Comparing the pipeline models with original interaction based models(MatchPyramid and K-NRM) in table 2, although pipeline models conduct term level matching only for a subset term of the whole document, they perform better than interaction based models. This demonstrates that more does not mean better. In most cases, the relevance degree can be determined by only considering the most important parts of the whole document. If we take the long tail terms of the document into consideration, although they bring some benefits, they also bring many noisy irrelevant parts which will hurt the model during the training process. DeepRank is also a pipeline model and performs slightly better than other pipeline models. The reason is that DeepRank selects relevant parts from the documents based on term exact matching signals, which is trivial but fairly stable. Other pipelines models train the sentence selection model with an indirect objective function which leads to a worse performance than DeepRank.
---------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
**Data & **Learning & **NDCG@1 & **NDCG@5 & **NDCG@10 & **MAP\
Clickthrough & Pipeline-MP & 0.295 & 0.468 & 0.513 & 0.445\
& Pipeline-KNRM & 0.299 & 0.475 & 0.520 & 0.442\
& DeepRank & 0.302 & 0.479 & 0.522 & 0.455\
& RLTM-MP & 0.316 & 0.498 & 0.536 & 0.468\
& RLTM-KNRM & 0.320 & 0.501 & 0.544 & 0.470\
Human-Label & Pipeline-MP & 0.400 & 0.538 & 0.551 & 0.475\
& Pipeline-KNRM & 0.412 & 0.551 & 0.560 & 0.472\
& DeepRank &0.418 & 0.555 & 0.566 & 0.481\
& RLTM-MP & 0.445 & 0.575 & 0.589 & 0.490\
& RLTM-KNRM & 0.462 & 0.593 & 0.606 & 0.487\
************
---------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
: \[font-table\] Performance Comparison between RLTM-model, Pipeline-model and DeepRank.
#### The Analysis of Reinforced Sentence Selection Model.
Table 4 shows us the performance of RLTM between choosing the different number of sentences in the reinforced sentence selection model. We take MatchPyramid as the fine-grained matching model to compare the performances. In this experiment, we individually sampled 1, 5, 7 sentences besides the title by the reinforced sentence selection model. Both of results from Human-Label and Click-Through datasets show us that choosing multiple sentences contribute to the fine-grained matching model. RLTM-MP-7 (choosing 7 sentences) gets the better performance for RLTM. However, RLTM-MP-7 will have quite limited improvement compared with RLTM-MP-5. Although the more selected sentences will help the local relevance judgment, the more probability of irrelevances will be happened and will influence the matching model.
----------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**Data & **Learning & **NDCG@1 & **NDCG@10 & **MAP\
Human-Label & RLTM-MP-1 & 0.430 & 0.572 & 0.475\
& RLTM-MP-5 & 0.441 & 0.587 & 0.487\
& RLTM-MP-7 & 0.445 & 0.589 & 0.490\
**********
----------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: \[font-table\] The performance of RLTM model, which sentence selection model separately choose 1, 5, 7 sentences, and Fine-grained matching model choose MatchPyramid model.
Conclusion
==========
This paper presents a novel efficient neural IR framework, named RLTM, to cope with the long document relevance matching problem in information retrieval. RLTM combines a sentence selection model and a fine-grained sentence matching model. We creatively use reinforcement learning to train our RLTM framework. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that using reinforcement learning for relevance matching problem. We conduct extensive experiments on both a human-labeled dataset and a click-through dataset. Experimental results show that RLTM is effective and efficient. RLTM not only outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines under relevance evaluation metrics, such as NDCG, but also is much faster than these models.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider last passage percolation (LPP) models with exponentially distributed random variables, which are linked to the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP). The competition interface for LPP was introduced and studied by Ferrari and Pimentel in [@PFLP05] for cases where the corresponding exclusion process had a rarefaction fan. Here we consider situations with a shock and determine the law of the fluctuations of the competition interface around its deterministic law of large number position. We also study the multipoint distribution of the LPP around the shock, extending our one-point result of [@FN14].'
author:
- 'Patrik L. Ferrari[^1]'
- 'Peter Nejjar[^2]'
date: 'December 9, 2016'
title: Fluctuations of the competition interface in presence of shocks
---
Introduction
============
Random percolation models such as last passage percolation (LPP) and interacting particle systems like the asymmetric simple exclusion process, have been extensively studied in the past decades and they exhibit limit fluctuations laws common to random matrix theory as well (see e.g. [@BDJ99; @Jo00b; @PS00; @BR00; @TW94; @TW96]).
In the last passage percolation model on ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$, one assigns to each $(i,j)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ an independent random variable $\omega_{i,j}\geq 0$. One can think of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ to have edges directed to the right and upwards. Then, given two points $A$ and $B$ which can be connected through directed paths, the basic random variable of interest in LPP is the last passage time, $$L_{A\to B}=\max_{\pi:A\to B} \sum_{(i,j)\in\pi\setminus A} \omega_{i,j},$$ where the maximum is over the set of directed paths connecting $A$ and $B$. The definition extends naturally to the case where $A$ (and/or $B$) are sets of points.
The LPP model is related with an interacting particle system, the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) as follows. In TASEP there are particles on ${\mathbb{Z}}$, with the exclusion constraint that one site can be occupied by at most one particle. The dynamics in continuous time is simple: particles jump to their right neighbor with a given jump rate, but jumps which would lead to a violation of the exclusion constraint are suppressed (see [@Li85b; @Li99] for the construction and main properties of TASEP and related models). If $\omega_{i,j}$ are taken to be waiting times of the jumps of particles and $A$ a set given in terms of the initial position of TASEP particles, then the distribution of the last passage time equals the distribution of the position of a given particle (see Section \[sectLPP\] for more details).
TASEP is one model in the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) universality class [@KPZ86] in $1+1$ dimensions (see surveys and lecture notes [@FS10; @Cor11; @QS15; @BG12; @Qua11; @Fer10b]). The observable which is mostly studied in KPZ models is, in terms of TASEP, the joint distribution of particle positions in the limit of large time $t$. From KPZ scaling one expects that particles are correlated over a distance of order $t^{2/3}$, while the fluctuation of their position is of order $t^{1/3}$. The (conjecturally universal) limiting processes around positions where the density of particle is macroscopically smooth are also known [@Jo03b; @PS02; @BFPS06; @BFP09].
The situation changes drastically when TASEP dynamics generates a shock, i.e., the density of particles has a discontinuity. In this situation the distribution of the rescaled particle position changes over distances of order $t^{1/3}$ instead of $t^{2/3}$ as shown in [@FN14]. One result of the present paper is the extension of the findings of [@FN14] to joint distributions of particle positions around the shock, using the good control over local fluctuations in LPP models established by Cator and Pimentel in [@CP13], see Section \[sectMultiPts\], Theorem \[mltp\].
However, the main motivation for this paper is the study of a different observable in LPP, namely the so-called *competition interface* introduced by Ferrari and Pimentel in [@PFLP05]. Basically they consider two lines ${\cal L}^\pm$ starting at the origin with ${\cal L}^+$ (resp. ${\cal L}^-$) in the second (resp. fourth) quadrant and color the region above ${\cal L}^+\cup {\cal L}^-$ with two colors, a point is (say) red if the LPP time from ${\cal L}^+$ to it is larger than from ${\cal L}^-$ and blue otherwise. The interface between the two colors is called the competition interface. Interestingly, the competition interface and the trajectory of the second class particle in TASEP are the same [@PFLP05] (see also Section \[SectSecondClass\]). The importance of second class particles, is that in presence of shocks they can be used to identify it [@Li99], while for stationary initial conditions the distribution of its position is proportional to the two-point function, quantity measuring the space-time correlation [@PS01; @FS05a]).
If the lines ${\cal L}^\pm$ have asymptotically a fixed direction, then the direction of the competition interface converges almost surely to a value which might be deterministic or random as shown by Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel in [@PFJBLP09 Theorem 2]. In particular, when in the TASEP framework there is a shock, the competition interface satisfies a (deterministic) law of large numbers (see also [@FK95]).
The main contribution of this paper is the study of the fluctuation of the competition interface in presence of shocks. In Theorem \[comp2speed\] we have a CLT type result for the fluctuations of the position of the competition interface with some deterministic ${\cal L}^\pm$. The difference with the standard CLT is that the fluctuations at distance $t$ from the origin are of order $t^{1/3}$ and the distribution law is not Gaussian. This result serves as illustration of Theorem \[Genthm\] which applies to more general LPP problems.
Finally, in Theorem \[berthm\] we show Gaussian fluctuations for the fluctuations of the competition interface in the case that ${\cal L}^\pm$ are random walks corresponding to TASEP with initial condition given by the product measure with density $\rho$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}_-$ and $\lambda$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$ (with $\rho<\lambda$). In that case the second class particle has also Gaussian fluctuations in the $t^{1/2}$ scale around the macroscopic shock position [@Fer90; @FF94b; @PG90]. Although the position of the competition interface is a random time change of the position of the second class particle [@PFLP05] (see also Section \[SectSecondClass\]), it is not straightforward to connect the two quantities when the speed of the shock is non-zero. The analogue result for the time-changed process (essentially for the second-class particle) can be found in Theorem 4 of [@PFJBLP09] (see also [@CP07; @CFP08] for related studies for the Hammersley process).
The results obtained in this paper are based on the asymptotic independence of two LPP problems, which in turn are based on the slow-decorrelation phenomenon occurring along the characteristic lines [@Fer08; @CFP10b]. For TASEP with stationary initial conditions [@Lig76], i.e., Bernoulli product measure with $\rho=\lambda$, this cannot be applied anymore. This case has been however studied fairly well. Firstly, one can identify the competition interface with the maximizer of the (backwards) LPP problem [@BCS06]. Secondly, the second class particle starting from the origin has some explicitly known scaling function [@PS01; @FS05a; @BFP12]. Recent progresses on the knowledge of the time-time correlation in the KPZ height function [@Dot13; @Dot16; @Joh15; @FS16; @NDT16] show that it would be relevant to study the competition interface and the second class particle as a process in time as well.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The work of P.L. Ferrari is supported by the German Research Foundation via the SFB 1060–B04 project. P. Nejjar’s work was mostly undertaken while he was a postdoc at Ecole Normale Supérieure, Département de mathématiques et applications, Paris.
Last Passage Percolation and Competition Interface {#sectLPP}
==================================================
Models and main Result {#SectModel}
----------------------
We consider last passage percolation times on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$. Fix a starting set $S_{A}\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$ and an endset $S_{E}\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{2}.$ An up-right path from $S_{A}$ to $S_{E}$ is a sequence of points $\pi=(\pi(0), \pi(1),\ldots,\pi(n))\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{2n}$ such that $\pi(0)\in S_{A}, \pi(n)\in S_{E}$ and $\pi(i)-\pi(i-1)\in \{(0,1),(1,0)\}$. We denote by $\ell(\pi)=n$ the length of $\pi$. Take a family $\{\omega_{i,j}\}_{i,j\in {\mathbb{Z}}} $ of independent, nonnegative random variables, and define the last passage percolation (LPP) time from $S_A$ to $S_E$ to be $$\label{LPP}
L_{S_{A}\to S_{E}}:=\max_{\pi: S_A\to S_E} \sum_{(i,j)\in\pi\setminus S_A}\omega_{i,j}$$ and define, say, $L_{S_{A}\to S_{E}}$ to be $-\infty$ when the maximum in $\eqref{LPP}$ does not exist. We denote by $\pi^{\mathrm{max}}$ any path for which the maximum in is attained and call $\pi^{\mathrm{max}}$ a maximizing path. In the LPP models we consider in this paper, $\pi^{\mathrm{max}}$ is always a.s. unique. Last passage percolation is linked to the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) in the following way. In TASEP, each $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ is occupied by at most one particle, and each particle waits an exponential time (whose parameter may depend on the particle) before it jumps one step to the right iff its right neighbor is not occupied. Labeling particles from right to left $$\ldots < x_2(0) < x_1(0) < 0 \leq x_0(0)< x_{-1}(0)< \cdots$$ we denote by $x_n (t)$ the position of particle $n$ at time $t$ and have that at all time $t\geq 0$, $x_{n+1}(t)<x_n(t)$, $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. TASEP can be translated into a LPP model as follows. Define $$\label{startLPP}
\mathcal{L}= \{(k+x_{k}(0), k):k \in {\mathbb{Z}})\}$$ and weights $$\label{startweights}
\omega_{i,j}:=\exp(v_j)$$ where $v_j$ is the parameter of the exponential clock attached to particle $j$. Then we have $$\label{LPPTASEP}
{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{\ell} \{x_{n_k} (t) \geq m_k-n_k\}\bigg)={\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{\ell} \{L_{\mathcal{L}\to (m_k,n_k)}\leq t\}\bigg).$$ It will be important for us to consider separately the sets $$\label{Lpm}
\mathcal{L}^{+}=\{(k+x_{k}(0), k):k >0\} \quad \textrm{and}\quad \mathcal{L}^{-}=\{(k+x_{k}(0), k):k \leq 0\}.$$ We denote by $\pi^{\max}_{+},\pi^{\max}_{-}$ the (a.s. unique) maximizing paths of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (m,n)},L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (m,n)}$. The aim of this section is to obtain limit results for the competition interface in the LPP model , . The competition interface is essentially the boundary of the region where the LPP to ${\cal L}^+$ is larger than the LPP to ${\cal L}^-$.
### The competition interface {#sectCompInt}
Here we study the LPP model defined by , with a competition interface, which was introduced in [@PFLP05]. To associate a competition interface to the LPP time, we consider TASEP with initial data satisfying $x_0 (0)= 1$ and $x_{1} (0)<-1$. Note that for such initial data we have (with $\mathcal{L}^{+}, \mathcal{L}^{-}$ defined in ) almost surely $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (i,j)}\neq L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (i,j)}$ for $(i,j) \in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}$. We then define two clusters via $$\begin{aligned}
&\Gamma_{+}^{\infty}:=\{(i,j)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{2}:L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (i,j)}>L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (i,j)}\},\\
& \Gamma_{-}^{\infty}:=\{(i,j)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{2}:L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (i,j)}>L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (i,j)}\}.
\end{aligned}$$
We can think of the points in $\Gamma_{+}^{\infty}$ as painted red, and the points in $ \Gamma_{-}^{\infty}$ as painted blue. Each $(i,j)\in {\mathbb{N}}^{2}$ thus has a well-defined color. The two colors are separated through the competition interface $\phi$: Set $\phi_{0}:=(0,0)$ and define $\phi=(\phi_0, \phi_1, \phi_2,\ldots)$ inductively via $$\label{compint}
\phi_{n+1}=\begin{cases}
\phi_{n}+(1,0) \quad \mathrm{ if }\quad \phi_{n}+(1,1) \in \Gamma_{+}^{\infty},\\
\phi_{n}+(0,1) \quad \mathrm{ if }\quad \phi_{n}+(1,1) \in \Gamma_{-}^{\infty},
\end{cases}$$ and we write $\phi_n=(I_n, J_n)$. We always have $\phi_1 =(1,0)$ in our model since $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (1,1)}=\omega_{1,1}<\omega_{1,1}+\omega_{0,1}\leq L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (1,1)}$. Note that $I_n+J_n = n$ and $(k,n-k)$ is red for $0\leq k < I_n$ and blue for $I_n <k \leq n$.
In [@PFJBLP09] some aspects of the competition interface are studied. In Theorem 1 of [@PFJBLP09] it is shown (under the assumption that $\mathcal{L}^\pm$ have asymptotically fixed directions) that $\phi_n/|\phi_n|\to (\cos(\theta),\sin(\theta))$ almost surely, for some $\theta$, which might be random or deterministic. In Theorem 2 of [@PFJBLP09] they determined the distribution function of $\theta$ for the case corresponding to TASEP with Bernoulli-Bernoulli initial conditions with higher density on ${\mathbb{Z}}_-$ than ${\mathbb{Z}}_+$. This corresponds to a situation with a macroscopically decreasing particle density profile (the so-called rarefaction fan). Furthermore, for initial conditions generating a shock for TASEP, they prove that $\theta$ is non-random (with an explicit value given in term of the shock velocity). Thus for situation with a shock for TASEP, their result is a law of large number type of result. In our contribution we want to analyze the fluctuations with respect to the law of large number. It is a CLT type of result, with the particularity that the fluctuations live in a ${\mathcal{O}}(n^{1/3})$ scale and the distribution function is not Gaussian.
In Theorem \[Genthm\] we determine the distribution function for $n\mapsto I_n-J_n$ (properly centered and scaled) under a few assumptions, which need to be verified case by case (as they depend on $\mathcal{L}^\pm$ and the chosen law of the randomness $\omega$). In order to illustrate the result, we now present one special model in which all the assumptions are verified, see Theorem \[comp2speed\].
\[c\][Red]{} \[c\][Blue]{} \[c\][${\cal L}^+$]{} \[c\][${\cal L}^-$]{} \[l\][$\phi_n$]{} ![The LPP model of Theorem \[comp2speed\] and the associated competition interface (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig1"}](Comppic "fig:"){height="5cm"}
Let $(\phi_{n})_{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}=((I_n, J_n))_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be the competition interface associated to the LPP model with $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}^{+}\cup \mathcal{L}^{-}$ where $\mathcal{L}^{+} ,\mathcal{L}^{-} $ are given by and $$\label{IC}
x_{k}(0)=-2k, \, k\in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus\{ 0\} \quad \textrm{and}\quad x_{0}(0)=1,$$ see Figure \[fig1\]. The weights are $$\label{weights}
\omega_{i,j}:=\begin{cases}
\exp(1) & \textrm{if } (i,j)\in \mathcal{L}^{c}, j>0,\\
\exp(\alpha) & \textrm{if } (i,j)\in \mathcal{L}^{c}, j\leq 0,
\end{cases}$$ where $\alpha <1$. Setting $\eta_0=\alpha/(2-\alpha)$, $\eta=\eta_0+u\ell^{-2/3}$, and $\mu=4/(2-\alpha)$ Corollary 2.2 of [@FN14] gives $$\label{eq2.10}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\ell\to \infty} {\mathbb{P}}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta \ell,\ell)}\leq \mu \ell+s \ell^{1/3})&=F_{\rm GOE}\left(\frac{s-2u}{\sigma_1}\right),\\
\lim_{\ell\to \infty} {\mathbb{P}}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta \ell,\ell)}\leq \mu \ell+s \ell^{1/3})&=F_{\rm GOE}\left(\frac{s-2u/\alpha}{\sigma_2}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{{\mathrm{GOE}}}$ is the density of the GOE Tracy-Widom distribution of random matrices [@TW96] and $\sigma_1=\frac{2^{2/3}}{(2-\alpha)^{1/3}}$ and $\sigma_2=\frac{2^{2/3}(2-2\alpha+\alpha^2)^{1/3}}{\alpha^{2/3}(2-\alpha)}$.
\[comp2speed\] Consider the setting of (\[weights\]). Then the fluctuations of the competition interface are asymptotically given by $$\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{ I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t \rfloor} - (\alpha-1)t}{t^{1/3}}\leq s \right)\\
={\mathbb{P}}(\chi_1-\chi_2\geq 0),$$ where $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are independent random variables with distributions $${\mathbb{P}}(\chi_1\leq x)=F_{\rm GOE}\left(\frac{x-\gamma s}{\sigma_1}\right),\quad {\mathbb{P}}(\chi_2\leq x)=F_{\rm GOE}\left(\frac{x-\gamma s/\alpha}{\sigma_2}\right),$$ with $\gamma=2^{4/3}/(2-\alpha)^{4/3}$.
In short, to prove Theorem \[comp2speed\], one first observes that the event , for $0\leq M\leq t$ amounts to the event that $(M, t-M)$ is blue, i.e., $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (M,t-M)}- L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (M,t-M)} >0$ (see Proposition \[translat\]). Thus we need to choose $M=\alpha t/2+s t^{1/3}/2$. Secondly, the key property one needs to show is that the (properly rescaled) random variables $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (M,t-M)}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (M,t-M)}$ are asymptotically independent. Together with their limiting distributions (\[eq2.10\]) leads to Theorem \[comp2speed\], where to fit the parameters we need to set $\ell=(2-\alpha)t/2-s t^{1/3}/2$ and $u=s 2^{1/3}/(2-\alpha)^{4/3}$.
### Competition Interfaces and second class particles {#SectSecondClass}
One of the motivations to study the competition interface is its direct connection to second class particles established in [@PFLP05] and [@PFJBLP09]. To define the second class particle one starts TASEP in where differ only at the origin, and couples the two processes in the basic coupling (in this coupling, particles from $\eta, \eta^{\prime}$ use the same Poisson processes for their jumps, the graphical construction of TASEP behind this goes back to Harris [@Har78], see also [@PaFer15] for an explanation). Under this coupling, the two processes differ at one site for all time denoted by $$X(t)= \sum_{x \in {\mathbb{Z}}}x \mathbbm{1}_{\{\eta_t (x) \neq \eta^{\prime}_t (x)\}}.$$ $X(t)$ is the position at time $t$ of the second class particle which started at the origin. To any $\eta \in \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ we can associate the empirical measure $$\pi^{n}(\eta)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in {\mathbb{Z}}} \eta(i)\delta_{i/n}.$$
The initial data $\eta_0$ of a TASEP can either be deterministic (as in ) or random as in Section \[SectBernoulli\] (the initial data is always independent of the evolution of the process). Furthermore one can also have a sequence of initial data $(\eta_{0}^{n}, n\geq 1)$. Let $(\eta_{0}^{n},n \geq 1)$ be defined on some probability space with measure $\mathbb{P}_0$. Then, the initial particle density is given by a measurable function $\rho_0 (x), x \in {\mathbb{R}},$ if for all continuous, compactly supported $f$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathrm{d}}\pi^{n}(\eta_{0}^{n}) f(x)= \int_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathrm{d}}x \rho_{0} (x) f(x) \quad \mathbb{P}_{0}\,\mathrm{a.s.}$$ For example, the $\rho_0$ corresponding to is simply constant $1/2$. The density of TASEP in the large time limit is then the entropy solution to the Burgers equation [@Ev10] with initial data given by $\rho_0,$ see e.g. [@PaFer15] and references therein. An important special case are initial particle densities $\rho_0$ of the form $$\label{Riemann}
\rho_0 (\xi)=\begin{cases}
\rho_-& \textrm{if } \xi <0, \\
\rho_+& \textrm{if } \xi \geq 0.
\end{cases}$$ If now $\rho_- <\rho_+$, the solution of the Burgers equation with initial data which gives the $t\to \infty$ density profile of TASEP is given by $$\label{Riemannburg}
\rho(\xi,1)=\begin{cases}
\rho_- &\textrm{if }\xi <1-\rho_- -\rho_+, \\
\rho_+ &\textrm{if }\xi \geq 1-\rho_- -\rho_+.
\end{cases}$$ The discontinuity in is called shock and $X(t)/t$ converges a.s. to $1-\rho_- -\rho_+$. Thus $X(t)$ provides an interpretation of the random shock position; for Riemann initial data with $\rho_- > \rho_+$ created by Bernoulli initial data, $X(t)/t$ is asymptotically uniformly distributed among the characteristics emanating from the origin, see e.g. Theorem 3 in [@PFJBLP09] for both results. In the construction given in Proposition 2.2 in [@PFJBLP09], an initial configuration with a second class particle at the origin becomes an initial configuration with a hole at 0 and a particle at 1 (note that we only defined the competition interface for such initial data). Associating to such initial data the LPP model and the competition interface , $I_n -J_n -1$ becomes then the position of the second class particle after its $(n-1)\mathrm{th}$ jump ($n\geq 1$). More precisely, with $\tau_n = L_{\mathcal{L}\to \phi_n}$ we define for $t\geq 0$ $$\label{eq2.13}
(I(t),J(t))= \phi_n \quad \mathrm{if} \, t \in [\tau_n, \tau_{n+1}).$$ Then, in the coupling of [@PFJBLP09] $I(t)-1$ (resp. $J(t)$) equals the number of rightward (resp. leftward) jumps of the second class particle in $[0,t]$, note $\tau_1 =0$ in our setting[^3].
General Model and Theorem {#gensect}
-------------------------
In this section we consider the general LPP model defined by , . We prove a generalization of Theorem \[comp2speed\] about the convergence of $I_n -J_n$ under three assumptions, see Theorem \[Genthm\] below. As noted after Theorem \[comp2speed\], one looks at the probability that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (M,t-M)}- L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (M,t-M)}$ is positive for suitable $M=M(t)$. Hence, $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (M,t-M)}- L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (M,t-M)}$ need to converge under the same rescaling (otherwise the probability of their difference being positive converges to $0$ or $1$). This is the content of Assumption 1. Furthermore, one needs to establish asymptotic independence of the two LPP times. If the maximizing paths $\pi^{\max}_{+}$ of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (M,t-M)}$ and $\pi^{\max}_{-}$ of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (M,t-M)}$ uses different (non-random) sets of the LPP random waiting times with high probability as $t\to\infty$, then the two LPP are asymptotically independent. Close to the endpoint, this can not possibly hold, since typically $\pi^{\max}_{+}$ and $\pi^{\max}_{-}$ will actually intersect. However, if the fluctuations of the two LPP are on the leading order not affected by the randomness in a region of radius $t^\nu$, $\nu<1$ away from $(M,t-M)$ (Assumption 2), then the maximizers until that distance are supported with high probability on disjoint set of points (Assumption 3), and the two LPP are asymptotically independent. The framework of these Assumptions was used in [@FN14] to prove the limit law of LPP times. Here we prove convergence of $I_n -J_n$ and obtain Theorem \[comp2speed\] as a corollary.
In the following, we do not always write the integer parts, since even any perturbation of order $o(t^{1/3})$ becomes irrelevant in the limit, see below. For convenience, we assume that all appearing distribution functions are continuous, otherwise statements will only hold at continuity points.
\[Assumpt1\] Fix $\eta_0\in (0,\infty)$ and $\eta=\eta_0+u t^{-2/3}$. Assume that there exists some $\mu$ such that $$\label{eq4a}
\lim_{ t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^+\to (\eta t, t)}-\mu t}{ t^{1/3}}\leq s\right) = G_1(s;u),$$ and $$\label{eq4b}
\lim_{ t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^-\to (\eta t, t)}-\mu t}{ t^{1/3}}\leq s\right) = G_2(s;u),$$ where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are some (continuous) distribution functions depending on $u$.
Secondly, we assume that there is a point $E^+$ at distance of order $ t^\nu$, for some $1/3<\nu<1$, which lies on the characteristic from $\mathcal{L}^+$ to $E=(\eta t,t)$ and that there is slow-decorrelation as in Theorem 2.1 of [@CFP10b].
\[Assumpt2\] Fix $\eta_0\in (0,\infty)$ and $\eta=\eta_0+u t^{-2/3}$. Assume that we have a point $E^+=(\eta t-\kappa t^\nu, t- t^\nu)$ such that for some $\mu_0$, and $\nu\in (1/3,1)$ it holds $$\label{eq5}
\lim_{ t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{E^+\to (\eta t, t)}-\mu_0 t^\nu}{ t^{\nu/3}}\leq s\right) = G_0(s;u),$$ and $$\label{eq6}
\lim_{ t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^+\to E^+}-\mu t+\mu_0 t^\nu}{ t^{1/3}}\leq s\right) = G_1(s;u),$$ where $G_0$ and $G_1$ are (continuous) distribution functions.
\[Assumpt3\] Let $\nu$ be as in Assumption \[Assumpt2\]. Consider the points with and $\beta \in (0,\nu)$. Assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{ t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{D_{\gamma}\atop \gamma \in [0,1- t^{\beta-1}]}\left\{D_\gamma\in \pi^{\rm max}_{L_{\mathcal{L}^+\to E^+}}\right\}\bigg) &=0,\\
\lim_{ t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{D_{\gamma}\atop \gamma \in [0,1- t^{\beta-1}]}\left\{D_\gamma\in \pi^{\rm max}_{L_{\mathcal{L}^-\to (\eta t, t)}}\right\}\bigg) &=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Then, under the proceeding Assumptions, we have the following Theorem.
\[Genthm\] Assume Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 hold with $$\eta=\eta_0 + ut^{-2/3}, \quad u \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ Then, for any sequence $a_t =o(t^{1/3})$ we have $$\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t\rfloor}\leq -t \frac{1-\eta_0 }{1+\eta_0 }+ \frac{2u}{(1+\eta_0 )^{4/3}} t^{1/3} +a_t\right)={\mathbb{P}}_{G_{2}\star G_{1,-}}((0,\infty)),$$ where ${\mathbb{P}}_{G_{2}\star G_{1,-}}$ is the convolution of the probability measures induced by the distribution functions $G_{2}(x;u)$ and $G_{1,-}(x;u):=1-G_{1}(-x;u)$.
In the proof of Corollary 2.2 of [@FN14], it has been shown that the Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 hold ($x_{0}(0)=1$ rather than $x_{0}(0)=0$ clearly do not affect the asymptotic behavior. This is easily seen by comparison and basic coupling, see remark at page 7 of [@BFS07]) with $\eta_0 = \frac{\alpha}{2-\alpha}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{1}(x;u) =F_{{\mathrm{GOE}}}\left(\frac{x -2u }{\sigma_1} \right), \quad
G_{2}(x;u) =F_{{\mathrm{GOE}}}\left( \frac{x -2u/\alpha }{\sigma_2}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ were defined in Theorem \[comp2speed\]. Then, taking $2u=2^{4/3}/(2-\alpha)^{4/3}s$ gives $$-t \frac{1-\eta_0 }{1+\eta_0 }+ \frac{2u}{(1+\eta_0 )^{4/3}} t^{1/3}=(\alpha-1)t +s t^{1/3}+ \mathcal{O}(t^{-1/3})$$ from which the result follows using Theorem \[Genthm\].
Proof of Theorem \[Genthm\]
---------------------------
In the following, we will often use the following elementary lemma from [@BC09]. By $``\Rightarrow"$ we designate convergence in distribution.
\[lemma4.1\] Let $D$ be a probability distribution and $(X_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}, (\tilde{X}_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be sequences of random variables. If $X_n\geq \tilde{X}_n$ and $\tilde{X}_n, X_n \Rightarrow D,$ then $X_n-\tilde{X}_n$ converges to zero in probability. If $X_n \Rightarrow D$ and $X_n-\tilde{X}_n$ converges to zero in probability, then $\tilde{X}_n \Rightarrow D$ as well.
We denote by $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}=\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^+\to (\eta t, t)}-\mu t}{ t^{1/3}}$$ the last passage time $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}$ rescaled as required by Assumption \[Assumpt1\]. We define analogously $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}, L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ as the last passage times rescaled as required by Assumption \[Assumpt1\] resp. \[Assumpt2\].
To study the asymptotic behavior of $I_n -J_n$ we make the following observation.
\[translat\] Let $\phi$ be the competition interface of the LPP model , with $x_{0} (0)=1, x_{1} (0)<-1$. Let $n,M\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $M\leq n -1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left((M,n-M)\in \Gamma_{-}^{\infty}\right)&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\left(I_n-J_n \leq -n+2M\right)
\\&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\left((M,n-M)+(1,-1)\in \Gamma_{-}^{\infty}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
Note that since $I_n+J_n = n$ we have the equality of the events $$\{I_n -J_n\leq -n+2M\}=\{\phi_n \in\{(k,n-k),0\leq k\leq M\}\},$$ with $\phi_n$ given in (\[eq2.13\]). The statement follows now from $$\begin{aligned}
\{(M,n-M)\in \Gamma_{-}^{\infty} \}&\subseteq \{\phi_n \in \{(k,n-k),0\leq k\leq M\}\}\\& \subseteq\{(M,n-M)+(1,-1)\in \Gamma_{-}^{\infty} \}.
\end{aligned}$$
With this observation, we can translate the behavior of $I_n -J_n$ into the difference of LPP times.
\[prop2\] Let $\eta=\eta_0 + ut^{-2/3}$, with $u \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and suppose that $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} \Rightarrow D\textrm{ as }t\to\infty.$$ Then, under Assumption 1, for any sequence $a_t =o(t^{1/3})$ we have $$\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t\rfloor}\leq -t \frac{1-\eta_0 }{1+\eta_0 }+ \frac{2u}{(1+\eta_0 )^{4/3}} t^{1/3} +a_t \right)
={\mathbb{P}}_{D}((0,\infty)),$$ where ${\mathbb{P}}_{D}$ is the probability measure with distribution $D$.
Let us define $$\hat{\eta}=\eta_0 + u(t/(1+\eta_0))^{-2/3}, \quad n(t)=\lfloor t \rfloor, \quad M(t)=\left\lfloor \frac{\hat{\eta}t}{1+\hat{\eta}} \right\rfloor.$$ Then setting $\ell=\frac{t}{1+\hat{\eta}}$ we have with $\eta(\ell)=\eta_0+ u \ell^{-2/3}$ and $$(M(t),n(t)-M(t))=(\eta(\ell) \ell, \ell)+c_\ell,$$ with $c_\ell=(c_\ell^{1},c_\ell^{2})=o(\ell^{1/3})$.
What we have to show is that if $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta (\ell)\ell,\ell)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell) \ell,\ell)}^{\mathrm{resc}} \Rightarrow D,$ then also for any $b_\ell=(b_\ell^{1},b_\ell^{2})=o(\ell^{1/3})$ $$\label{keypiece}
L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}^{\mathrm{resc}} \Rightarrow D.$$ Indeed, given , it follows from Proposition \[translat\] that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t\rfloor}\leq -n(t)+2M(t)\right)
={\mathbb{P}}_{D}((0,\infty)).$$ Furthermore, if $a_t =o(t^{1/3})$ there is an integer $\tilde{M}(t)$ such that $$-n(t)+2M(t)+\lfloor a_t \rfloor =-n(t)+2\tilde{M}(t), \quad M(t)-\tilde{M}(t)=o(t^{1/3}).$$ Applying Proposition \[translat\] with $n(t), \tilde{M}(t)$ and then using we obtain $$\label{integpart}
\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t\rfloor}\leq -n(t)+2M(t) +\lfloor a_t \rfloor\right)
={\mathbb{P}}_{D}((0,\infty)),$$ which is the statement to be proven. So let us now prove . Writing $$\begin{aligned}
X_{\ell }&=L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )}^{\mathrm{resc}}, \quad Y_\ell =L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell,\ell )}^{\mathrm{resc}},\\
Z_\ell &= \frac{ L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )}}{\ell^{1/3}}+\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}}{\ell^{1/3}},
\end{aligned}$$ we have $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}^{\mathrm{resc}} =X_\ell- Y_\ell + Z_\ell,$$ so it suffices to show $Z_\ell \Rightarrow 0$. Let $L=\max \left\{ \left|\frac{b^{1}_\ell}{\eta}\right|, \left|b_{\ell}^{2}\right|\right\}$. Then $$\label{ineq}
\left|L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )}^{\mathrm{resc}}\right|\leq \left|\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell-L) ,\ell -L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell +L) ,\ell +L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}\right|$$ where we defined $$\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell \pm L) ,\ell \pm L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}=\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell \pm L) ,\ell \pm L)}-\mu \ell}{\ell^{1/3}}.$$ Now $$\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell-L) ,\ell -L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq \widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell)( \ell +L) ,\ell +L)}^{\mathrm{resc}},$$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell-L) ,\ell -L)}^{\mathrm{resc}},L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell+L) ,\ell +L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ both converge to the same distribution by Assumption 1. Indeed, setting $\ell_\pm=\ell \pm L$ we get $$\label{genau}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell \pm L) ,\ell \pm L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}&=\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta (\ell_\pm)\ell_\pm ,\ell_\pm)}-\mu \ell_\pm }{\ell_\pm^{1/3}}+\mathcal{O}\left(L \ell^{-1/3}\right)\\&+\mathcal{O}(L \ell_\pm^{-4/3})(L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta (\ell) \ell_\pm, \ell_\pm)}-\mu \ell_\pm)\\&+\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta (\ell)\ell_\pm ,\ell_\pm)}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta (\ell_\pm)\ell_\pm ,\ell_\pm)}}{\ell_\pm^{1/3}}
\end{aligned}$$ and all terms except the first one on the right-hand side of converge to zero in probability. Hence by Lemma \[lemma4.1\] $\widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell-L) ,\ell -L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}- \widehat L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta(\ell) (\ell+L) ,\ell +L)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ converges to zero in probability and so does the left-hand side of . An analogous argument shows that $\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta(\ell)\ell ,\ell )+b_\ell}}{\ell^{1/3}}$ converges to zero in probability. This implies that $Z_\ell \Rightarrow 0$.
In view of the previous proposition, we need to determine the limit law of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} $. For this, we proceed as in [@FN14], reducing the problem to the limit law of two independent random variables in the following three Propositions.
\[red1\] Suppose Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, and let $D$ be a probability distribution. If $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}} \Rightarrow D\textrm{ as }t\to\infty,$$ then $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} \Rightarrow D\textrm{ as }t\to\infty.$$
We set $$\begin{aligned}
X_n &= L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}},\\
\tilde{X}_n &= L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lemma4.1\] it suffices to show $X_n -\tilde{X}_n $ converges to $0$ in probability. Now $$X_n - \tilde{X}_n =L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}},$$ and since $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}\geq \frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}},$$ to show that $X_n - \tilde{X}_n$ converges to zero in probability, it suffices again by Lemma \[lemma4.1\] to show that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ and $\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}$ converge to the same distribution as $t\to\infty$. By Assumption 1, in the large-$t$ limit, ${\mathbb{P}}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s)\to G_{1}(s)$ and by Assumption 2 ${\mathbb{P}}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s)\to G_{1}(s)$. Furthermore, by Assumption 2 for any $\varepsilon>0$ $$\label{E+0}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(\left|\frac{L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu_{0}t^{\nu}}{t^{\nu/3}} \right|\geq \varepsilon t^{(1-\nu)/3}\right) \to 0\textrm{ as }t\to\infty.$$ Thus $\frac{L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu_0 t^{\nu}}{t^{1/3}}$ converges to zero in probability as $t\to\infty$. Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\leq s\right)&={\mathbb{P}}\left( L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}+\frac{L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu_{0}t^{\nu}}{t^{1/3}}\leq s\right)
\\& \to G_{1}(s) \textrm{ as }t\to\infty.
\end{aligned}$$
For the next reduction, define for some set $B$ and point $C$ $\tilde{L}_{B\to C}$ to be the last passage time from $B$ to $C$ except that we take the maximum only over paths not containing any point $\bigcup_{\gamma \in [0,1-t^{\beta-1}]}D_{\gamma} $ with as in Assumption \[Assumpt3\]. We rescale $\tilde{L}_{B\to C}$ just as $L_{B\to C}$.
\[red2\] Suppose that Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 hold. If $$\label{Y1s}
Y_{t,1}:=\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\Rightarrow D \textrm{ as }t\to\infty,$$ then $$\label{Y2s}
Y_{t,2}:=L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\Rightarrow D \textrm{ as }t\to\infty.$$
For $\varepsilon >0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{D1x}
{\mathbb{P}}(\left|Y_{t,1}- Y_{t,2}\right|\geq \varepsilon)&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\left(
\bigg|\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}-\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}} }{t^{1/3}}\bigg|\geq \varepsilon/2\right)
\\&+ {\mathbb{P}}\left(
\bigg|\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}-\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)} }{t^{1/3}}\bigg|\geq \varepsilon/2\right).
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\label{eq2.52}
\{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}-\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}=0\}\subset \bigcup_{D_{\gamma}\atop \gamma \in [0,1- t^{\beta-1}]}\left\{D_\gamma\in \pi^{\rm max}_{L_{\mathcal{L}^+\to E^+}}\right\}$$ because if the maximizers do not reach any points $D_\gamma$, then the two last passage time are identical. The same holds for $E^+$ replaced with $(\eta t,t)$. However, by Assumption 3, the probability of the event in the r.h.s. of (\[eq2.52\]) goes to $0$ as $t\to\infty.$ Hence by Lemma \[lemma4.1\] if $Y_{t,1}\Rightarrow D$, also $Y_{t,2}\Rightarrow D$.
Finally, we have the following.
\[red3\] If we have that $$\label{conv}
\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\Rightarrow D \textrm{ as }t\to\infty,$$ then also $$\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\Rightarrow D \textrm{ as }t\to\infty.$$
Simply note that $X_t =\frac{L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu_0 t^{\nu}}{t^{1/3}}$ converges to zero in probability by , hence if holds we have by Lemma \[lemma4.1\] $$\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}+X_t ) = \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}-\frac{\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}+L_{E^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}
\Rightarrow D.$$
By construction $\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}},\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ are independent, since they depend on disjoint sets of $\omega_{i,j}$’s, which are independent random variables. Furthermore, as shown in the proof of Proposition \[red2\], and $\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}
-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ converge to zero in probability and hence by Assumptions 1,2 and Lemma \[lemma4.1\] $$\label{conv1}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s)\to G_{2}(s)
\quad \textrm{and}\quad{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s)\to G_{1}(s)$$ as $t\to\infty$. Now and independence imply that the vector $
(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}, \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}})$ converges in law to the product measure ${\mathbb{P}}_{G_{2}} \otimes {\mathbb{P}}_{G_{1}}$. Consequently, by the continuous mapping theorem, $(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}- \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}^{\mathrm{resc}})$ converges to ${\mathbb{P}}_{G_{2}} \star {\mathbb{P}}_{G_{1,-}}$. Combining this with Propositions \[prop2\], \[red1\], \[red2\] and \[red3\] leads to the proof of Theorem \[Genthm\].
Application to Bernoulli initial data {#SectBernoulli}
-------------------------------------
In this section we explain that Theorem \[Genthm\] applies to random shock Bernoulli initial data as well. In this case, the asymptotic independence of LPP times underlying Theorem \[Genthm\] had already been established in [@CFP09] and does not require the detailed control over fluctuations of maximizing paths as in Assumption 3. We review the proof of asymptotic independence given in [@CFP09] and explain how to obtain the result from it. For the processes $(I(t), J(t)$ from , a central limit theorem is also available, see Theorem 4 in [@PFJBLP09].
Consider TASEP $(\eta_t)_{t\geq 0}$ where the $(\eta_0 (i), i\in {\mathbb{Z}})$ are independent Bernoulli random variables with parameter $\rho_+$ (resp. $\rho_-$) for $i\geq 0$ (resp. $i<0$). Theorem \[Genthm\] applies when $\rho_+ > \rho_-$, i.e., in the shock case. For $\rho_+ < \rho_-$ we have a rarefaction fan and the competition interface has a random asymptotic direction, see Theorem 2(c) of [@PFJBLP09], while for $\rho_+ = \rho_-$ the competition interface has a deterministic direction but there is no underlying independence of LPP times, see [@BFP09]. Hence, Theorem \[Genthm\] does not apply in these cases.
Let now $\mathcal{L}$ and the $\{\omega_{i,j}\}$ be given by , (all particles have jump rate $1$). While the set $\mathcal{L}$ is random in our case, an application of Burke’s Theorem [@Bur56] yields that the correspondence holds for a point-to-point problem with certain boundary weights (see [@PS01]). Namely, neglecting an asymptotically irrelevant set of weights which are equal to zero (see Proposition 2.2 of [@FS05a]), one can choose in $\mathcal{L}=\{(0,0)\}$ and weights[^4] $$\label{berweig}
\omega_{i,j}:=\begin{cases}
0 \quad &\mathrm{if\,\,} i=j=0,\\
\exp(1) \quad & \mathrm{if\,\,} i,j>0,\\
\exp(\rho_{-}) \quad & \mathrm{if\,\,} i=0, j\geq 1,
\\ \exp(1-\rho_{+}) \quad & \mathrm{if\,\,} j=0, i\geq 1,
\end{cases}$$ see Figure \[fig2\].
\[c\][${\cal L}_-$]{} \[c\][$P_-$]{} \[c\][${\cal L}_+$]{} \[c\][$P_+$]{} \[c\][$\exp(1)$]{} \[c\][$\exp(1-\rho_+)$]{} \[r\][$\exp(\rho_-)$]{} \[l\][$(\eta t,t)$]{} \[l\][$\pi^{\max}_{{\cal L}^+\to(\eta t,t)}$]{} \[l\][$\pi^{\max}_{{\cal L}^-\to(\eta t,t)}$]{} ![The LPP model of Theorem \[berthm\] for $\rho_+ = 3/4 =1-\rho_-$.The maximizing paths $\pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t,t)}$ and $\pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t,t)}$ follows the boundary until points close to $P_+$ resp. $P_-$ after which they enter into the bulk.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Berpic "fig:"){height="5cm"}
Choosing and $\mathcal{L}^{-}=\{(1,0)\}$ we can again define the competition interface via $\phi_0 = (0,0)$ and . We then obtain the following result.
\[berthm\] Consider the LPP model defined by with and $\mathcal{L}^{-}=\{(1,0)\}$. Let $(I_n, J_n)_{n\geq 1}$ be the competition interface in this model. Take $\eta = \frac{ (1-\rho_{+})(1-\rho_{-})}{ \rho_{-} \rho_+}$ and let $v_-=\frac{\eta}{(1-\rho_{+ })^{2}} -\frac{1 }{\rho_{+}^{2}}$ and finally $m_{+}=1/(1-\rho_{-})$, $m_{-}=1/(1-\rho_{+})$. We then have $$\label{bernoullithm}
\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( I_{\lfloor t\rfloor}-J_{\lfloor t\rfloor}\leq -t \frac{1-\eta}{1+\eta }+\frac{2ut^{1/2}}{(1+\eta)^{3/2}}\right)=\int_{u(m_{+}-m_{-})}^{\infty}{\mathrm{d}}x\frac{e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{2(v_- + v_+)}}}{\sqrt{2\pi(v_- +v_+)}}.$$
First note that Proposition \[translat\] is a general statement and it applies here too. Denote now $$\label{resc}
L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}=\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) } - \frac{t}{\rho_{+} \rho_{-} }}{t^{1/2}}.$$ Furthermore, denote by $N(m,v)$ a Gaussian random variable with mean $m$ and variance $v$ and write $N_\pm =N(m_\pm u,v_{\pm})$. We now have
$$\begin{aligned}
&\label{11}\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t+u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s)={\mathbb{P}}(N_\pm\leq s)\end{aligned}$$
where follows for $\mathcal{L}^{+}$ from Proposition 2.8 part (b) in [@CFP09] (a random matrix theory variant of this result already appeared in Theorem 1.1 of [@BBP06]) by a simple change of variable, for $ L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ one has to look at the transposed LPP model with weights $\tilde{\omega}_{i,j}=\omega_{j,i}$ and transposed endpoint to apply Proposition 2.8 of [@CFP09]. We can see as confirming the analogue of Assumption 1 in this new setting. In particular, Proposition \[prop2\] still holds, i.e., we have $$\eqref{bernoullithm}=\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}( L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}>0).$$ Thus one has to establish the asymptotic independence of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$, which is done in [@CFP09] using coupling arguments. Namely, one defines the points $$\begin{aligned}
P_{+}&=\left(0,t-\frac{\eta t}{(1/\rho_{-} -1)^{2}}+\frac{u t^{1/2}\rho_{-}}{1-\rho_{-}}\right),\\
P_{-}&= \left(\eta t - \frac{t}{(1/(1-\rho_{+}) -1)^{2}} +u t^{1/2},0\right),
\end{aligned}$$ and the random variables $$\begin{aligned}
&X_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}=L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_{+}} + L_{P_{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)},\\
& X_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}=L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{-}} + L_{P_{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}.
\end{aligned}$$
The choice of $P_+ , P_-$ is such that $X_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ and $X_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ have the same leading order as $L_{\mathcal{L}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }$. Denote by $X_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ the random variables $X_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ rescaled as in . Note now that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_{+}}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{-}} $ follow a simple central limit theorem. By this and law of large numbers and converge, when divided by $t^{1/2},$ to $N_+ , N_{-}.$ On the other hand $L_{P_{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ and $L_{P_{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ have only $t^{1/3}$ fluctuations. After centering by their leading order and dividing by $t^{1/2}$, $L_{P_{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ and $L_{P_{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$ converge in probability to $0$. This implies that $$\label{red}
\lim_{t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}(X_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} \leq s) = {\mathbb{P}}( N_\pm \leq s).$$ But $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_{+}}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{-}}$ are by definition independent. Therefore we obtain for independent $N_+ , N_-$ $$\label{prel}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( X_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} - X_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}} >0\right)={\mathbb{P}}(N_- - N_+ >0 ).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, since $X_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }\leq L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}$, Equation together with Lemma \[lemma4.1\] imply that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}- X_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t) }^{\mathrm{resc}}- X_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta t +u t^{1/2},t)}^{\mathrm{resc}}$ converge to $0$ in probability, hence yields Theorem \[berthm\].
Multipoint Distributions {#sectMultiPts}
========================
In this section we consider an LPP model for which, in the TASEP picture there is a shock, and we ask the question of the joint distribution of the LPP times around the shock line, namely $$\label{multipoint}
\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\{L_{\mathcal{L}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}\leq \mu t+s_k t^{1/3}\}\bigg).$$ To define the model, take $\beta >0$ and $$\label{pointtopoint}
\mathcal{L}^{+}=(\lfloor - \beta t \rfloor ,0) \quad \textrm{and}\quad \mathcal{L}^{-}=(0,\lfloor -\beta t \rfloor),$$ as well as $\eta_0 =1$ and $\omega_{i,j} \sim \exp(1)$, see Figure \[fig3a\].
\[r\][$0$]{} \[r\][$(-\beta t,0)$]{} \[r\][$(0,-\beta t)$]{} \[c\][$P_1$]{} \[c\][$P_2$]{} ![The LPP model . The endpoints are at distance ${\mathcal{O}}(t^{1/3})$: $P_k=(t+u_k t^{1/3},t)$.[]{data-label="fig3a"}](LPPpictures "fig:"){height="5cm"}
The physical picture in the background is the following: the LPP from ${\cal L}^\pm$ to different points at a distance ${\mathcal{O}}(t)$ have fluctuations of order ${\mathcal{O}}(t^{1/3})$ and the correlation length scales as ${\mathcal{O}}(t^{2/3})$ due to KPZ scaling theory. Consider thus two different end-point at distance $u t^{2/3}$. Then, the law of large number from ${\cal L}^+$ and ${\cal L}^-$ change over that distance at first approximation linearly in $u t^{2/3}$ with two different prefactors (except along the diagonal). This means that in order to see the effect of both boundaries ${\cal L}^\pm$, we need to consider $u\sim t^{-1/3}$, otherwise one of the two LPP problem dominates completely the other. However, since on that small scale the rescaled LPP process should have Gaussian increments (as it is proven for the corresponding limit processes, the Airy processes [@Ha07; @CH11; @QR12]) changes in the fluctuation of the two LPP problem will be ${\mathcal{O}}(t^{1/6})$, thus irrelevant with respect to the ${\mathcal{O}}(t^{1/3})$ fluctuations. This leads to the following result to be proven in Section \[sect3.1\].
\[mltp\] Let $u_ 1 < u_2 < \cdots < u_m$ be real numbers. Consider the LPP model , $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}^{+}\cup\mathcal{L}^{+}$ and points $P_k = (t+u_k t^{1/3}, t)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{t \to \infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left( \bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\{L_{\mathcal{L}\to P_k}\leq (1+\sqrt{1+\beta})^{2}t+s_k t^{1/3}\}\right)
\\&= F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_{k}\{s_k-\mu_+ u_k\}}{\sigma}\right)F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}} \left(\frac{\min_{k}\{s_k-\mu_- u_k\}}{\sigma}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ with $\mu_+=1+1/\sqrt{1+\beta}$, $\mu_-=1+\sqrt{1+\beta}$, and $\sigma=\frac{(1+\beta+\sqrt{1+\beta})^{4/3}}{(1+\beta)^{1/6}}.$
As explained in Section \[gensect\], our Assumptions imply that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}$ and $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}$ are asymptotically independent. Consequently the limit for $m=1$ is given by $$\label{1point}
\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\leq s_k \right)\\
&=\lim_{t\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\max\left\{\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}, \frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}} \right\} \leq s_k \right)\\&=G_1 (s_k) G_2 (s_k)
\end{aligned}$$ as shown in Theorem 2.1 in [@FN14]. For the particular model (\[pointtopoint\]) the Assumptions 1,2,3 were checked in [@FN14], see Section 4.3.
To determine the limit for general $m$, the first step is to establish an extended no-crossing result, which guarantees asymptotic independence of the vectors $(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)})_{k=1,\ldots,m}$ and $(L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)})_{k=1,\ldots,m}$. To obtain then the limit law of each of these vectors, one then needs to control the rescaled local fluctuations as well, $$\label{locfluc}
\lim_{t\to \infty}\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta_0 t +u_k t^{1/3},t)}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta_0 t ,t)}}{t^{1/3}}.$$
We give the extended no-crossing result in Proposition \[extmult\], while has been obtained by Cator and Pimentel in [@CP13] (they give a much more refined result actually), see Proposition \[BM\].
For $P_k = (\eta(u_k) t, t)$ with $\eta(u_k) =1+u_k t^{-2/3}$, , of Assumption 2 hold for points $E_{k}^{+}$ on the line $\overline{(-\beta t,0) P_k}$, i.e., we may take $$\label{Ek}
E_k^{+}=(t-t^{\nu}(1+\beta)+u_k t^{1/3}-u_k t^{\nu-2/3}, t -t^{\nu}),$$ see Figure \[fig3\] for an illustration.
\[r\][$0$]{} \[r\][$(-\beta t,0)$]{} \[r\][$(0,-\beta t)$]{} \[c\][$P_1$]{} \[c\][$P_2$]{} \[c\][$E_1^+$]{} \[c\][$E_2^+$]{} \[c\][$D_{\gamma_0}^2$]{} ![The LPP model The maximizing paths $\pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{1}^{+}}, \pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{2}^{+}}, \pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{1}},\pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{2}}$ cross the line $\overline{(0,0)D_{\gamma_0}^{2}}$ with vanishing probability, where $D_{\gamma_0}^{2}=\gamma_0 P_2$ with $\gamma_0 = 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Nocropic "fig:"){height="6cm"}
This, as well as the validity of Assumption 1, follow easily from the following theorem of Johansson for point-to-point last passage times, which also identifies the limit distribution $G_1$ in this case.
\[propJohConvergence\] Let $0<\eta<\infty$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\ell\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\left(L_{(0,0)\to (\lfloor\eta\ell\rfloor,\lfloor\ell\rfloor)}\leq \mu_{\rm pp}\ell +s \sigma_\eta \ell^{1/3}\right)= F_{\mathrm{GUE}}(s)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{\rm pp}=(1+\sqrt{\eta})^2$, and $\sigma_\eta=\eta^{-1/6}(1+\sqrt{\eta})^{4/3}$ with $F_{\mathrm{GUE}}$ the GUE Tracy Widom distribution function from random matrix theory.
The following is the extended no-crossing result.
\[extmult\] Let $\nu \in (1/3,1), $ $u_1 <\cdots < u_m$ real numbers and take . Let $\mathcal{L}^{+}, \mathcal{L}^{-}$ be as in Theorem \[mltp\] and consider the points $D_{\gamma}^{m}=\gamma P_m= (\lfloor\gamma(t+u_m t^{1/3})\rfloor,\lfloor\gamma t\rfloor)$ and $E_k^{+}$ as in . Then $$\label{ex1}
\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{\gamma\in[0,1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]}\,\,\bigcup_{k=1}^{m} \{D_{\gamma}^{m}\in \pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}\}\bigg)=0$$ and $$\label{ex2}
\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg( \bigcup_{\gamma\in[0,1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]}\,\,\bigcup_{k=1}^{m}\{D_{\gamma}^{m}\in \pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}\}\bigg)=0.$$
The control over the local fluctuations for point-to-point problems is given in the following Proposition.
\[local\] Let $s>0$ and $u\in {\mathbb{R}}$. We have in the sense of convergence in probability, $$\label{BM}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{L_{(0,0)\to (st+ut^{1/3},t)}-\mu_s u t^{1/3} - L_{(0,0)\to (st,t)}}{t^{1/3}}=0,$$ where $\mu_s =1+s^{-1/2}.$
This follows directly from the more refined Theorem 5 in [@CP13], which in particular tells that the process $$\Delta_t (u)=\frac{L_{(0,0)\to (st+ut^{1/3},t)}-\mu_s u t^{1/3} - L_{(0,0)\to (st,t)}}{\mu_s t^{1/6}}$$ converges to Brownian Motion in the sense of weak convergence of probability measures in the space of càdlàg functions, implying .
Assumptions 1,2, the multipoint version of Assumption 3 (here Proposition \[extmult\]), and the control of the local fluctuations of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{\pm}\to (\eta t +ut^{1/3},t)}$ (here Proposition \[local\]) are sufficient to prove Theorem \[mltp\] for a general LPP model too.
Proof of Theorem \[mltp\] {#sect3.1}
-------------------------
To prove Theorem \[mltp\], we need the multidimensional generalization of Lemma \[lemma4.1\], and another elementary lemma from [@CFP09]. As before, we denote by $``\Rightarrow"$ convergence in distribution and by $``\overset{d}{=}"$ equality in distribution. Let $X_n, \tilde{X}_n$ be random variables with values in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$. We say that $X_n \geq \tilde{X}_n$ if $X_n (k)\geq \tilde{X}_n (k)$ for each coordinate $X_n (k), \tilde{X}_n (k)$. We write $X_n \Rightarrow F$ where $F$ is a distribution function on ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, if for every continuity point $(s_1, \ldots, s_m)$ of $F$ we have that ${\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{k=1}^{m}\{X_n (k)\leq s_k \})$ converges to $F(s_1,\ldots,s_m)$. We say that $X_n -\tilde{X}_n$ converges to $0$ in probability as $n \to \infty$, if for every $\varepsilon >0$ we have ${\mathbb{P}}( || X_n-\tilde{X}_{n}||_\infty> \varepsilon)$ converges to $0$ as $n\to \infty$. Finally, for $X,Y$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ we define $\max(X, Y):=Z$ coordinatewise, i.e., $Z(k)=\max\{X(k) , Y(k)\}$. With this notation, we have the following lemmas.
\[lem35\] With the above notation for random variables in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, Lemma \[lemma4.1\] holds true.
\[lem36\] Let $D_1, D_2, D_3 $ be probability distributions. Assume that $X_n \geq \tilde{X}_{n}$ and $X_n, \tilde{X}_n \Rightarrow D_1$, and equally that $Y_n \geq \tilde{Y}_{n}$ and $Y_n, \tilde{Y}_n \Rightarrow D_2$. Let $Z_n =\max\{X_n, Y_n\}$ and $\tilde{Z}_n =\max\{\tilde{X}_n, \tilde{Y}_n\}$. Then if $\tilde{Z}_n \Rightarrow D_3, $ also $Z_n \Rightarrow D_3$.
To prove Theorem \[mltp\], we reduce the problem to two independent random variables with the following two propositions.
\[propred4\] Let $\mu =(1+\sqrt{1+\beta})^{2},$ take $E_{k}^{+}$ from and define ${\mathbb{R}}^m$-valued random variables $$\begin{aligned}
X_n^1 &= \left(t^{-1/3}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_k}-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m},\\
\tilde{X}_n^1 &= \left(t^{-1/3}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}+L_{E^{+}_{k}\to P_k}-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m},\\
Y_n^{1}&=\tilde{Y}_{n}^{1}=\left(t^{-1/3}(L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, for $D$ a probability distribution, if $\max(\tilde{X}_n^1 ,\tilde{Y}_{n}^{1})\Rightarrow D$, also $\max(X_n^1 ,Y_{n}^{1})\Rightarrow D$. Furthermore, with $\sigma $ as in Theorem \[mltp\] $$\begin{aligned}\label{red4}
X_{n}^{1}, \tilde{X}_n^1 &\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right),\\
Y_{n}^{1}, \tilde{Y}_n^1 &\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
We prove first and take the point $P=(t,t)$. For every , we write $$\label{kapp}
\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_k}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}=\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}+\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P_k }-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P }}{t^{1/3}},$$ and note $L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to P }\overset{d}{=}L_{(0,0)\to ((1+\beta)t,t) }$. Applying Proposition \[local\] with $s=1+\beta$ and Proposition \[propJohConvergence\] to we obtain $X_{n}^{1}\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right).$ Similarily, for $E^{+}=(t-t^{\nu}(1+\beta),t-t^{\nu})$, we decompose $$\begin{aligned}\label{kennyp}
&\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}+L_{E^{+}_{k}\to P_k}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}\\
=&\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}-\mu (t-t^{\nu})}{t^{1/3}}+\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}-L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}}{t^{1/3}}+\frac{L_{E^{+}_k\to P_k}-\mu t^{\nu}}{t^{1/3}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since the points $E_{k}^{+}$ satisfy Assumption 2 of our LPP model, the last summand in converges to $0$, while the second summand converges to $u_k (1+1/\sqrt{1+\beta})$ by Proposition \[local\]. Furthermore, we have that ${\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{L_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}}-\mu (t-t^{\nu})}{t^{1/3}}\leq s\right)$ converges to $F_{\mathrm{GUE}}(s)$ by Proposition \[propJohConvergence\]. So in total we get $\tilde{X}_{n}^{1}\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)$. Finally, replacing $\mathcal{L}^{+}$ by $\mathcal{L}^{-}$ in and noting that $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P }\overset{d}{=}L_{(0,0)\to ((1+\beta)^{-1}\ell,\ell) } $ with $\ell=(1+\beta)t$, by the same argument we get $Y_{n}^{1} \Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)$. The first assertion of the Proposition follows now from Lemma \[lem36\], since $X_{n}^{1}\geq \tilde{X}_n^1$ and $Y_n^{1}=\tilde{Y}_{n}^{1}$.
In the following, we denote for sets $A,B$ by $\tilde{L}_{A\to B}$ the LPP time from $A$ to $B$ with the difference that the maximum in is only taken over up-right paths that do not contain any point $D_{\gamma}^{m}=(\lfloor\gamma(t+u_m t^{1/3})\rfloor,\lfloor\gamma t\rfloor)$, $\gamma \leq 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)$.
\[propred5\]Let $D$ be a probability distribution and define $X_{n}^{2}=\tilde{X}_{n}^{1},$ $Y_{n}^{2}=Y_{n}^{1}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{X}_n^{2} &= \left(t^{-1/3}(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}+L_{E_{k}^{+}\to P_k}-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m},\\
\tilde{Y}_{n}^{2} &=\left(t^{-1/3}(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then if $\max(\tilde{X}_n^2 ,\tilde{Y}_{n}^{2})\Rightarrow D$, also $\max(X_n^2 ,Y_{n}^{2})\Rightarrow D$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}\label{red5}
\tilde{X}_n^2 &\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right),\\
\tilde{Y}_n^2 &\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
We prove first. First we note that $X_{n}^{2}\geq \tilde{X}_n^{2} $ and $Y_{n}^{2}\geq \tilde{Y}_n^2$. Now, for $\varepsilon >0$, $${\mathbb{P}}(||X_{n}^{2}-\tilde{X}_{n}^{2}||_{\infty}>\varepsilon )\leq {\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{\gamma\in[0,1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]}\,\,\bigcup_{k=1}^{m} \{D_{\gamma}^{m}\in \pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_k^{+}}\}\bigg),$$ which goes to $0$ as $t\to\infty$ by Proposition \[extmult\]. Thus, by and Lemma \[lem35\], it follows that $\tilde{X}_n^2 \Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)$. An analogous proof shows that $\tilde{Y}_n^2 \Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)$. The first assertion of the proposition follows now from , and Lemma \[lem36\].
With the reductions from Propositions \[propred4\], \[propred5\] at hand, we can now proceed to the proof of Theorem \[mltp\].
For the sake of brevity, we define $$\begin{aligned}
F(s_1,\ldots,s_m)= &F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right) \\
\times &F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ and the rescaled LPP times $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}=\frac{\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}-\mu (t-t^{\nu})}{t^{1/3}},
\quad \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}=\frac{\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}-\mu t}{t^{1/3}}.
\end{aligned}$$ First of all, note that $$\left(t^{-1/3}(L_{\mathcal{L}\to P_k }-\mu t)\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m}=\max \{X_{n}^{1}, Y_{n}^{1}\},$$ so that by Propositions \[propred4\], \[propred5\] we have to show $$\begin{aligned}\label{redproof}
\max\{\tilde{X}_{n}^{2}, \tilde{Y}_{n}^{2}\}&\Rightarrow F(s_1,\ldots,s_m)\quad\textrm{as }t\to\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Define the random variable $X_{t}^{k}$ via $$\frac{L_{E_{k}^{+}\to P_{k}} -\mu t^{\nu}}{t^{1/3}}=\frac{1}{t^{(1-\nu)/3}} X_{t}^{k}.$$ Then $\frac{1}{t^{(1-\nu)/3}} X_{t}^{k}$ vanishes as $t\to \infty$. This fact together with Lemma \[lem35\] and implies $$\label{red6}
\left( \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\right)_{k=1,\ldots,m}\Rightarrow F_{{\mathrm{GUE}}}\left(\frac{\min_k \{s_k -u_k(1+1/ \sqrt{1+\beta})\}}{\sigma}\right)$$ as $t\to\infty$.
Let now $\varepsilon >0$ and take $R>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{k=1}^{m}\{|X_{t}^{k}|\leq R\})\geq 1- \varepsilon$ and define $A_{R}=\cap_{k=1}^{m}\{|X_{t}^{k}|\leq R\}$. In particular it holds $$\label{easy}
\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{k=1}^{m}&\{\max{\{\tilde{X}_{n}^{2}(k), \tilde{Y}_{n}^{2}(k)\}\leq s_k}\})\\&-{\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{k=1}^{m}\{\max{\{\tilde{X}_{n}^{2}(k), \tilde{Y}_{n}^{2}(k)\}\leq s_k}\}\cap A_R)|\leq \varepsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1ter}
&{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\left(
\{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}+t^{(\nu-1)/3} R\leq s_{k}\}\cap \{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s_{k}\}\right)\bigg)-\varepsilon
\\&\label{2ter}\leq {\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\left(
\{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}+t^{(\nu-1)/3} X_{t}^{k}\leq s_{k}\}\cap A_R \cap \{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s_{k}\}\right)\bigg)
\\&\leq
{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\left(
\{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}-t^{(\nu-1)/3} R\leq s_{k}\}\cap A_R \cap \{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s_{k}\}\right)\bigg)
\\&\label{6ter}
\leq {\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcap_{k=1}^{m}\left(
\{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}-t^{(\nu-1)/3} R\leq s_{k}\}\cap \{ \tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\leq s_{k}\}\right)\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ Now $\left(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E^{+}_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\right)_{k=1,\ldots ,m}$ and $\left(\tilde{L}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\mathrm{resc}}\right)_{k=1,\ldots ,m}$ are independent random variables, since the $x$ coordinate of all $E_{k}^{+}$ is smaller than the $x$ coordinate of $D_{\gamma}^{m}$ for $\gamma=1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)$ and $t$ large enough. Hence, by and there is a $t_{0}$ such that for $t>t_0$ $$F(s_{1},\ldots,s_{m})-2\varepsilon \leq \eqref{1ter}\leq \eqref{2ter} \leq \eqref{6ter}\leq F(s_1, \ldots,s_m)+\varepsilon.$$ Hence applying to yields $$|{\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{k=1}^{m}\{\max{\{\tilde{X}_{n}^{2}(k), \tilde{Y}_{n}^{2}(k)\}\leq s_k}\})-F(s_1,\ldots,s_m)|\leq 3 \varepsilon$$ for $t$ large enough, thus proving .
Proof of Proposition \[extmult\]
--------------------------------
The no-crossing result will be deduced from the validity of Assumption 3 established in [@FN14] by a soft argument, see also Figure \[fig3\]. To prove , we use an extension of the strategy used in [@FN14], which is based on moderate deviation estimates for LPP times, given in the following two propositions.
\[devone\] Let $0<\eta<\infty$. Then for given $\ell_0>0$ and $s_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, there exist constants $C,c>0$ only dependent on $\ell_0,s_0$ such that for all $\ell\geq \ell_0$ and $s\geq s_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{moddef}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(L_{(0,0)\to (\lfloor\eta\ell\rfloor,\lfloor\ell\rfloor)}> \mu_{\rm pp}\ell +\ell^{1/3}s\right)\leq C \exp(-c s),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{\rm pp}=(1+\sqrt{\eta})^{2}$.
\[devtwo\] Let and . There exist positive constants $s_0,\ell_0,C,c$ such that for $s\leq -s_0,$ $\ell\geq \ell_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(L_{(0,0)\to (\lfloor\eta\ell\rfloor,\lfloor\ell\rfloor)}\leq \mu_{\rm pp} \ell +s\ell^{1/3}\right)\leq C\exp(-c|s|^{3/2}).
\end{aligned}$$
The following proposition shows that if $\pi^{\max}_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}$ passes through a point $\gamma P_l$, then $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}$ is unlikely to be larger than the leading order of plus a $\mathcal{O}(t^{1/3})$ term.
\[largedev\] Let $r_1, r_2 \in {\mathbb{R}},$ $\nu \in (1/3,1)$ and $\varepsilon=ct^{\nu-1},c>0$. Define points $D_{\gamma}(r_1)=(\gamma t+\gamma r_1 t^{1/3},\gamma t)$ for $\gamma \in [0, 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]$ and . Define $$E_{r_1, r_2,\gamma}=\{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to D_{\gamma}(r_1)}\leq (\mu_\gamma
+\varepsilon/2)t \}\cap \{L_{ D_{\gamma}(r_1)\to P(r_2)}\leq (\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}+\varepsilon/2)t\}.$$ where $\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}=4(1-\gamma),$ $\mu_{\gamma}=2\gamma+\beta+2\sqrt{\gamma(\gamma+\beta)}.$ Then for some constants $\tilde{c}, \tilde{C}>0$$$\label{strike1}
{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{0\leq\gamma \leq 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)} \Omega\setminus E_{r_1, r_2,\gamma} \bigg)\leq \tilde{C}e^{-\tilde{c}t^{\nu-1/3}}.$$
We denote by $\mu_1$ the constant $\mu_{\mathrm{pp}}$ from Proposition \[propJohConvergence\] for $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to D_{\gamma}(r_1)}\overset{d}{=} L_{(0,0)\to (\ell(1+\beta/\gamma+\gamma^{-2/3}r_1 \ell^{-2/3}),\ell)}=:L_{(0,0)\to (\eta_1 \ell,\ell)}$$ with $\ell=\gamma t$ and by $\mu_2$ the constant $\mu_{\mathrm{pp}}$ from Proposition \[propJohConvergence\] for $$L_{D_{\gamma}(r_1)\to P(r_2)}\overset{d}{=}
L_{(0,0)\to (\tilde{\ell}+(r_2-r_1 \gamma)(\tilde{\ell}/(1-\gamma))^{1/3} , \tilde{\ell})}=:L_{(0,0)\to (\eta_2 \tilde{\ell},\tilde{\ell})}$$ with $\tilde{\ell}=(1-\gamma)t$. A simple computations gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1 \ell&=\gamma t \left(1+\sqrt{1+\beta/\gamma+r_2 t^{-2/3}}\right)^{2}= (\mu_{\gamma}+\mathcal{O}(t^{-2/3}))t,\\
\mu_2 \tilde{\ell} &=(1-\gamma)t\left(1+\sqrt{1+(r_2-r_1\gamma)t^{-2/3}/(1-\gamma)}\right)^{2}=(\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}+\mathcal{O}(t^{-2/3}))t.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\nu >1/3$ we thus have for some $d, C_1, c_1 >0$ and $t$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}((E_{r_1, r_2, \gamma})^{c} )&\leq {\mathbb{P}}(L_{(0,0)\to (\eta_1 \ell,\ell)}> \mu_1 \ell+d (\ell/\gamma)^{\nu})\\&+{\mathbb{P}}(L_{(0,0)\to (\eta_2 \tilde{\ell},\tilde{\ell})}> \mu_2 \tilde{\ell}+d (\tilde{\ell}/(1-\gamma))^{\nu})
\\&\leq C_1e^{-c_1t^{\nu-1/3}},
\end{aligned}$$ where for the last inequality we used Proposition \[devone\]. Since there are only $\mathcal{O}(t)$ many events $(E_{r_1, r_2, \gamma})^{c}$, follows.
The next proposition shows that the leading order of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to \gamma P_l}+ L_{\gamma P_l \to P_k}$ is $\mathcal{O}(t^{\nu})$ smaller than the one of $L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_l}$.
\[lead\] Let $\beta >0$, $\nu \in (1/3,1)$ and $\gamma \in [0, 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]$. Then, for $t$ large enough, we have with $\varepsilon =Ct^{\nu-1}$ $$\frac{(\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}+\mu_{\gamma}+\varepsilon-\mu)t}{t^{1/3}}\leq -Ct^{\nu-1/3},$$ where $\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}=4(1-\gamma),$ $\mu_{\gamma}=2\gamma+\beta+2\sqrt{\gamma(\gamma+\beta)},$ $\mu=(1+\sqrt{1+\beta})^{2}$ and $C=C(\beta)=-\frac{1}{2}(2-2\sqrt{1+\beta}+\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+\beta}})>0$.
For $Z(\gamma)=\mu_{\gamma}+\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}$ we have $Z(0)<Z(1)$ and $Z^{\prime}(\gamma)\neq 0$, thus $Z$ is monotonely increasing in $[0,1]$. Let $\gamma_{0}=1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\gamma_{0})&=4+\beta+2\gamma_{0}(-1+\sqrt{1+\beta/\gamma_{0}})
\\&=4+\beta +2(1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2))\left(-1+\sqrt{1+\beta}+\frac{t^{\nu-1}\beta (1+\beta/2)}{2\sqrt{1+\beta}}+\mathcal{O}(t^{2\nu-2})\right)
\\&=2+\beta+2\sqrt{1+\beta}+t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)\left(-2\sqrt{1+\beta}+2+\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+\beta}}\right)+\mathcal{O}(t^{2\nu-2})
\\&=\mu-2(1+\beta/2)Ct^{\nu-1}+\mathcal{O}(t^{2\nu-2}).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $(Z(\gamma_0)+\varepsilon-\mu)t^{2/3}\leq -Ct^{\nu-1/3}$ for $t$ large enough.
We can now proceed to the proof of Proposition \[extmult\].
Define the events $$F_{k}^{m,+}=\bigcap_{\gamma \in [0, 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]}\{D_{\gamma}^{m}\notin \pi_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{k}^{+}}^{\max} \}.$$ The fact that ${\mathbb{P}}(F_{m}^{m,+})$ converges to $1$ as $t\to\infty$ is precisely the content of Assumption 3 in our LPP model with $\eta=1+u_m t^{-2/3}$, which was checked in [@FN14], Section 4.3, Proof of Corollary 2.4. Now we have for $k=1,\ldots,m-1$, since if $\pi_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{k}^{+}}^{\max} $ has to branch from $\pi_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{m}^{+}}^{\max} $ to contain a point $D_{\gamma}^{m}$, $\pi_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{k}^{+}}^{\max} $ has to cross $\pi_{\mathcal{L}^{+}\to E_{m}^{+}}^{\max} $ again to reach $E_{k}^{+}$, which is impossible. Consequently, $$\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{k=1}^{m}(F_{k}^{m,+})^{c}\bigg)=0,$$ which is exactly . Next define the events $$I_{k,m, \gamma}=\{D_{\gamma}^{m}\in \pi_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_{k}}^{\max} \}\quad\textrm{and}\quad F_{k}^{m,-}=\bigcap_{\gamma \in [0, 1-t^{\nu-1}(1+\beta/2)]}(I_{k,m, \gamma})^{c}.$$ Now we consider the events $E_{r_1, r_2,\gamma}$ from Proposition \[largedev\] with $r_1=u_m$ and $r_2=u_k$ and take $\varepsilon=Ct^{\nu-1}$ with $C=C(\beta)$ from Proposition \[lead\]. We then bound $${\mathbb{P}}(I_{k,m, \gamma})\leq {\mathbb{P}}\bigg(I_{k,m, \gamma}\cap \bigcap_{\gamma} E_{u_m, u_k,\gamma} \bigg)+{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\bigcup_{\gamma} (E_{u_m, u_k,\gamma})^{c}\bigg).$$ By Proposition \[largedev\], we have ${\mathbb{P}}\big(\bigcup_{\gamma} (E_{u_m, u_k,\gamma})^{c}\big)\leq \tilde{C}e^{-\tilde{c}t^{\nu-1/3}}$. Now for we have $$L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}(\omega)\leq (\mu_{\mathrm{pp},\gamma}+\mu_\gamma+\varepsilon)t.$$ Consequently, by Proposition \[lead\] we have $$I_{k,m, \gamma}\cap \bigcap_{\gamma} E_{r_1, r_2,\gamma} \subseteq
\{L_{\mathcal{L}^{-}\to P_k}\leq \mu t-C t^{\nu-1/3}\}.$$ Using Proposition \[devtwo\], we thus see for $t$ large enough and some constants $\tilde{C}_1, \tilde{c}_1 >0$ $${\mathbb{P}}\bigg(I_{k,m, \gamma}\cap \bigcap_{\gamma} E_{r_1, r_2,\gamma}\bigg)\leq \tilde{C}_1 e^{-\tilde{c}_1 t^{\nu-1/3}}.$$ Putting all together, we obtain $${\mathbb{P}}(I_{k,m, \gamma})\leq \tilde{C}_2 e^{-\tilde{c}_2 t^{\nu-1/3}}$$ for some constants $\tilde{C}_2, \tilde{c}_2 >0$. Since there are only $\mathcal{O}(t)$ many events $I_{k,m, \gamma}$, this implies that $${\mathbb{P}}\left(F_{k}^{m,-}\right)\geq 1-\mathcal{O}(t) \tilde{C}_2 e^{-\tilde{c}_2 t^{\nu-1/3}}$$ which converges to $1$ as $t\to\infty$, for all $k=1,\ldots,m$, proving .
[10]{}
J. Baik, G. [Ben Arous]{}, and S. Péché, *Phase transition of the largest eigenvalue for non-null complex sample covariance matrices*, Ann. Probab. **33** (2006), 1643–1697.
J. Baik, P.A. Deift, and K. Johansson, *On the distribution of the length of the longest increasing subsequence of random permutations*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **12** (1999), 1119–1178.
J. Baik, P.L. Ferrari, and S. P[é]{}ch[é]{}, *[Limit process of stationary TASEP near the characteristic line]{}*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **63** (2010), 1017–1070.
J. Baik, P.L. Ferrari, and S. P[é]{}ch[é]{}, *[Convergence of the two-point function of the stationary TASEP]{}*, [Singular Phenomena and Scaling in Mathematical Models]{}, Springer, 2014, pp. 91–110.
J. Baik and E.M. Rains, *Limiting distributions for a polynuclear growth model with external sources*, J. Stat. Phys. **100** (2000), 523–542.
M. Bal[á]{}zs, E. Cator, and T. Sepp[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen, *Cube root fluctuations for the corner growth model associated to the exclusion process*, Electron. J. Probab. **11** (2006), 1094–1132.
G. [Ben Arous]{} and I. Corwin, *[Current fluctuations for TASEP: a proof of the Prähofer-Spohn conjecture]{}*, Ann. Probab. **39** (2011), 104–138.
A. Borodin, P.L. Ferrari, M. Pr[ä]{}hofer, and T. Sasamoto, *[Fluctuation Properties of the TASEP with Periodic Initial Configuration]{}*, J. Stat. Phys. **129** (2007), 1055–1080.
A. Borodin, P.L. Ferrari, and T. Sasamoto, *[Transition between Airy$_1$ and Airy$_2$ processes and TASEP fluctuations]{}*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **61** (2008), 1603–1629.
A. Borodin and V. Gorin, *Lectures on integrable probability*, arXiv:1212.3351 (2012).
P.J. Burke, *The output of a queuing system*, Operations Res. **4** (1956), 699–704.
E. Cator and L.P.R. Pimentel, *[On the local fluctuations of last-passage percolation models]{}*, Stochastic Processes and their Applications **125** (2015), 538–551.
C.F. Coletti, P.A. Ferrari, and L.P.R. Pimentel, *[The variance of the shock in the HAD process]{}*, arXiv:0801.2526 (2008).
C.F. Coletti and L.P.R. Pimentel, *[On the collision between two PNG droplets]{}*, J. Stat. Phys. **126** (2007), 1145–1164.
I. Corwin, *[The Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation and universality class]{}*, Random Matrices: Theory Appl. **01** (2012), 1130001.
I. Corwin, P.L. Ferrari, and S. Péché, *[Limit processes for TASEP with shocks and rarefaction fans]{}*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math (2010), 1017–1070.
I. Corwin, P.L. Ferrari, and S. P[é]{}ch[é]{}, *[Universality of slow decorrelation in KPZ models]{}*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist. **48** (2012), 134–150.
I. Corwin and A. Hammond, *[Brownian Gibbs property for Airy line ensembles]{}*, Inventiones mathematicae **195** (2013), 441–508.
V. Dotsenko, *[Two-time free energy distribution function in $(1+1)$ directed polymers]{}*, J. Stat. Mech. (2013), P06017.
V. Dotsenko, *[On two-time distribution functions in $(1+1)$ random directed polymers]{}*, J.Phys. A: Math. Theor. **49** (2016), 27 LT01.
L.C. Evans, *[Partial Differential Equations Second Edition]{}*, Providence, RI, 2010.
P.A. Ferrari, *Shock fluctuations in asymmetric simple exclusion*, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields **91** (1992), 81–101.
P.A. Ferrari, *[TASEP hydrodynamics using microscopic characteristics]{}*, arXiv:1601.05346 (2016).
P.A. Ferrari and L. Fontes, *[Shock fluctuations in the asymmetric simple exclusion process]{}*, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields **99** (1994), 305–319.
P.A. Ferrari and C. Kipnis, *Second class particles in the rarefaction fan*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré **31** (1995), 143–154.
P.A. Ferrari, J. Martin, and L.P.R. Pimentel., *[A phase transition for Competition Interfaces]{}*, Ann. Appl. Probab. **19** (2009), 281–317.
P.A. Ferrari and L.P.R. Pimentel., *[Competition interfaces and second class Particles]{}*, Ann. Probab. **33** (2005), 1235–1254.
P.L. Ferrari, *[Slow decorrelations in KPZ growth]{}*, J. Stat. Mech. (2008), P07022.
P.L. Ferrari, *[From interacting particle systems to random matrices]{}*, J. Stat. Mech. (2010), P10016.
P.L. Ferrari and P. Nejjar, *[Anomalous Shock Fluctuations in TASEP and last-passage percolation models]{}*, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields **61** (2015), 61–109.
P.L. Ferrari and H. Spohn, *Scaling limit for the space-time covariance of the stationary totally asymmetric simple exclusion process*, Comm. Math. Phys. **265** (2006), 1–44.
P.L. Ferrari and H. Spohn, *[Random Growth Models]{}*, The Oxford handbook of random matrix theory (G. Akemann, J. Baik, and P. [Di Francesco]{}, eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2011, pp. 782–801.
P.L. Ferrari and H. Spohn, *[On time correlations for KPZ growth in one dimension]{}*, SIGMA **12** (2016), 074.
J. G[ä]{}rtner and E. Presutti, *Shock fluctuations in a particle system*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar[é]{} (A) **53** (1990), 1–14.
J. H[ä]{}gg, *[Local Gaussian fluctuations in the Airy and discrete PNG processes]{}*, Ann. Probab. **36** (2008), 1059–1092.
T. Harris, *Additive set-valued markov processes and graphical methods*, Ann. Probab. **6** (1878), 355–378.
K. Johansson, *Shape fluctuations and random matrices*, Comm. Math. Phys. **209** (2000), 437–476.
K. Johansson, *Discrete polynuclear growth and determinantal processes*, Comm. Math. Phys. **242** (2003), 277–329.
K. Johansson, *[Two time distribution in Brownian directed percolation]{}*, Commun. Math. Phys. (2016), Online first.
M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.Z. Zhang, *Dynamic scaling of growing interfaces*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **56** (1986), 889–892.
T.M. Liggett, *Coupling the simple exclusion process*, Ann. Probab. **4** (1976), 339–356.
T.M. Liggett, *Interacting particle systems*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
T.M. Liggett, *Stochastic interacting systems: contact, voter and exclusion processes*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
J. De Nardis, P. Le Doussal, and K.A. Takeuchi, *Memory and universality in interface growth*, arXiv:1611.04756 (2016).
M. Pr[ä]{}hofer and H. Spohn, *Universal distributions for growth processes in 1+1 dimensions and random matrices*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84** (2000), 4882–4885.
M. Pr[ä]{}hofer and H. Spohn, *Current fluctuations for the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process*, In and out of equilibrium (V. Sidoravicius, ed.), Progress in Probability, Birkh[ä]{}user, 2002.
M. Pr[ä]{}hofer and H. Spohn, *Scale invariance of the [PNG]{} droplet and the [A]{}iry process*, J. Stat. Phys. **108** (2002), 1071–1106.
J. Quastel, *[Introduction to KPZ]{}*, Current Developments in Mathematics (2011), 125–194.
J. Quastel and D. Remenik, *[Local behavior and hitting probabilities of the Airy$_1$ process]{}*, Prob. Theory Relat. Fields **157** (2013), 605–634.
J. Quastel and H. Spohn, *[The one-dimensional KPZ equation and its universality class]{}*, J. Stat. Phys. **160** (2015), 965–984.
C.A. Tracy and H. Widom, *[Level-spacing distributions and the Airy kernel]{}*, Comm. Math. Phys. **159** (1994), 151–174.
C.A. Tracy and H. Widom, *On orthogonal and symplectic matrix ensembles*, Comm. Math. Phys. **177** (1996), 727–754.
[^1]: Institute for Applied Mathematics, Bonn University, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115 Bonn, Germany. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: IST Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: In [@PFJBLP09], the choice of $\mathcal{L}$ and $\omega_{i,j}$ differs slightly from the one in , such that equals $(X(t))_{t\geq 0}$ in [@PFJBLP09].
[^4]: In the cited papers [@PS01; @FS05a; @CFP09], the parameter put in the exponential was its mean rather than the jump rate, which are inverse of each other.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Three different displacement based finite element formulations over arbitrary polygons are studied in this paper. The formulations considered are: the conventional polygonal finite element method (FEM) with Laplace interpolants, the cell-based smoothed polygonal FEM with simple averaging technique and the scaled boundary polygon formulation. For the purpose of numerical integration, we employ the sub-traingulation for the polygonal FEM and classical Gaussian quadrature for the smoothed FEM and for the scaled boundary polygon formulation. The accuracy and the convergence properties of these formulations are studied with a few benchmark problems in the context of linear elasticity and the linear elastic fracture mechanics. The extension of scaled boundary polygon to higher order polygons is also discussed.'
author:
- Sundararajan Natarajan
- Ean Tat Ooi
- Irene Chiong
- Chongmin Song
bibliography:
- 'psbfem.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Displacement based finite element formulations over polygons: a comparison between Laplace interpolants, strain smoothing and scaled boundary polygon formulation'
---
Introduction
============
The finite element method (FEM) is a versatile technique for the numerical approximation of solutions of partial differential equations (PDEs). Traditional FEM simulations rely on strictly tetrahedral or hexadedral meshes in 3D (or triangular, quadrilateral meshes in 2D). In generating a FE mesh, a balance is required between the accuracy and the flexibility in the mesh generation. For example, triangulation of a domain is relatively easy when compared with quadragulation, whilst the quadrilateral mesh is more accurate than the triangular mesh. It is relatively easy to construct interpolants over standard shapes, viz., triangles and tetraehdrals. The use of standard shapes, viz., triangles (or quadrilaterals) and tetrahedrals (or hexahedral) simplifies the approach, however, allowing only a few element shapes can be too restrictive, because
- it may require sophisticated meshing algorithm to generate high-quality mehes, esp. with quadrilaterals, for meshing complex geometries;
- it may require complex remeshing to capture topological changes, for instance due to discontinuous surface growth.
Background
----------
With a goal to decrease the constraints imposed on finite element meshes different methods have been introduced. For instance, the meshfree methods [@friesmatthies2003], the partition of unity methods (PUMs) [@duarteoden1996; @friesbelytschko2010], the smoothed finite element methods (SFEM) [@liutrung2010; @bordasnatarajan2011] and the recent, isogeometric analysis [@cottrellhughes2009]. However, the PUMs and the SFEM still require the domain to be discretized using a combination of triangles and quadrilaterals in 2D, unless, the boundary is defined implicitly. This causes additional difficulties in imposing boundary conditions and ensuring an accurate definition of the boundary of the domain [@belytschkoparimi2003; @moumnassibelouettar2011]. The introduction of the isogeometric analysis has revolutionized the analysis procedure. It circumvents the need to discretize the domain with standard shapes and provides a natural link with the CAD models.
On another, related front, generalizations of FEM on arbitrary polygonal and polyhedral meshes have been the subject of increasing attention in the research community, both in computational physics [@moorthyghosh2000; @dasgupta2003; @szesheng2005; @pavankumarjayabal2010; @jayabalmenzel2011; @krausrajagopal2013] and in computer graphics [@floater2003; @warrenschaefer2007].
#### Polygonal FEM
In polygonal finite elements, the use of elements with more than four sides can provide flexibility, especially in meshing and accuracy [@sukumartabarraei2004]. Ghosh *et al.,* [@moorthyghosh2000] developed the Voronoï cell finite element model (VCFEM) to model the mechanical response of heterogeneous microstructures of composites and porous materials with heterogeneities. The VCFEM is based on the assumed stress hybrid formulation and was further developed by Tiwary *et al.,* [@tiwaryhu2007] to study the behaviour of microstructures with irregular geometries. Rashid and Gullet [@rashidgullet2000] proposed a variable element topology finite element method (VETFEM), in which the shape functions are constructed using a constrained minimization procedure. Sukumar [@sukumar2003] used Voronoï cells and natural neighbor interpolants to develop a finite difference method on unstructured grids. Biabanaki and Khoei [@biabanakikhoei2012] employed the polygonal FEM technique to model the large deformation response of interfaces. In their approach, the polygonal finite elements were generated from a non-conforming regular mesh. Wachspress interpolants were employed over the polygons. Kraus *et al.,* [@krausrajagopal2013] presented a polygonal FEM based on the constrained adaptive Delaunay tessellation. The polygonal elements can also be used as transition elements to simplify meshing or to describe the microstructure of polycrystalline alloys [@szesheng2005; @pavankumarjayabal2010; @jayabalmenzel2011] in a rather straightforward manner. However, approximation functions on polygonal elements are usually non-polynomial, which introduces difficulties in numerical integration. Improving numerical integration over polytopes have gained increasing attention [@sukumartabarraei2004; @natarajanbordas2009; @mousavixiao2010; @talischipaulino2013].
#### Polygonal SFEM
In the stabilized conforming nodal integration [@chenwu2001], the strain is written as the divergence of a spatial average of the standard (compatible) strain field - i.e., the symmetric gradient of the displacement field. This concept was incorporated into the FEM by Liu [@liunguyen2007] and extensively studied in [@nguyen-xuanbordas2008; @bordasnatarajan2011; @nguyen-thoiliu2011]. Depending on the number and geometry of the subcells used, a spectrum of methods, each exhibiting a set of unique properties. Interested readers are referred to the literature [@liutrung2010] and references therein. Generalizations of the SFEM to arbitrarily shaped polygons were reported in [@dailiu2007; @nguyen-thoiliu2011].
#### Scaled boundary polygon
Wolf and Song [@wolfsong2001] introduced the scaled boundary finite element method (SBFEM) for elasto-statics and elasto-dynamic problems. The SBFEM reduces the governing PDE to a set of ordinary differential equations. Like the FEM, no fundamental solution is required and like the boundary element method, the spatial dimension is reduced by one, since only the boundary need to be discretized, resulting in a decrease in the total degrees of freedom. The SBFEM relies on defining a ‘scaling center’ from which the entire domain is visible. By exploiting the unique feature of the scaling center, the method allows the computation of stress intensity factor directly from their definitions. Natarajan and Song [@natarajansong2013] combined the extended FEM and the SBFEM, thus, circumventing the need to know a priori the enrichment functions, required by the former. Recently, Ooi *et al.,* [@ooisong2012] employed scaled boundary formulation in polygonal elements to study crack propagation, but its performance and application in the context of linear elasticity was not studied.
Objective
---------
The generalization of finite elements over polygonal and polyhedral elements is a subject of increasing attention in the research community. Apart from the aforementioned formulations, recent studies, among others include developing polygonal elements based on the virtual nodes [@tangwu2009] and the virtual element methods [@veigabrezzi2013]. To the author’s knowledge, a comparison of different displacement based formulations over arbitrary polygons has not been reported yet in the literature. The main objective of the paper is to study the accuracy and the convergence properties of different displacement based finite element formulations, esp., the polygonal FEM, the polygonal SFEM and the scaled boundary polygon in the context of linear elasticity and linear elastic fracture mechanics. The shape functions used in these formulations are: Laplace interpolants for the polygonal FEM, simple averaging technique for the polygonal nSFEM and Gauss-Legendre shape functions for the scaled boundary polygon formulation. The scaled boundary polygons with higher order shape functions is also studied.
Outline
-------
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[fempoly\] presents the governing equations and weak form for 2D static elasticity problem. The different displacement based finite element formulations considered in this study are also discussed. In Section \[numexamp\], with a few benchmark problems from linear elasticity, the accuracy and the convergence properties of various finite element techniques are studied. Later, the scaled boundary polygon formulation is applied to study problems in linear elastic fracture mechanics. The results from scaled boundary polygon formulation are compared with results available in the literature, for example with the extended FEM, followed by concluding remarks in the last section.
Numerical Examples {#numexamp}
==================
In the first part of this section, the results from the three different finite element techniques discussed above are compared using three benchmark problems in the context of linear elasticity. The results are compared with the analytical solution where available. In the later part of the section, problems involving strong discontinuity (e.g. plate with a crack, two cracks emanating from a hole) are solved using the scaled boundary polygon formulation. The results from the scaled boundary polygon formulation are compared with the results from other techniques taken from literature [@tabarraeisukumar2008; @saimotomotomura2010; @dauxmoes2000]. We employ the following convention while discussing the results:
- Polygonal FEM - conventional polygonal FEM with Laplace interpolants. For the purpose of numerical integration, sub-triangulation is employed and sixth order Dunavant quadrature rule [@dunavant1985] over each triangle is employed.
- Polygonal nSFEM - $n-$sided smoothed finite element method. A simple averaging technique is employed to compute the shape functions and the corresponding stiffness matrix. In this study, along each edge, the shape functions are assumed to be linear and hence, only one Gauss point is sufficient to integrate the terms in the stiffness matrix.
- Polygonal SBFEM - scaled boundary polygon fomulation is employed over each polygon. In this case, only the polygon boundary is discretized and 1D shape functions along the boundary are used to approximate the displacement field. Hence, no special numerical integration technique is required to compute the stiffness matrix.
The built-in Matlab^^ function [voronoin]{} and Matlab^^ functions in [PolyTop]{} [@talischipaulino2012] for building the mesh-connectivity are used to create the polygonal meshes. For the purpose of error estimation and convergence studies, the relative error, $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms, are used. The displacement norm is given by:
$$|| {\mathbf{u}}- {\mathbf{u}}^h||_{L^2(\Omega)} = \sqrt{ \int\limits_{\Omega} [ ({\mathbf{u}}- {\mathbf{u}}^h) \cdot ({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{u}}^h)]~{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}$$
where ${\mathbf{u}}^h$ is the numerical solution and ${\mathbf{u}}$ is the analytical solution or a reference solution. The energy norm is given by:
$$|| {\mathbf{u}}- {\mathbf{u}}^h||_{H^1(\Omega)} = \sqrt{ \int\limits_{\Omega} [ ({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}- {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^h)^{\rm T} {\mathbf{D}}({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}-{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^h)]~{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}$$
Patch test
----------
In this section, the equilibrium path test is performed to study the accuracy and the convergence properties of different finite element techniques. Consider a uniaxial stress $\sigma=$ 1, under the condition of plate stress applied in the $y-$direction on the top edge of a unit square, whilst essential boundary conditions are applied at the bottom edge as shown in [Figure (\[fig:simplepatch\])]{}. The exact displacement field is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,y) &= \frac{\nu}{E}(1-x) \nonumber \\
v(x,y) &=\frac{y}{E}\end{aligned}$$
[Figure (\[fig:plateHoleConveResults\])]{} shows the relative error in displacement norm $L^2$ as a function of total number of degrees of freedom (dofs) for the different formulations. The same mesh is used when comparing the performances of the different polygonal elements. It is seen that the $L^2-$error is very small, 1e${-8}$ in case of polygonal FEM, but does not decrease down to machine precision. This can be attributed to the integration error as discussed in [@talischipaulino2013]. The order of accuracy is similar to that reported in [@sukumartabarraei2004] for polygonal FEM with Laplace interpolants. In case of the polygonal nSFEM, the method fails to pass the patch test. Again, this can be attributed to the numerical integration, in which the simple averaging technique introduces additional errors when computing the stiffness matrix. The scaled boundary polygon formulation satisfies the patch test down to machine precision. This can be attributed to the semi-analytical nature of the SBFEM technique.
Higher order interpolants can be conveniently formulated using the scaled boundary polygon formulation. This involves only increasing the order of the one-dimensional shape function $\mathbf{N}(\eta)$ in [Equation (\[eqn:dispapprox\])]{}. The process is simpler compared with the other polygon formulations reported in the literature. For example, the approach developed by Sukumar [@sukumar2013] requires the solution of an optimization problem. Table \[table:simplepatchresult\] presents the relative error in the displacement norm $L^2$ for different orders of shape functions along the each edge of the polygonal element. It is seen that the polygon SBFEM satisfies the linear patch test down to machine precision.
----------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Number of
Polygons $p=$ 1 $p=$ 2 $p=$ 3
1 1.1955e${-15}$ 2.4484e${-14}$ 2.4442e${-14}$
10 1.1228e${-14}$ 7.1956e${-14}$ 3.4006e${-14}$
20 1.5151e${-14}$ 5.5886e${-14}$ 3.9309e${-14}$
30 1.7593e${-14}$ 4.7998e${-14}$ 3.2566e${-14}$
----------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
: Relative error in the displacement norm for the equilibrium patch test.
\[table:simplepatchresult\]
Cantilever beam
---------------
A two-dimensional cantilever beam subjected to a parabolic shear load at the free end is examined as shown in [Figure (\[fig:cantileverfig\])]{}. The geometry is: length $L=$ 10, height $D=$ 2. The material properties are: Young’s modulus, $E=$ 3e$^7$, Poisson’s ratio $\nu=$ 0.25 and the parabolic shear force $P=$ 150. The exact solution for displacements are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,y) &= \frac{P y}{6 \overline{E}I} \left[ (9L-3x)x + (2+\overline{\nu}) \left( y^2 - \frac{D^2}{4} \right) \right] \nonumber \\
v(x,y) &= -\frac{P}{6 \overline{E}I} \left[ 3\overline{\nu}y^2(L-x) + (4+5\overline{\nu}) \frac{D^2x}{4} + (3L-x)x^2 \right]
\label{eqn:cantisolution}\end{aligned}$$ where $I = D^3/12$ is the moment of inertia, $\overline{E} = E$, $\overline{\nu} = \nu$ and $\overline{E} = E/(1-\nu^2)$, $\overline{\nu} = \nu/(1-\nu)$ for plane stress and plane strain, respectively. [Figure (\[fig:cantmesh\])]{} shows a sample polygonal mesh used for this study.
The numerical convergence of the relative error in the displacement norm and the relative error in the energy norm is shown in [Figure (\[fig:cantiConveResults\])]{}. The results from different approaches are compared with the available analytical solution. The numerical integration error is present in both the Polygonal FEM and the Polygonal nSFEM, but is more pronounced in case of the Polygonal nSFEM. Both the Polygonal FEM and the Polygonal SBFEM yields optimal convergence in $L^2$ and $H^1$, whilst the polygonal nSFEM yields sub-optimal convergence rate. This can be attributed to the error in the numerical integration introduced by the simple averaging technique. It is seen that with mesh refinement, all the methods converge to the exact solution. An estimation of the convergence rate is also shown. From [Figure (\[fig:cantiConveResults\])]{}, it can be observed that the scaled boundary polygon formulation yields more accurate results. It is also noted that in case of the polygonal SBFEM, no special numerical integration technique is required to compute the stiffness matrix and extension to higher order shape function is straight forward. [Figure (\[fig:cantiConveResults\])]{} also shows the error in the displacement norm when quadratic shape functions are used along each edge within the scaled boundary polygon formulation. It is seen that as the order of the shape functions is increased, the error decreases while the convergence rate increases.
![Thick cantilever beam: domain discretized with polygonal elements: (a) 80 elements; (b) 160 elements; (c) 320 elements and (d) 640 elements.[]{data-label="fig:cantmesh"}](./Figures/cantiPmesh)
Infinite plate with a circular hole
-----------------------------------
In this example, consider an infinite plate with a traction free hole under uniaxial tension $(\sigma=$1$)$ along $x-$axis [Figure (\[fig:twocrkhole\])]{}. The exact solution of the principal stresses in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{11}(r,\theta) &= 1 - \frac{a^2}{r^2} \left( \frac{3}{2} (\cos 2\theta + \cos 4\theta) \right) + \frac{3a^4}{2r^4} \cos 4\theta \nonumber \\
\sigma_{22}(r,\theta) &= -\frac{a^2}{r^2} \left( \frac{1}{2}(\cos 2\theta - \cos 4\theta) \right) - \frac{3a^4}{2r^4} \cos 4\theta \nonumber \\
\sigma_{12}(r,\theta) &= -\frac{a^2}{r^2} \left( \frac{1}{2}(\sin 2\theta + \sin 4\theta) \right) + \frac{3a^4}{2r^4} \sin 4\theta\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the radius of the hole. Owing to symmetry, only one quarter of the plate is modeled. [Figure (\[fig:phwmesh\])]{} shows a typical polygonal mesh used for the study. The material properties are: Young’s modulus $E=$ 10$^5$ and Poisson’s ratio $\nu=$ 0.3. In this example, analytical tractions are applied on the boundary. The domain is discretized with polygonal elements and along each edge of the polygon, the shape function is linear. The convergence rate in terms of the displacement norm is shown in [Figure (\[fig:plateHoleConveResults\])]{}. It can be seen that the Polygonal SBFEM yields more accurate results when compared with the Polygonal FEM and the Polygonal nSFEM. The convergence rate of the polygonal FEM and the polygonal SBFEM are similar. The convergence rate of the polygonal nSFEM is inferior compared with the polygonal FEM and the polygonal SBFEM. All the techniques converge to exact energy with mesh refinement. The relative error in terms of the displacement norm for the polygon SBFEM with quadratic shape functions is shown in [Figure (\[fig:plateHoleConveResults\])]{}. It is observed that the error decreases as the order of the shape functions is increased.
![Plate with a circular hole: domain discretized with polygonal elements: (a) 100 elements; (b) 200 elements; (c) 400 elements and (d) 800 elements.[]{data-label="fig:phwmesh"}](./Figures/platewHoleMesh)
Application to linear elastic fracture mechanics
------------------------------------------------
The polygonal finite element techniques discussed above can be applied to problems in linear elastic fracture mechanics. However, to accurately capture the singularity at the crack tip, a very fine mesh in combination with singular elements at the crack tip is usually required. This poses numerical difficulties when the crack evolves. Another possibility is to augment the existing finite element approximation basis with additional functions [@tabarraeisukumar2008]. In the literature, the latter method is referred to as the ‘extended finite element method’ (XFEM). The flexibility provided by the XFEM, also has certain difficulties, such as numerical integration and blending of enriched and non-enriched elements [@friesbelytschko2010]. In this section, we discuss the application of the polygonal SBFEM to problems with strong discontinuities and singularities. By exploiting the special characteristics of the scaling center [@wolfsong2001], the stress intensity factors can be computed directly. When modeling a cracked/notched structure, the scaling centre is placed at the crack tip. The straight crack/notch edges are formed by scaling the nodes $A$ and $B$ on the boundary and are not discretized (see [Figure (\[fig:Polygon-representation-by\])]{}). In this study, a polygonal mesh that conforms to the crack surface is generated.
#### Calculation of the stress intensity factors
A unique feature of the scaled boundary polygon formulation is that stress singularities of any kind e.g. in cracks notches and material junctions, if present, are analytically represented in the radial displacement functions $\mathbf{u}(\xi)$. When a crack is modelled by a polygon element with the scaling centre chosen at its crack tip in [Figure (\[fig:Polygon-representation-by\])]{}, some of the eigenvalues in $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}$ satisfy $-1<\lambda\left(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}\right)<0$. The stress field $\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\xi,\eta)$ can be expressed as [@wolfsong2001]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\xi,\eta)= & \boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma}(\eta)\xi^{-\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}-\mathbf{I}}\mathbf{c}
\label{eq:stress field complete}\end{aligned}$$
where $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\lambda_{1},\,\lambda_{2},\,...,\lambda_{n}\right)$ are the eigenvalues, $\mathbf{c} = \boldsymbol{\Phi}^{-1}_{\mathrm{u}} {\mathbf{u}}_b$, ${\mathbf{u}}_b$ is the displacement vector on the boundary $\xi=$ 1, obtained by solving the algebraic system of equations. The stress mode $\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma}(\eta)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma}(\eta)= & \mathbf{D}\left(-\mathbf{B}_{1}(\eta)\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{\mathrm{u}}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}+\mathbf{B}_{2}(\eta)\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{\mathrm{u}}\right)\label{eq:stress mode}\end{aligned}$$ It can be discerned from [Equation (\[eq:stress field complete\])]{} that these eigenvalues lead to singular stresses at the crack tip. This enables the stress intensity factors (SIF) to be computed directly from their definitions. For a crack that is aligned with the Cartesian coordinate axes shown in [Figure (\[fig:crkPolySBFEM\])]{}, the SIFs are defined as:
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
K_{\mathrm{I}}\\
K_{\mathrm{II}}
\end{array}\right\} =\lim_{r\rightarrow0}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2\pi r}\left.\sigma_{yy}\right|_{\theta=0}\\
\sqrt{2\pi r}\left.\tau_{xy}\right|_{\theta=0}
\end{array}\right\} \label{eq:SIF-stress}$$
In the limit when $r\rightarrow0$ or $\xi\rightarrow0$, [Equation (\[eq:stress field complete\])]{} shows that the stresses vanish when the real parts of eigenvalues in $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}$, $\lambda\left(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}\right)\leq-1$. The diagonal submatrix $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}^{(\mathrm{s})}=-0.5\mathbf{I}$ becomes dominant. For this diagonal submatrix, the singular stress field $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{(\mathrm{s})}(\xi,\eta)$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{(\mathrm{s})}(\xi,\eta) & = & \boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma}^{(\mathrm{s})}\left(\eta\left(\theta\right)\right)\xi^{-0.5\mathbf{I}}\mathbf{c}^{(\mathrm{s})}\end{array}\label{eq:Singular stress field}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma}^{(\mathrm{s})}\left(\eta\left(\theta\right)\right)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma_{xx}}^{(\mathrm{s})}\left(\eta\left(\theta\right)\right) & \boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma_{yy}}^{(\mathrm{s})}\left(\eta\left(\theta\right)\right) & \boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\tau_{xy}}^{(\mathrm{s})}\left(\eta\left(\theta\right)\right)\end{array}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\mathbf{c}^{(\mathrm{s})}$ are the stress modes and integration constants corresponding to the diagonal submatrix in $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}$ satisfying $-1<\lambda\left(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{n}}\right)<0$. Substituting the stress components in [Equation (\[eq:Singular stress field\])]{} at angle $\theta=0$ into [Equation (\[eq:SIF-stress\])]{} and using the relation $\xi=\frac{r}{L_{0}}$ at $\theta=$0, the SIF is $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
K_{\mathrm{I}}\\
K_{\mathrm{II}}
\end{array}\right\} = & \sqrt{2\pi L_{0}}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\sigma_{yy}}^{(s)}(\eta(\theta=0))\mathbf{c}^{(s)}\\
\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{\tau_{xy}}^{(s)}(\eta(\theta=0))\mathbf{c}^{(s)}
\end{array}\right\} \end{aligned}$$
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we compared three different displacement based finite element formulations over arbitrary polygons. The accuracy and the convergence properties of different approaches were studied with a few benchmark problems from linear elasticity. From the numerical examples, it is seen that the Polygonal SBFEM yields the most accurate results. Although, the Polygonal FEM yields optimal results, the numerical integration should be carried out accurately to improve the results, as discussed in [@talischipaulino2013]. The results from the Polygonal nSFEM are stiffer and yields sub-optimal convergence in both the displacement norm and the energy norm. It is noted that for this study, we had employed cell-based smoothed FEM, whilst other smoothing techniques are possible. The Polygonal SBFEM eliminates the need to compute the shape functions or to employ special numerical integration technique. Only the boundary of the polygon is discretized and the stiffness matrix is computed directly. Moreover, an extension to higher order shape functions along the boundary of the polygon is straightforward. When applied to linear elastic fracture mechanics, the scaled boundary polygon formulation yields accurate results. It is noted that the polygonal SBFEM does not require enrichment of the approximation basis and the stress intensity factors can be computed directly. This approach can readily be combined with the extended FEM. By combining the scaled boundary formulation with the XFEM, a priori knowledge of the asymptotic fields is not required.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
S Natarajan would like to acknowledge the financial support of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales for his research fellowship for the period Sep. 2012 onwards.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In order to better understand the process of gene translation, the ribosome flow model (RFM) with pool was introduced recently. This model describes the movement of several ribosomes along an mRNA template and simultaneously captures the dynamics of the finite pool of ribosomes. Studying this system with respect to the number and stability of its equilibria was so far based on monotone systems theory [@Margaliot2012]. We extend the results obtained therein by using a geometric approach, showing that the equilibria of the system constitute a normally hyperbolic invariant submanifold. Subsequently, we analyze the Jacobi linearization of the system evaluated at the equilibria in order to show that the equilibria are asymptotically stable relative to certain affine subspaces. As this approach does not require any monotonicity features of the system, it may also be applied for more complex systems of the same kind such as bi-directional ribosome flows or time-varying template numbers.'
author:
- 'Wolfgang Halter$^{1}$, Jan Maximilian Montenbruck$^{1}$ and Frank Allgöwer$^{1}$[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'synthbio.bib'
title: '**Geometric stability considerations of the ribosome flow model with pool$^*$** '
---
Introduction
============
The ribosome flow model (RFM) as presented in [@Reuveni2011] describes the movement of ribosomes along an mRNA template and can be used to study the dynamics of mRNA translation, an important step in the process of protein synthesis. In order to better understand and eventually design genetic regulatory networks (GRNs), the RFM with pool can be used to provide a simulation framework which not only simulates the production of certain proteins but also takes into account the allocation of the ribosomes. Thus, a better evaluation of the performance of artificial GRNs, an important topic in the field of synthetic biology ([@Ceroni2015]), will be possible.\
Several versions of the RFM have been proposed recently, all of them built upon the works [@MacDonald1968] and [@Heinrich1980] where a probabilistic model of a growth center moving along a nucleic acid template is considered. This model, also known as the totally asymmetric exclusion process (TASEP) was then simplified and adapted in [@Reuveni2011] to obtain the RFM, a deterministic description of the movement of several ribosomes along a strand of mRNA. For this classical RFM, where the amount of ribosomes is assumed to be abundant and only a single mRNA is studied, several results on model properties such as uniqueness of the steady state and convergence to this equilibrium point were presented in [@Margaliot2012] wherein the authors make use of the theory of monotone systems and the contraction principle. Recently, [@Raveh2015] studied a network of several mRNA templates in interaction with a finite pool of ribosomes, following up the argumentation of [@Margaliot2012], the authors show that the solution of the RFM network with pool monotonically converges to a certain equilibrium point which is determined solely by the initial condition.\
In contrast to the monotone systems theory approach, we propose a geometric approach to study the stability properties of the model in [@Raveh2015] in order to provide a concept to study non-monotonic variants of the RFM in future.\
In particular, after introducing the detailed system description of the RFM with pool, we show that the equilibria of the RFM with pool constitute a normally hyperbolic invariant submanifold and therefore the restriction of the linearization of this system to the normal spaces of this submanifold can be used to study the stability properties of the submanifold. Finally, we conclude that these equilibria are asymptotically stable relative to certain affine subspaces.
The ribosome flow model with pool
=================================
As described in [@Reuveni2011], the mechanism of translation can be approximated as an initiation event followed by several elongation steps. To be more precise, after binding to the mRNA, the ribosomes perform a unidirectional movement along the mRNA until they reach its end and subsequently unbind. In general, the speed of this motion is not constant, but to focus on the system theoretic analysis and for the sake of simplicity however, a constant elongation speed is assumed in the remainder.\
The RFM with pool can be modeled as the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{R} &= -\lambda R (1-x_1)+\lambda_c x_n \label{eqn:sys_first}\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\dot{x}_1 \\
\dot{x}_2 \\
\vdots\\
\dot{x}_n
\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix}
\lambda R (1-x_1) - \lambda_c x_1 (1-x_2) \\
\lambda_c x_1 (1-x_2) - \lambda_c x_2 (1-x_3)\\
\vdots\\
\lambda_c x_{n-1} (1-x_n) - \lambda_c x_n
\end{bmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$ with initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
R(t=0) &= R_{\text{tot}} \in [0,\infty)\\
x_i(t=0) &= 0,\quad i=1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ \[eqn:sys\_last\] The model states and parameters are explained in Table (\[tab:statesandparam\]).
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
$R \in [0,\infty)$: molecular amount of free ribosomes
$x_{i} \in [0,1]$: avg. ribosome density at mRNA location $i = 1,\ldots, n$
$\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+$: initiation rate
$\lambda_c \in \mathbb{R}^+$: elongation rate
$n \in \mathbb{N}$: number of discretization points on mRNA template
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
: States and parameters of the RFM with pool.[]{data-label="tab:statesandparam"}
The number of discretization points is determined such that each state can take up exactly one ribosome, therefore $ n = \frac{ml}{rl_{\text{spec}}}$ with $ml$ the length of the mRNA template and $rl_{\text{spec}}$ the specific length a single ribosome occupies on the mRNA template. Typically, the elongation rate $\lambda_c$ is cell type dependent and therefore might be determined from biological data. The remaining free variables are $ml$, $\lambda$ as well as $R_{\text{tot}}$, the total amount of available ribosomes.\
For simpler notation, we collect all states such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{x} &= \begin{bmatrix}
R & x_1 & x_2 & \hdots & x_n
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}\\
\dot{\mathbf{x}} &= f(\mathbf{x}) \label{eqn:sys_x}\end{aligned}$$ with $x_0 = R$ and $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Further, as $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ are densities, it only makes sense to consider solutions $$\begin{aligned}
t &\mapsto \mathbf{x}(t) \quad \text{for which}\\
\forall t &\in [0,\infty), \mathbf{x}(t) \in \Omega := [0,\infty) \times [0,1] \times \ldots \times [0,1] $$ and as shown in [@Raveh2015], all solutions starting in $\Omega$ will not only stay in this set but also are separated from the boundary $\partial \Omega$ in finite time.
Model properties
================
Similarly to the work of [@Raveh2015] and [@Margaliot2012], we are interested in the number of equilibra of System (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) as well as their stability properties. In order to analyze similar models with slightly different conditions such as bidirectional flow on the template ([@Edri2014]) or even combinations of such systems, a geometric point of view for the stability analysis will turn out to be beneficial.
Equilibrium points
------------------
In order to find all equilibra of the RFM with pool, we bring System (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) into the form $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{x}} &= A(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{x}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{split}
&A(\mathbf{x}) = \\ & \resizebox{.44 \textwidth}{!}
{$\begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda (1-x_1) & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \lambda_c \\
\lambda (1-x_1) & -\lambda_c (1-x_2) & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_c (1-x_2) & -\lambda_c (1-x_3) &0 & \vdots \\
\vdots & 0 & \ddots & \ddots& 0\\
0& \cdots& 0 & \lambda_c (1-x_{n}) & -\lambda_c
\end{bmatrix}
$}
\end{split}$$ and rewrite the nullspace of $A$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\ker A(\mathbf{x}) &= \operatorname{span}(v(\mathbf{x}))\label{eqn:nullspace}\end{aligned}$$ with $$v(\mathbf{x})=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\lambda_c}{\lambda (1-x_1)} & \frac{1}{1-x_2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{1-x_{n}} & 1
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}.$$ This curve now represents the continuum of all equilibria of (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) through $f(\mathbf{x})=0 \Leftrightarrow \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{span}(v(\mathbf{x}))$. However, notation (\[eqn:nullspace\]) is quite unhandy and for that reason we will first give an alternative representation of (\[eqn:nullspace\]).\
Instead of using the span of a state dependent vector we can define a parameterization $\gamma: s \mapsto \gamma(s)$ of the nullspace with $s$ a scalar independent variable. Specifically, we define $\gamma$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\forall \mathbf{x} \in \text{int }\Omega:& \quad \mathbf{x} \in \ker A(\mathbf{x}) \\
\exists s > 0:& \quad \mathbf{x} =\gamma(s). \label{eqn:gammadef}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Calculating $\gamma$ is straight forward and can be achieved by multiplying $v$ with the independent variable $s$ and then recursively solving $\gamma(s) = s v(\mathbf{x})$ and substituting all $x_i$, which then results in $$\gamma: s \mapsto \begin{bmatrix}
\gamma_0(s) & \ldots & \gamma_n(s)
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$$ with the components $\gamma_i(s)$ given recursively as a series of continued fractions with $$\gamma_i(s) = \begin{cases}
\tfrac{\lambda_c s}{\lambda(1-\gamma_{1}(s))} & i = 0\\
\tfrac{s}{1-\gamma_{i+1}(s)} & i = 1 \ldots (n-1)\\
s & i=n.
\end{cases} \label{eqn:gamma_recu}$$ In the remainder, we restrict our attention to solutions initialized in int $\Omega$, the interior of $\Omega$. This is justified as solutions initialized on $\partial \Omega$ attain values in int $\Omega$ in finite time. Under this assumption we notice that $$\exists \bar{s} > 0: s\in (0,\bar{s}) \Rightarrow \gamma(s) \in \text{int } \Omega. \label{eqn:gamma_interval}$$ We henceforth restrict the domain of $\gamma$ to $(0,\bar{s})$. This is a rather technical assumption to ensure that we study the RFM with pool in a domain which makes sense biologically. It is further possible to show that for $s^*>\bar{s}$, $\gamma(s^*) \notin \Omega$ and for this case, the model ceases to have any biological meaning. The value of $\bar{s}$ is only dependent on the number of discretization points $n$ and further is a solution of the polynomial equation $$1+\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n-1}{2} \right\rfloor} (-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-j}{j+1}=0. \label{eqn:sbar}$$ The derivation of this result is given in the appendix and we note on the side that this $\bar{s}$ can be used to calculate an upper bound on the protein production rate $\kappa=\lambda_c \bar{s} $ of the studied mRNA template.\
With this representation of the equilibria of (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) at hand, we can proceed with studying their stability properties.
Stability of equilibria
-----------------------
In this section, we consider the Jacobian of $f$ in order to study the stability properties of the equilibria: $$\begin{aligned}
J_f(\mathbf{x})&=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial x_0}(\mathbf{x}) & \cdots & \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial x_n}(\mathbf{x}) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial x_0}(\mathbf{x}) &\cdots & \frac{\partial f_n}{\partial x_n}(\mathbf{x})
\end{bmatrix}\\
&= A(\mathbf{x})+ \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \lambda x_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -\lambda x_0 & \lambda_c x_1 &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \ddots & -\lambda_c x_1 & \ddots & 0 \\
\vdots & & & \ddots& \lambda_c x_{n-1}\\
0& \cdots& & 0 & -\lambda_c x_{n-1}
\end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and evaluate this Jacobian at $\gamma(s)$, i.e. $$\begin{split}
& J_f(\gamma)= \\ & \resizebox{.43 \textwidth}{!}
{$
\begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda(1-\gamma_1) & \lambda \gamma_0 & 0 & \cdots & \lambda_c \\
\lambda(1-\gamma_1) & -\lambda_c(1-\gamma_2)-\lambda \gamma_0 & \lambda_c \gamma_1 & & 0\\
0 & \lambda_c(1-\gamma_2) & -\lambda_c (1-\gamma_3+\gamma_1) & & \vdots \\
\vdots & 0 & \lambda_c (1-\gamma_3) & \ddots & \lambda_c \gamma_{n-1} \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & \lambda_c(1-\gamma_n) & -\lambda_c (1+\gamma_{n-1})
\end{bmatrix}\label{eqn:jacobiKer}
$}
\end{split}$$ where we omitted the argument $s$ for the sake of readability.
\[thm: EV\] For all $s>0$ the Jacobian matrix of $f$, evaluated at $\gamma(s)$, has an eigenvalue equal to $0$. Further, all remaining eigenvalues have real parts strictly smaller than zero.
In (\[eqn:jacobiKer\]) one can see that all diagonal elements of $J_f(\gamma)$ are strictly negative as $\gamma_i<1$ for $i = 1,\ldots,n$ and further, with $J_{f}^{k,i}(\gamma)$ being the element of $J_f(\gamma)$ in the $k$-th row and $i$-th column, $$\sum_{k\neq i} \vert J_{f}^{k,i}(\gamma) \vert = - J_{f}^{i,i}(\gamma). \label{eqn: GerschRad}$$This means that, using Gerschgorin circles ([@Gerschgorin1931]) with their center coordinates given by the value of the diagonal elements $J_{f}^{i,i}(\gamma)$ and their radius given by $\sum_{k\neq i} \vert J_{f}^{k,i}(\gamma)\vert$, all eigenvalues have a real part smaller or equal to zero.\
It remains to show that $J_f(\gamma)$ has precisely one eigenvalue equal to zero which then also implies that the remaining eigenvalues have a real part strictly smaller than zero. Therefore we use the theorem on the reduced row echelon form and bring $J_f(\gamma)$ into upper triangular form, such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_f(\gamma) &= L U, \quad \text{with }\\
L &=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & & \cdots & 0\\
-1& 1 & & & \\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & & \vdots\\
\vdots& & -1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}\\
U &= \notag \\& \hspace{-1.1cm}\resizebox{.44 \textwidth}{!}
{$
\begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda(1-\gamma_1) & \lambda \gamma_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \lambda_c \\
0 & -\lambda_c(1-\gamma_2) & \lambda_c \gamma_1 & & & \lambda_c\\
\vdots & & -\lambda_c (1-\gamma_3) & \ddots & & \vdots \\
& \ddots & & \ddots & \lambda_c \gamma_{n-2} & \lambda_c \\
& & & & -\lambda_c (1-\gamma_{n}) & \lambda_c (1+\gamma_{n-1}) \\
0 & \cdots & & & 0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
$}.\end{aligned}$$ Now that the rank of $U$ is $n-1$, this concludes the proof.
One might be tempted to use Lyapunov’s indirect method ([@Khalil2002]), that asymptotic stability of a hyperbolic equilibrium is determined by the Jacobi linearization, or the theorem of Hartman-Grobman ([@Hartman1960]), that a vector field and its linearization are conjugate in a neighborhood of a hyperbolic equilibrium, in order to draw conclusions about the stability properties of the equilibria. However, the existence of the zero eigenvalue means that the equilibria are non-hyperbolic and these methods are not applicable. Yet, [@Pugh1970] offers an extension to normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds in the following sense: a vector field and the restriction of its linearization to the normal spaces of a given normally hyperbolic invariant manifold are conjugate in a neighborhood of the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold. Therefore, following the notation of [@Hirsch1977], we will show in the next section that $f$ is normally hyperbolic at $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ in order to continue with the stability analysis.
Normal hyperbolicity
--------------------
In this section, we proceed as follows: we already noted that $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ is a manifold of equilibria (and thus invariant) and that $J_f(\gamma)$, the Jacobian of $f$ evaluated on $\gamma$, has precisely one zero eigenvalue. Next, we show that the eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue lies in the tangent space $T_{\gamma(s)}\gamma((0,\bar{s}))=\operatorname{span}(\lbrace \dot{\gamma}(s)\rbrace)$ of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ at $\gamma(s)$, no matter at which $s \in (0,\bar{s})$ we evaluate $\gamma$. Further, as shown in Theorem (\[thm: EV\]), all other eigenvalues of the Jacobian are negative if evaluated on $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ and we will show that their eigenvectors span $N_{\gamma(s)}\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$, the normal space of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ at $\gamma(s)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. In conclusion, $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ is not only normally hyperbolic, but further asymptotically stable in a sense we detail further below.
\[lem: tangential space\] The eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of $J_f(\gamma(s))$ is linearly dependent on $\dot{\gamma}(s)=\frac{d}{ds}\gamma(s)$.
It is sufficient to show that $$J_f(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} = 0.$$ We thus consecutively show that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{f}^0(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= 0 \label{eqn: thm2_pt1}\\
J_{f}^i(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= 0 \quad i = 1,\ldots,n-1 \label{eqn: thm2_pt2}\\
J_{f}^n(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= 0 \label{eqn: thm2_pt3}\end{aligned}$$ with $J_{f}^i$ the $i+1$-th row of the Jacobian $J_{f}$. We start with showing (\[eqn: thm2\_pt3\]): $$\begin{aligned}
J_{f}^n(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= \lambda_c(1-\gamma_n)\dot{\gamma}_{n-1} -\lambda_c(1+\gamma_{n-1})\dot{\gamma}_{n}\\
&=\lambda_c(1-s)\frac{1}{(s-1)^2} -\lambda_c(1+\frac{s}{1-s})\\
&= \lambda_c \left( - \frac{1}{s-1} + \frac{1}{s-1} \right) =0.\end{aligned}$$ Showing (\[eqn: thm2\_pt2\]) can now be achieved in a general form since for all $i = 1,\ldots,n-1 $ the structure of $J_{f}^i$ is identical, namely $$\begin{split}
J_{f}^i(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} =& \lambda_c (1-\gamma_i) \dot{\gamma}_{i-1}\\
& - \lambda_c (1-\gamma_{i+1}+\gamma_{i-1}) \dot{\gamma}_i\\
& + \lambda_c \gamma_i \dot{\gamma}_{i+1}.
\end{split}$$ We rearrange the last equation to get $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
J_{f}^i(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} =& \lambda_c \left( \dot{\gamma}_{i-1} - \gamma_{i}\dot{\gamma}_{i-1}-\gamma_{i-1}\dot{\gamma}_{i} \right)\\
&- \lambda_c \left( \dot{\gamma}_{i} - \gamma_{i+1}\dot{\gamma}_{i}-\gamma_{i}\dot{\gamma}_{i+1} \right)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
=& \lambda_c \left( \dot{\gamma}_{i-1} - \dot{\overline{(\gamma_{i-1}\gamma_{i})}} \right)\\
&- \lambda_c \left( \dot{\gamma}_{i} - \dot{\overline{(\gamma_{i}\gamma_{i+1})}}\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can utilize the generating equation (\[eqn:gamma\_recu\]) again to realize that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\gamma}_i - \dot{\overline{(\gamma_i \gamma_{i+1})}} &=\begin{cases} \frac{\lambda_c}{\lambda} & i =0\\1 & i =1,\ldots,n-1 \end{cases} \label{eqn:gammadot}\end{aligned}$$ and using (\[eqn:gammadot\]) for $i =1,\ldots,n-1$ to arrive at the equality $$J_{f}^i(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} =0 \quad i =1,\ldots,n-1.$$ Finally, we merely need to verify whether this is also true for (\[eqn: thm2\_pt1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
J_{f}^0(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= -\lambda(1-\gamma_1)\dot{\gamma}_{0} + \lambda \gamma_{0} \dot{\gamma}_1 + \lambda_c \dot{\gamma}_n\\
&= \lambda (-\dot{\gamma}_{0} +\dot{\gamma}_{0} \gamma_1 +\dot{\gamma}_{1} \gamma_0 ) + \lambda_c \dot{\gamma}_{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Now with $\dot{\gamma}_n=1$, and using equation (\[eqn:gammadot\]) for $i=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
J_{f}^0(\gamma) \dot{\gamma} &= \lambda \left(-\frac{\lambda_c}{\lambda}\right)+ \lambda_c =0.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
One says that $f$ is normally hyperbolic at $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ if the derivative of $f$ evaluated at $\gamma(s)$ leaves the continuous splitting $$\mathbb{R}^{n+1} = N^u \oplus T_{\gamma(s)}\gamma((0,\bar{s})) \oplus N^s$$ invariant and if the normal behavior dominates the tangent one. $N^u$ and $N^s$ in that respect are the subspaces spanned by the normal eigenvectors of the Jacobian associated with positive and negative eigenvalues respectively. Due to Theorem (\[thm: EV\]) we know that $N^u=\emptyset$. Lemma (\[lem: tangential space\]) shows that the dynamics of $f$ on $T_{\gamma(s)}\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ is determined by the zero eigenvalue and it remains to show that the (generalized) eigenvectors of the remaining eigenvalues span the normal space of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ at any $\gamma(s)$. In order to do so, we define the affine subspaces $$\begin{aligned}
S_p:= \left\lbrace \mathbf{x} \middle| \sum_{i=0}^{n} x_i = p \right\rbrace\end{aligned}$$ and note the following proposition:
\[prop:1\] Any solution of System (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) initialized on a certain $S_p$ will stay on $S_p$ for all times and $p = R_{\text{tot}}$.
Assume the initial state of System (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) lies in $S_p$, i.e. $p = R_{\text{tot}}$, then choose $$\begin{aligned}
V(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{i=0}^{n} x_i\end{aligned}$$ as a Lyapunov function such that $S_p$ is just the level set $V^{-1}(\lbrace p \rbrace)$ of $V$. Now consider the Lie derivative $\mathcal{L}_fV$ of $V$ along $f$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_fV &= \frac{\partial V}{\partial \mathbf{x}} \cdot f\\
&= \begin{bmatrix}
1 & \cdots & 1
\end{bmatrix} f\\
&= 0.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that any level set of $V$ is invariant under (\[eqn:sys\_x\]).
With Proposition (\[prop:1\]) at hand, it remains to show that the intersection of $\gamma$ with all $S_p$ is always transversal and never tangential to conclude normal hyperbolicity of $f$ at $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$.
\[lem: transv\] For all $p>0$, the curve $\gamma$ intersects $S_p$ uniquely and transversely.
In other words, this means that the continuum of equilibria of system (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) represented by the curve $\gamma$ never intersects the $n$-dimensional affine subspace $S_p$ tangentially.
We start with showing the transversality of the intersection of $\gamma$ and $S_p$ as the uniqueness of this intersection then follows as we will show at the end of the proof. In order to do so, we note that the affine subspace $S_p$ is always the same subspace $M$ translated in direction of $x_0$ $$S_p= \{e_1 p\} + M$$ with $e_1$ the canonical unit vector and the subspace $M$ defined as the image of $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &=\begin{bmatrix}
\mu_1&\mu_2&\ldots&\mu_N
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 & \cdots & -1 \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & & \vdots \\
\vdots & 0 & & 0\\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ This means that the only vectors perpendicular to $M$ are multiples of the all ones vector $\mathds{1}$ and it is thus sufficient to show that the velocity vector of $\gamma$ never is perpendicular to $\mathds{1}$, in other words $$\langle \dot{\gamma}, \mathds{1}\rangle \neq 0.$$ Showing this will be achieved by noting that $\dot{\gamma}_i$ is positive for all $i=0,\ldots,n$. This can be achieved by the following inductive argument starting with the highest appearing index $n$ and then reducing it step wise.\
First, we consider $\gamma_n(s)=s$ and see that $$\dot{\gamma}_n(s)=1 >0.\label{eqn:ind_start}$$ Next, we assume that the statement that $$\dot{\gamma}_i > 0 \label{eqn:ind_assum}$$ is true. Now further reducing the index, we need to show that (\[eqn:ind\_assum\]) still holds for $\dot{\gamma}_{i-1}$. Therefore we differentiate the generating equation (\[eqn:gamma\_recu\]) for index $i-1$ to arrive at $$\dot{\gamma}_{i-1}(s)=\frac{(1-\gamma_{i})+s\dot{\gamma}_i}{(1-\gamma_{i})^2}.$$ As shown in (\[eqn:gamma\_interval\]) we already know that $\gamma_i \in (0,1) \quad \forall i>0$. Together with (\[eqn:ind\_assum\]), this means that $$\dot{\gamma}_{i-1}(s) > 0$$ which concludes the proof for the transversality of the intersection. Now that we further know that all derivatives of $\gamma$ with respect to $s$ are larger than zero for $s \in (0,\bar{s})$, the uniqueness of the intersection follows directly from the combination of these arguments.
Fig. (\[fig:1\]) illustrates two affine subspaces $S_2$ (red) and $S_3$ (green) and the continuum of equilibria $\gamma((0,\frac{1}{2}))$ (blue) in the first three coordinates. One can see that the subspaces are just shifted by the difference in total amount of ribosomes $R_{\text{tot}}$ in $R$ direction and that the curve intersects with each subspace uniquely and not tangentially. We are now able to formulate our main result.
The invariant set $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ of (\[eqn:sys\_x\]) is asymptotically stable.
With Lemmata (\[lem: tangential space\]) and (\[lem: transv\]) at hand we can conclude that $f$ is normally hyperbolic at $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ and therefore $f$ and the restriction of its linearization to the normal spaces of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ are conjugate in a neighborhood of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$. As shown in Theorem (\[thm: EV\]), the eigenvalues of this linearization evaluated at $\gamma(s)$ are all strictly negative except for one, which is exactly zero. Now that the eigenvector associated with this zero eigenvalue lies in the tangent space $T_{\gamma(s)}\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$ and we are only interested in the eigenvectors lying in the normal spaces of $\gamma((0,\bar{s}))$, which thus are all associated with strictly negative eigenvalues, this concludes the proof.
We further showed in Proposition (\[prop:1\]) that the affine subspaces $S_p$ are also invariant under the system dynamics. This further means that any solution initialized on a certain $S_p$ with $p>0$ will converge to the unique equilibrium given by the intersection of $\gamma(s)$ with $S_p$. In other words, this intersection point is asymptotically stable relative to $S_p$, following the terminology of [@Bhatia1970].
Conclusion
==========
We considered the RFM with pool, a model describing the movement of ribosomes along a single mRNA template as well as the dynamics of a pool of available ribosomes. We found that the equilibria of the system can be characterized by a curve $\gamma$ and that there exist affine subspaces $S_p$ which are invariant under the dynamics of the system. In order to characterize the stability of the equilibria we studied the Jacobi linearization of the system evaluated on $\gamma$ and found that all eigenvalues are smaller than zero except for precisely one which is equal to zero, therefore the equilibria are non-hyperbolic. In order to draw any conclusions from the linearization we showed that the system under study is normally hyperbolic at $\gamma$. This was achieved in two steps, first, showing that the eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of the Jacobian evaluated on $\gamma$ is linearly dependent on the velocity vector of $\gamma$ and second, showing that $\gamma$ intersects all $S_p$ transversely. This insight then enabled us to apply the results of [@Pugh1970] in order to conclude that the equilibria of the system are asymptotically stable relative to the affine subspaces $S_p$.\
In previous works on the RFM ([@Raveh2015]) monotone systems theory was used to show that every equilibrium point is semistable in a sense that any solution initialized on a certain $S_p$ monotonically converges to a unique equilibrium point which is dependent on the initial condition. Our results now offer a more detailed characterization of the stability of the RFM with pool and further introduce a geometric approach for studying similar systems with higher complexity as this approach does not require any monotonicity features of the system. Such more complex systems may for instance be models where the copy number of templates is varying over time or the flow of ribosomes is allowed to be bi-directional.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this section, we derive the formula for calculating $\bar{s}$, given by equation (\[eqn:sbar\]). Therefore, we use a result from [@Dudley1987] on continued fractions to find an alternative notation for the components of $\gamma$: $$\gamma_i(s) = \begin{cases}
\tfrac{\lambda_c p_{0}(s)}{\lambda q_{0}(s)}& i = 0\\
\tfrac{p_{i}(s)}{q_{i}(s)}& i = 1 \ldots n
\end{cases}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
p_i (s)&=p_{i+1}-s p_{i+2} \label{eqn:impl_pi}\\
q_i (s)&=q_{i+1}-s q_{i+2} \label{eqn:qi}\\
p_{n+1}&=0\\
p_{n+2}&=-1\\
q_{n+1}&=1\\
q_{n+2}&=0.\end{aligned}$$ We further found that the $i$-th component of a general series of continued fractions of the form $$r_i (s)=r_{i+1}-s r_{i+2}$$ with arbitrary initial factors $r_{n+1}$ and $r_{n+2}$ can be calculated explicitly with the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
r_i(s)=&\sum_{j=0}^{ \left\lfloor \tfrac{n+1-i}{2} \right\rfloor } (-s)^{j} \binom{n+1-i-j}{j}r_{n+1} \\
&+\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n-i}{2} \right\rfloor} (-s)^{j+1} \binom{n-i-j}{j} r_{n+2}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\lfloor \alpha \right\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer smaller than $\alpha$. Applying this to the problem at hand results in $$\begin{aligned}
p_i(s)&=\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n-i}{2} \right\rfloor} -(-s)^{j+1} \binom{n-i-j}{j} \\
q_i(s)&=\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n+1-i}{2} \right\rfloor} (-s)^{j} \binom{n+1-i-j}{j} \label{eqn:expl_qi}\end{aligned}$$ and to the best knowledge of the authors, this is the first time an explicit form for this kind of problems has been formulated.\
From Equation (13) it is possible to deduct that $\gamma_i > \gamma_{i+1}$ for $i=1\ldots n$ as long as $\gamma \in \Omega$ and thus, the first violation of the state constraints occurs when $\gamma_1(\bar{s}) = 1$ in which case $\gamma_0(\bar{s})$ is not defined due to a division by zero. This means that $\bar{s}$ is the smallest positive solution of $$\begin{aligned}
p_1(\bar{s})&=q_1(\bar{s})\\
\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n-1}{2} \right\rfloor} -(-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-1-j}{j} &= \sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n}{2} \right\rfloor} (-\bar{s})^{j} \binom{n-j}{j}. \label{eqn:sbar_deduction}\end{aligned}$$ We now need to discriminate between the two cases that $n$ is either even or odd.\
If $n$ is even, it then follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right\rfloor &= \frac{n}{2}-1 \\
\left\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \right\rfloor &= \frac{n}{2}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{\tfrac{n}{2}-1} -(-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-1-j}{j} &= \sum_{j=0}^{ \tfrac{n}{2} } (-\bar{s})^{j} \binom{n-j}{j}\end{aligned}$$ which, with a shift of indices and the identity $$\binom{n-1-j}{j}+\binom{n-1-j}{j+1}=\binom{n-j}{j+1},$$ can be rearranged to $$1+\sum_{j=0}^{\tfrac{n}{2}-1} (-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-j}{j+1}=0. \label{eqn:sbar_res1}$$ In the other case that $n$ is odd, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right\rfloor =\left\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \right\rfloor = \frac{n-1}{2}\end{aligned}$$ and with the same line of arguments, Equation (\[eqn:sbar\_deduction\]) can be rearranged to $$1+\sum_{j=0}^{\tfrac{n-1}{2}} (-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-j}{j+1}=0.\label{eqn:sbar_res2}$$ Now, due to the fact that $$\left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor = \begin{cases} \frac{n-1}{2} & n \text{ odd} \\ \frac{n}{2}-1 & n \text{ even}
\end{cases}$$ Equations (\[eqn:sbar\_res1\]) and (\[eqn:sbar\_res2\]) can be joined to arrive at $$1+\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor} (-\bar{s})^{j+1} \binom{n-j}{j+1}=0.$$ This equation now may have several solutions, however only the smallest positive solution is relevant in order to arrive at an interval $(0,\bar{s})$ for which all $s \in (0,\bar{s})$ yield a $\gamma(s) \in \Omega$.
[^1]: \*Supported by the research cluster $\text{BW}^2$ (www.bwbiosyn.de) of the Ministry for Science, Research and Art Baden-Württemberg
[^2]: $^{1}$Authors are with Institute for Systems Theory and Automatic Control, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany. [E-Mail of corresponding author: [email protected]]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A set of $m$ positive integers $\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{m}\}$ is called a $P^{3}_{1}$-set of size $m$ if the product of any three elements in the set increased by one is a cube integer. A $P^{3}_{1}$-set $S$ is said to be extendible if there exists an integer $y\not\in S$ such that $S\cup\{y\}$ still a $P^{3}_{1}$-set. Now, let consider the Diophantine equation $u(u+1)/2=v^{3}$ whose integer solutions produce what we called cubic-triangular numbers. The purpose of this paper is to prove simultaneously that the $P^{3}_{1}$-set $\{1,2,13\}$ is non-extendible and $n=1$ is the unique cubic-triangular number by showing that the two problems meet on the Diophantine equation $2x^{3}-y^{3}=1$ that we solve using $p$-adic analysis.'
address:
- |
USTHB University, Faculty of Mathematics, LATN Laboratory\
P.O. Box 32, El Alia 16111, Bab-Ezzouar, Algiers, Algeria,
- |
USTHB University, Faculty of Mathematics, L’IFORCE Laboratory\
P.O. Box 32, El Alia 16111, Bab-Ezzouar, Algiers, Algeria,
author:
- 'A. DEBBACHE'
- 'S. BOUROUBI$^*$'
bibliography:
- 'Bouroubi.bib'
title: 'An unexpected meeting between the $P^{3}_{1}$-set and the cubic-triangular numbers'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A set of $m$ positif integers $\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{m}\}$ is called a Diophatine $m$-tuple or a $D(1)$-$m$-tuple, if the product of any two elements in the set increased by one is a perfect square, i.e., , where $u_{ij}\in\mathbb{N}^{*}$, for $1\leq i<j\leq m$. Diophantus of Alexandria was the first to look for such sets. He found a set of four positive rational numbers with the above property $\left\{\frac{1}{16},\frac{33}{16},\frac{17}{4},\frac{105}{16}\right\}$. , Fermat was the first to give $\left\{1,3,8,120\right\} $ as an example of a Diophantine quadruple. For a detailed history on Diophantine $m$-tuples and its results, we refer the reader to Dujella’s webpage [@Du]. Throughout the following we consider in a similar way what we have called a $P^{3}_{1}$-set.
Definitions
===========
A $P^{3}_{1}$-set of size $m$ is a set $S=\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{m}\}$ of distinct positive integers, such that is a cube for $1\leq i<j<k\leq m$.
A $P^{3}_{1}$-set $S$ is said to be extendible if there exists an integer $y\not\in S$ such that $S\cup\{y\}$ is a $P^{3}_{1}$-set.
A triangular number is a figurate number that can be represented in the form of an equilateral triangle of points, where the first row contains a single element and each subsequent row contains one more element than the previous one. Let $T_{n}$ denotes the $n^{th}$ triangular number, then $T_{n}$ is equal to the sum of the $n$ natural numbers from 1 to $n$, whose initial values are listed as the sequence A000217 in [@Ol]. $$T_{n}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}=\dbinom{n+1}{2},$$ where $\dbinom{n}{k}$ is a binomial coefficient.
A cubic-triangular number is a positive integer that is simultaneously cubic and triangular. Such a number must satisfy $T_{n}=m^{3}$ for some positive integers $n$ and $m$, so $$\label{eq1}
\frac{n(n+1)}{2}=m^{3}.$$
Some Claims
===========
\[clm1\] The triple $\left\{a-1,a+1,a^{4}+a^{2}+1\right\}$ is an infinite family of $P^{3}_{1}$-set for any positive integers $a\geq2$.
Thanks to the identity $x^{3}=(x-1)(x^{2}+x+1)+1$, it is enough to substitute $x$ by $a^{2}$ to get, $$a^{6}-1=(a-1)(a+1)(a^{4}+a^{2}+1).$$
\[clm2\] The triple $\{a,b,a^{2}b^{2}+3ab+3\}$ form an infinite family of $P^{3}_{1}$-set for any positive integers , such that $1\leq a<b$.
The result follows thanks to the identity : $$(ab+1)^{3}-1=ab(a^{2}b^{2}+3ab+3).$$
The triple $\{ 1,2,13\}$ is a $P^{3}_{1}$-set, it belongs to the family in , for $a=1$ and $b=2$.
Main Results
============
\[th1\] Any $P^{3}_{1}$-set is finite.
Let $S=\{x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\ldots,x_{m}\}$ be a $P^{3}_{1}$-set. Suppose that $S\cup\{y\}$ still a $P^{3}_{1}$-set, then by setting $$\begin{cases}
a=x_{m}x_{m-1}, \cr
b=x_{m}x_{m-2},\cr
c=x_{m-1}x_{m-2},
\end{cases}$$ we get an elliptic curve $$(ay+1)(by+1)(cy+1)=t^{3},$$ which has only finitely many integral solutions [@Sh].
In the following, we will restrict our attention to equation (\[eq2\]), for which we present a proof for it’s uniqueness integer solution, by using $p$-adic analysis tools. $$\label{eq2}
2x^{3}-y^{3}=1.$$ We first briefly remind Hensel’s Lemma and Strassman’s Theorem [@Ca].
\[lem1\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(Hensel)</span> Let $P\left( X\right) \in\mathbb{Z}_{p}\left[ X\right] $, a monic polynomial. Suppose that $x\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}$, satisfied:
1. $P\left( x\right) \equiv 0\ (mod\ p)$,
2. $\dfrac{d}{dx}\left(P(x)\right) \not\equiv 0\ (mod\ p)$.
So, there is a unique $y\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ such as $P\left( y\right) =0$ and $y\equiv x\ (mod\ p)$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(Strassman)</span> Let $\mathbb{K}$ be a complete field for the non-archimedean norm $\| . \|$, $\mathcal{A}$ its ring of integers, and let $$g\left(x\right) =\overset{+\infty }{\underset{n=0}{\sum }}g_{n}x^{n}.$$ Suppose that $g_{n}\rightarrow 0$ (so $g\left(x\right)$ converges in $\mathcal{A}$), but with $g_{n}$ not all zeros, there is at most a finite number of elements $b$ of $\mathcal{A}$ such that $g\left( b\right) =0$. More precisely, there is at most $M$ elements $b$ of $\mathcal{A}$, such that $$\| g_{N} \| =\underset{n}{max}\| g_{n}\|,\ \ \| g_{n} \|<\| g_{N}\|, \forall n>M.$$
\[lem2\] Let $b\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}, \left\vert b\right\vert_{2}\leq 2^{-2}$ and $\left\vert b\right\vert_{p}\leq p^{-1}$ ($p\neq 2$). So, there is a series , with $\gamma _{n}\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, $\gamma_{n}\rightarrow 0$, such that $\Phi _{b}\left( r\right) =\left(1+b\right)^{r}$, $\forall r\in\mathbb{Z}$.
By application of these results, we may show
\[th2\] The unique positive integer solution of Equation (\[eq2\]) is $(1,1)$.
Let $(a,b)$ be a solution of Equation (\[eq2\]). As $N(2^{\frac{1}{3}}a-b)=2a^{3}-b^{3}$, so $2^{\frac{1}{3}}a-b$ is an algebraic unit, especially $\theta=\theta _{1}=2^{\frac{1}{3}}-1$. For convenience, on all the rest of the paper we will work with the field $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q}(\theta)$. Note $\mathcal{A}$, the integer ring of $\mathbb{K}$ and $\mathcal{U}$ its group of units. We have $$2=(\theta +1)^{3}.$$ Hence $$\theta^{3}+3\theta^{2}+3\theta-1=0.$$ Let $f(X)=X^{3}+3X^{2}+3X-1$ be the irreducible polynomial of $\theta$. According to Dirichlet’s unit theorem $\mathcal{U}=G\times\mathbb{Z}^{r+s-1}$, where $G$ is the root group of the unit of $\mathcal{A}$, $r$ is the number of real zeros of $f$, and $2s$ is the number of complex zeros of $f$. Here, $r=s=1$, so $\mathcal{U}=G\times\mathbb{Z}$. Let $\alpha$ be a root of the unit of $\mathcal{A}$, then the dimension of the field $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ divides the dimension of the field $\mathbb{K}$, so it is a divisor of $3$. Since $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) \neq \mathbb{K}$, we have $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)=\mathbb{Q}$ and $A=\mathbb{Z}$, where $A$ is the ring of the units of $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$. However, the only invertible elements of $\mathbb{Z}$ are $+1$ and $-1$, hence $\mathcal{U}=\{\pm u^{n}/n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$. Let $u>1$ be the fundamental unit, $\rho e^{i\theta}$ and $\rho e^{-i\theta}$ its conjugates. We have $$N(u)=u\times \rho e^{i\theta}\times \rho e^{-i\theta}=1.$$ It follows $$u=\rho^{-2}.$$ In addition $$disc_{\mathbb{Z}}(u)=(u-\rho e^{i\theta })^{2}(u-\rho e^{-i\theta })^{2}(\rho e^{i\theta}-\rho e^{-i\theta})^{2}=-4(\rho^{3}+\rho^{-3}-2cos\theta)^{2}sin^{2}\theta.$$ For $c=cos\theta$, let us set $g(x)=(1-c^{2})(x-2c)^{2}-x^{2}$. Then we get $$g(x)\leq 4(1-c^{2}),$$ or even $$(1-c^{2})(x-2c)^{2}\leq x^{2}+4(1-c^{2}).$$ Replacing $x$ by $\rho^{3}+\rho^{-3}$, we obtain $$(1-c^{2})(\rho^{3}+\rho^{-3}-2c)^{2}<u^{3}+u^{-3}+6.$$ This involves that
$\left\vert disc_{\mathbb{Z}}(u)\right\vert <4(u^{3}+u^{-3}+6)$.
Therefore
$u^{3}>\dfrac{d}{4}-6-u^{-3}>\dfrac{d}{4}-7,$
where $d=\left\vert disc_{\mathbb{Z}}(u)\right\vert $.\
The discriminant of $f$ equals -108, then $u^{3}>20$. Hence $$u>2,7144.$$Since $\theta^{-1}\simeq 3,8473$, and $u^{2}>7,3680$, we get $u=\theta^{-1}$. We therefore have $$\mathcal{U}=\{\pm \theta^{n}/n\in\mathbb{Z}\}.$$ Moreover, $2^{\frac{1}{3}}a-b=(a-b)+(2^{\frac{1}{3}}-1)a=(a-b)+a\theta$. Since $N(2^{\frac{1}{3}}a-b)=1$, we have $(a-b)+a\theta\in\mathcal{U}$, i.e., there exists $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $$\label{eq3}
(a-b)+a\theta=\pm \theta^{n}.$$ If we take for instance $(a-b)+a\theta=\theta^{n}$, then we get $$(a-b)+a\theta_{i}=\theta_{i}^{n},\ \textrm{pour}\ i=1,2,3,$$ where $\theta_{1}=\theta$, $\theta_{2}$ and $\theta_{3}=\overline{\theta_{2}}$ are the three zeros of $f$. We have obviously $$\label{eq4}
\frac{1}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{1})}+\frac{1}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{2})}+\frac{1}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{3})}=\frac{1}{(\theta_{1}-\theta_{2})
(\theta_{1}-\theta_{3})}+\frac{1}{(\theta_{2}-\theta_{1})(\theta_{2}-\theta_{3})}+\frac{1}{(\theta_{3}-\theta_{1})(\theta_{3}-\theta_{2})}=0,$$ and $$\label{eq5}
\frac{\theta_{1}}{f^{^{\prime }}(\theta_{1})}+\frac{\theta_{2}}{f^{^{\prime }}(\theta_{2})}+\frac{\theta_{3}}{f^{^{\prime }}(\theta_{3})}=\frac{\theta_{1}}{(\theta_{1}-\theta_{2})(\theta_{1}-\theta_{3})}+\frac{\theta_{2}}{(\theta_{2}-\theta_{1})
(\theta_{2}-\theta_{3})}+\frac{\theta_{3}}{(\theta_{3}-\theta_{1})(\theta_{3}-\theta_{2})}=0.$$ If we multiply (\[eq4\]) by $a-b$ and (\[eq5\]) by $a$, we find $$\dfrac{(a-b)+a\theta_{1}}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{1})}+\dfrac{(a-b)+a\theta_{2}}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{2})}+\dfrac{(a-b)+a\theta_{3}}{f^{^{\prime}}
(\theta_{3})}=\dfrac{\theta_{1}^{n}}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{1})}+\dfrac{\theta_{2}^{n}}{f^{^{\prime}}(\theta_{2})}+\dfrac{\theta_{3}^{n}}{f^{^{\prime}}
(\theta_{3})}=0.$$ So, solving the equation $2x^{3}-y^{3}=1$, is like finding the zeros of the sequence $(c_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ defined by: $$c_{n}=\dfrac{\theta_{1}^{n}}{(\theta_{1}-\theta_{2})(\theta_{1}-\theta_{3})}+\dfrac{\theta_{2}^{n}}{(\theta_{2}-\theta_{1})
(\theta_{2}-\theta_{3})}+\dfrac{\theta_{3}^{n}}{(\theta_{3}-\theta_{1})(\theta_{3}-\theta_{2})}\cdot\vspace{0.2cm}$$ Now, let us work locally in $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$. For this purpose, we are looking for an adequate prime number $p$ that allows us to apply Hensel’s Lemma in ordre to find two zeros of $f$ $\alpha$ and $\beta \in\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, the third one is then given by $\alpha +\beta +\gamma=-3$. Since $f(3)=2\times 31\equiv 0\ (mod\ 31)$, $f(6)=11\times 31\equiv 0\ (mod\ 31)$, $f'(3)=48\not\equiv 0\ (mod\ 31)$ and , then according to Hensel’s Lemma, there exist a unique $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{31}$, where $\alpha = 34\ \textrm{and}\ \beta = 37$, hence $\gamma =-74$. According to Fermat’s little theorem, we have $\alpha^{30}\equiv 1\ (mod\ 31)$. Thus $\alpha^{30}=1+a$. Since $$\alpha^{30}=34^{30}\equiv 838\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ Then $$a\equiv 837\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ Similarly, $$\beta^{30}\equiv 1\ (mod\ 31).$$ Thus $$\beta^{30}=1+b.$$ Since $$\beta^{30}=37^{30}\equiv 869\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ Then $$b\equiv868\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ Likewise, $\gamma^{30}\equiv 1\ (mod\ 31)$. Thus $$\gamma^{30}=1+c.$$ Since $$\gamma^{30}=74^{30}\equiv 94\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ Then $$c\equiv93\ (mod\ 31^{2}).$$ In the rest of the proof we will need the following table:
$r$ $\alpha^{r}\ (mod\ 31^{2})$ $\beta^{r}\ (mod\ 31^{2})$ $\gamma^{r}\ (mod\ 31^{2})$
------ ----------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------
$1$ $34$ $37$ $-74$
$30$ $838$ $869$ $94$
In addition, we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
c_{r+30s} & = & \dfrac{\alpha^{r}}{(\alpha-\beta)(\alpha-\beta)}(\alpha^{30})^{s}+\dfrac{\beta^{r}}{(\beta-\alpha)(\beta-\gamma)}(\beta^{30})^{s}+\dfrac{\gamma^{r}}{(\gamma-\beta)
(\gamma-\alpha)}(\gamma^{30})^{s} \vspace{0.2cm}\\
& = & \dfrac{\alpha^{r}}{(\alpha-\beta)(\alpha-\beta)}(1+a)^{s}+\dfrac{\beta^{r}}{(\beta-\alpha)(\beta-\gamma)}(1+b)^{s}+\dfrac{\gamma^{r}}{(\gamma-\beta)(\gamma-\alpha)}
(1+c)^{s}\vspace{0.2cm}\\
&\equiv& c_{r}\ (mod\ 31),\ \textrm{for}\ 1\leq r\leq 30.
\end{array}$$ The calculations show that $c_{r}\neq 0$ for $r\neq 1,30$. Since, $c_{r+30s}\equiv c_{r}\ (mod\ 31)$, we get $$c_{r+30s}\neq 0, \forall s\in\mathbb{N},\ \textrm{for}\ r\neq 1, 30.$$ Let’s say for $r= 1, 30$ and $s\in \mathbb{Q}_{31}$, $$u_{r}(s)=\dfrac{\alpha^{r}}{(\alpha-\beta)(\alpha-\beta)}(1+a)^{s}+\dfrac{\beta^{r}}{(\beta-\alpha)(\beta-\gamma)}(1+b)^{s}+\dfrac{\gamma^{r}}{(\gamma-\beta)
(\gamma-\alpha)}(1+c)^{s}.$$ To demonstrate the result, it is enough to work only with $u_{1}$ and $u_{30}$. Since $\left\vert a\right\vert_{31}\leq 31^{-1}, \left\vert b\right\vert_{31}\leq 31^{-1}$ and $\left\vert c\right\vert_{31}\leq 31^{-1}$, we deduce from Lemma \[lem2\] that $u_{r}$ is a function that we can develop as a series: $$\lambda _{0,r}+\lambda _{1,r}s+\lambda _{2,r}s^{2}+\cdots$$ We have $$\ \lambda _{0,r}=0,\ \textrm{for}\ r=1,30,\ \ \lambda _{j,r}\not\equiv 0\ \left(mod\ 31^{2}\right),\ \textrm{for}\ j\geq 2,\ \ r\ \textrm{unspecified},$$ and $$\lambda_{1,r}=\dfrac{\alpha^{r}}{(\alpha-\beta)(\alpha -\gamma)}a+\dfrac{\beta^{r}}{(\beta-\alpha)(\beta-\gamma)}b+\dfrac{\gamma^{r}}{(\gamma-\beta)(\gamma-\alpha)}c\not\equiv 0\ (mod\ 31^{2}),$$ for $r=1,30.$\
According to Strassman’s theorem, the functions $u_{r}(s),\ r=1,30$, have at most one root. As they have at least one root, they have therefore exactly one root. From Equation (\[eq3\]), we have $\theta^{0}=1$ implies $a=0$ and $b=-1$, which is impossible, and $\theta^{1}=\theta$ implies $a=b=1$.\
This completes the proof.
\[cor1\] The $P^{3}_{1}$-set $\{1,2,13\}$ is nonextendible.
Suppose there exists an integer $d>13$ such that the quadruple $\{1,2,13,d\}$ is a $P^{3}_{1}$-set. Then the following system of equations has an integral solution $(u,v,w)\in\mathbb{N}^{3}$: $$(S)
\begin{cases}
2d+1=u^{3}, \cr
13d+1=v^{3},\cr
26d+1=w^{3}.
\end{cases}$$ The system $(S)$ yields $$\label{eq6}
2v^{3}-w^{3}=1.$$ From Theorem \[th2\], the unique positive integer solution of Equation (\[eq6\]) is $(v,w) = (1, 1)$, which is impossible in $(S)$.\
This completes the proof.
\[cor2\] The unicity of positive integer solution of Equation (\[eq2\]) implies the unicity of a cubic-triangular number.
Let $n$ be a cubic-triangular number. Since $n$ and $n+1$ are coprime then according to Equation (\[eq1\]), there exists $x$ and $y$ two positive integers such that $m=xy$, $n=y^{3}$ and $n+1=2x^{3}$, which implies Equation (\[eq2\]), that has from Theorem \[th2\], $(x,y)=(1,1)$ as unique positive integer solution. Thus, $n=1$ is the unique cubic-triangular number.
As we can see, the resolution of Equation (\[eq2\]) meets the two problems mentioned above that seem to be a priori different.
Conclusion
==========
The interest of this work is twofold. Firstly, we showed an unexpected link between two problems, which were a priori distinct. Secondly, we presented a proof for the uniqueness of the positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation $2x^{3}-y^{3}=1$, using $p$-adic analysis tools.
[^1]: $^*$ Corresponding author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
amstex =1 =cmr8 =cmmi8 =cmbx8 =cmti8 =cmsl8 =cmsy8 =cmr6 =cmmi6 =cmsy6 =cmbx6 =cmr10 scaled 1200 =cmbx10 scaled 1200 =1 =cmssbx10
\#1\#2
=1
=0
October 1992SISSA/180/92/FM
Selberg Supertrace Formula for Super Riemann Surfaces III:
Bordered Super Riemann Surfaces
by
Christian Grosche
*Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati*
*International School for Advanced Studies*
*Via Beirut 4*
*34014 Trieste, Miramare, Italy*
[**Abstract**]{}
This paper is the third in a sequel to develop a super-analogue of the classical Selberg trace formula, the Selberg supertrace formula. It deals with bordered super Riemann surfaces. The theory of bordered super Riemann surfaces is outlined, and the corresponding Selberg supertrace formula is developed. The analytic properties of the Selberg super zeta-functions on bordered super Riemann surfaces are discussed, and super-determinants of Dirac-Laplace operators on bordered super Riemann surfaces are calculated in terms of Selberg super zeta-functions. =0
=1 =0 by 1
It took a long time before physicists acknowledged the true value of the Selberg trace formula as introduced by A.Selberg in his famous paper \[\]. The original attempt of Selberg to formulate his trace formula was based on number theoretical considerations, and in fact, there is a close relation between the areas of analytic number theory, eigenvalues of Laplacians on Riemann surfaces, and the Selberg trace formula (see e.g. \[, \]), and in particular Selberg was interested to study the analytic properties of a function closely related to the trace formula, the Selberg zeta-function.
Physicists, however, have other objectives: they want to learn something about the spectrum of a model, or they want to calculate determinants, say. The latter approach to the use of the Selberg trace formula appears in the quantum field theory on Riemann surfaces, i.e. in the Polyakov approach \[-, , \] to (bosonic-, fermionic- and super-) string theory. In the perturbation expansion of the Polyakov path integral one is left with a summation over all topologies of world sheets a string can sweep out, and an integral over the moduli space of Riemann surfaces. This picture is true for bosonic strings (BS) as well as for fermionic strings (FS). The partition function turns out to be for open as well as closed bosonic strings corresponding to a topology without conformal Killing vectors (Blau and Clements \[\], and D’Hoker and Phong \[, \]) $$Z_0^{(BS)}=\sum_g\int d\mu_{WP}[\det(P_1^{\dag}P_1)]^{1/2}
({\det}'\Delta_0)^{-D/2}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $P_1$ and $\Delta_0$ are the symmetrized traceless covariant derivative and scalar Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary-conditions, respectively, and $d\mu_{WP}$ denotes the Weil-Petersen measure. $D$ denotes the critical dimension which equals $26$ for the bosonic string. For the fermionic-, respectively the super-string all quantities have to be replaced by their appropriate super case, and the critical dimension $D=10$.
The calculation of (super-) determinants of Laplacians on closed Riemann surfaces is due to several authors. Mainly two approaches must be mentioned, firstly the evaluation of these determinants in terms of Selberg zeta-functions, e.g. Baranov, Manin et al. \[-\], Bolte and Steiner \[\], D’Hoker and Phong \[, \], Efrat \[\], Ref.\[\], Gilbert \[\], Namazie and Rajjev \[\], Steiner \[\], and Voros \[\], and secondly in terms of the period matrix and theta-functions, the most important are Alvarez-Gaumé et al. \[\] and Manin \[\]. Formal as these results may be, the expressions in terms of Selberg zeta-functions provide tools to investigate the convergence, respectively divergence properties of the string path integral a là Polyakov, hence non-perturbative statements are possible. In the bosonic string theory, this approach enabled Gross and Periwal \[\] to show that the perturbation expansion for the closed bosonic string is not Borel-summable, and hence not finite; this statement can be easily generalized to open bosonic strings \[\]. In the fermionic string theory a better asymptotic behaviour is expected, however, due to the almost unknown structure of the corresponding super moduli space, the arguing of Gross and Periwal cannot be taken over in an obvious way.
In the perturbation expansion of the bosonic string the classical Selberg trace formula could be applied in a straightforward way; the perturbation theory of the fermionic string \[, \] required the devolving of a super-analogue of the classical Selberg trace formula, i.e. the Selberg supertrace formula. Here Baranov, Manin et al. \[-\] originally started this business, and it was further developed by Aoki \[\] and in Refs.\[, \], and see \[\] for a short review of some recent results.
It was mainly the closed string theory that was dealt with and for which the whole perturbation theory for scattering amplitudes was developed quite comprehensively. The case of the open bosonic, respectively open fermionic string, starting with the pioneering work of Alvarez \[\], took somewhat longer and seems until now not such as good developed as the former.
Contributions along the lines of the Polyakov path integral approach for the open string theory are due to e.g. Blau et al. \[, \], Bolte and Grosche \[\], Bolte and Steiner \[\], Burgess and Morris \[\], Carlip \[\], Dunbar \[\], Jaskolski \[\], Luckock \[\], Martín-Delgado and Mittelbrunn \[\], Ohndorf \[\], Rodrigues et al. \[, , \], and Wu \[\].
Of course, while dealing with open strings one has to distinguish Dirichlet and Neumann boundary-conditions, respectively. Here again we have two possibilities to express determinants either by the period-matrix, or by appropriate chosen Selberg zeta-functions for the corresponding Dirichlet or Neumann boundary-condition problems. The former was discussed by Burgess and Morris \[\], Dunbar \[\], Losev \[\], Luckock \[\], Martín-Delgado and Mittelbrunn \[\], Rodrigues and Van Tander \[\] (in particular to give explicit expression on the one-loop level), and Mozorov and Rosly \[\] for multiloop expressions. The latter case was approached by Refs.\[-, \].
In particular all the cited authors could derive relations between the determinants $\det\Delta^{(D)}_{\Sigma}$ and ${\det}'\Delta^{(N)}
_{\Sigma}$ corresponding to Dirichlet and Neumann boundary-conditions on the bordered Riemann surface $\Sigma$ on the one hand, and the determinant of the scalar Laplacian ${\det}'\Delta_{\widehat\Sigma}$ for the doubled (closed) Riemann surfaces $\widehat\Sigma$ on the other, i.e. (the prime denotes the omission of possible zero-modes) $$\det\Delta^{(D)}_{\Sigma}\cdot{\det}'\Delta^{(N)}_{\Sigma}
={\det}'\Delta_{\widehat\Sigma}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Whereas all this deals only with the bosonic string with boundaries, the case of the incorporation of spin-structures and fermionic strings with boundaries seems quite poorly developed.
The Selberg trace formula for bordered Riemann surfaces does exist and almost the entire theory is due to Venkov \[-\], including particular cases \[\]. Independently, later on the Selberg trace formula for bordered Riemann surfaces was discussed by Blau and Clements \[\], Bolte and Grosche \[\] and Bolte and Steiner \[\].
Let us assume that the generating functional in the theory of the open fermionic string can also be expressed as \[, \] $$Z_0^{(FS)}=\sum_g\int d\mu_{sWP}[\sdet(P_1^{\dag}P_1)]^{1/2}
(\sdet'\square^2_0)^{-5/2},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $P_1$ and $\square_0$ are the super-analogues of the symmetrized traceless covariant derivative and scalar Dirac-Laplace operator with Dirichlet boundary-conditions, respectively, and $d\mu_{sWP}$ denotes the super Weil-Petersen measure. In order to deal with the vector Dirac-Laplace operator $P_1^{\dag}P_1$ the incorporation of $m$-weighted super automorphic forms into the formalism is required.
The development of the fermionic string, respectively the super-string model \[-,\] was enormously boosted by the discovery of particular anomaly-free properties of certain gauge groups by Green and Schwarz \[\]. In two previous publications, hereafter denoted as I \[\], and II \[\], respectively, I have already discussed various aspects of the Selberg supertrace formula on super Riemann surfaces. In Ref.\[\] the Selberg supertrace formula for hyperbolic conjugacy classes was developed in full detail, including an analysis of the properties of the Selberg super zeta-functions and super-determinants of Dirac-Laplace operators on Super Riemann surfaces in order to discuss the fermionic string integrand in the Polyakov path integral properly. In Ref.\[\], I continued these studies by the incorporation of elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes. However, to complete a comprehensive development of the Selberg supertrace formula, bordered super Riemann surfaces must be included in the discussion. Bordered super Riemann surfaces, of course, occur for open (fermionic- and super-) strings (in the case of super-strings, so called type I super strings with the $O(32)$ gauge group).
The further contents will be now as follows:
In the second section I give a short introduction into the theory of bordered Riemann surfaces and indispensible information concerning the spectral theory on bordered Riemann surfaces. Information concerning the definition of super Riemann surfaces was already given in Refs.\[, \], but is included here to make the paper self-contained. The citation of the Selberg trace formula on bordered Riemann surfaces is also included.
The third section sets up a proposal to define bordered super Riemann surfaces. Concerning the theory of super Riemann surfaces I refer to the relevant literature, only the most important relations and indispensible ingredients will be given.
The fourth section attacks the actual derivation of the Selberg supertrace formula for bordered super Riemann surfaces. After the incorporation of the hyperbolic conjugacy classes, the usual elliptic ones cause no difficulty and the result of Ref.\[\] can be taken over without delay; the incorporation of the parabolic conjugacy classes (Dirichlet boundary-conditions) requires some care and a regularization procedure is needed. The incorporation of Neumann boundary-conditions then follows by a proper combination of the former results.
In the fifth section, I discuss the analytic properties of the (modified) Selberg super zeta-functions on bordered super Riemann surfaces by means of the supertrace formula.
In the sixth section, the results of the former two are applied to the problem of calculating super-determinants of Dirac-Laplace operators on bordered super Riemann surfaces. As explicit as possible expressions are evaluated in terms of the Selberg super zeta-functions on bordered super Riemann surfaces.
All the principle results will be stated as theorems.
The last section is devoted to a summary and a discussion of the results.
=0 by 1
[*1. Bordered Riemann surfaces and the construction of the Selberg operator.*]{} We start with usual bordered Riemann surfaces (we rely on Sibner \[\] and Venkov \[\], compare also Refs.\[, \]). Let us consider a Riemann $\widetilde\Sigma$ surface of genus $g$ and $d_1,\dots,d_n$ conformal, non-overlapping discs on $\widetilde
\Sigma$. Then $\Sigma=\widetilde\Sigma\setminus\{d_1,\dots,d_n\}$ is a bordered Riemann surface with Dirichlet, respectively Neumann boundary-conditions of signature $(g,n)$. $c_i=\partial d_i$ are the $n$ components of $\partial\Sigma$. Now take a copy $\CI\Sigma$ of $\Sigma$, a mirror image, and glue both together along $\partial\Sigma$ and $\partial\CI\Sigma$. Explicitly this can be realized by taking the refection $\CI$ to have the form $\CI z\to z'=-\bar z$ $(z\in\CH)$. The reflection $\CI$ in $\partial\Sigma$ then is a anti-conformal involution ($\CI^2=1)$ on the doubled surface $\widehat\Sigma
=\Sigma\cup\CI\Sigma$. $\widehat\Sigma$ is a Riemann surface of genus $\widehat g=2g+n-1$, and we set $\hatCA=\CA(\hatCF)$. The uniformization theorem for Riemann surfaces now yields that $\widehat
\Sigma$ may be represented as $\widehat\Sigma\cong\hatGamma
\backslash\CH$, where $\hatGamma$ is the Fuchsian group of $\widehat\Sigma$. Of course there is a fundamental domain $\widehat\CF$ of $\widehat\Sigma$ in $\CH$, tesselating $\CH$. In order to construct a convenient fundamental domain and representation of the involution $\CI$, we view according to Sibner \[\] and Venkov \[\] $\widehat\Sigma$ as a symmetric Riemann surface with reflection symmetry $\CI$. Then $\widehat\CF$ may be chosen as the interior of a fundamental polygon with $4\widehat g+2n-2$ edges which is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis. Due to the explicit choice of $\CI$ as $\CI z=-\bar z$, one of the bordering curves, say $c_1$, is mapped onto the imaginary axis and the others among the edges of the fundamental polygon. With this construction one can work directly on $\hatCF$, with $\CI$ viewed as a mapping of complex numbers, being formally identical on $\widehat\Sigma$ and $\hatCF$.
In the case that elliptic fixed points and cusps are present, the non-euclidean area of a Riemann surface is given by (e.g. \[\], Gauss-Bonnet theorem) $$\CA=2\pi\left[2(g-1)+\kappa+\sum_{j=1}^s
\bigg(1-{1\over\nu_j}\bigg)\right],
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $s$ denotes the number of inequivalent elliptic fixed points and $\kappa$ the number of inequivalent cusps (i.e. the number of zero interior angles of the fundamental polygon $\CF$). $\nu_j$ denotes the order of the elliptic generators $R_j\subset\Gamma$ ($1\leq j\leq s$), i.e. $R_j^{\nu_j}=1$ for $(1\leq j\leq s$, $1<\nu_j<\infty$).
In order to set up our notation we start by citing some results of the classical Selberg trace formula for bordered Riemann surfaces \[\]. As usual one starts by formulating the appropriate automorphic kernel. Consequently this gives for automorphic functions the property $f(\gamma z)=\chi_\gamma^mj(\gamma,z)f(z)$ $(\gamma\in\hatGamma)$, the inversion $f(\CI z)=\pm f(z)$ which distinguishes even and odd automorphic functions with respect to $x$. $\chi(\gamma)\equiv
\chi_\gamma$ denotes a multiplier system acting according to $\bGamma\to \{\pm1\}$ with $\chi(-\bbbone)=-1$ ($\gamma\in\bGamma$, such that $\bGamma\in\SL(2,\bbbr)$, $\hatGamma=\bGamma/\{\pm1\}$), and $j(\gamma,z)$ denotes the automorphic weight \[, \].
The automorphic kernel is then constructed as follows \[, , \] $$\widehat K_{N,D}(z,w)=\half\sum_{\{\gamma\}}
\Big[k(z,\gamma w)\pm k(z,\gamma\CI w)\Big],
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where the “+”-sign stands for Neumann, and the “-”-sign for Dirichlet boundary-conditions. $\sum_{\{\gamma\}}$ denotes the summation over distinct conjugacy classes. Let $L$ the Selberg-operator with eigenvalue $\Lambda (\lambda)$ on $\CF$ (where $k(z,w)$ is the corresponding integral kernel) together with its counterpart $\widehat
L$ on $\hatCF$, and we introduce the Maass-Laplacian $D_m=-y^2(\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2)+imy\partial_x$ on $\CF$ in $\CL^2(\CF,m,\chi)\equiv\CL^2(\CF)$ (the space of square integrable automorphic forms).
To each cusp there is associated an [*Eisenstein series*]{} $$e(z,s,\alpha)=\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_\alpha\backslash\Gamma}
y^s(\gamma z)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $z\in\CH$, $\Re(s)>1$, $\alpha=1,\dots,\kappa$, with $\Gamma_\alpha$ the stabilizer of the cusp $\alpha$. In the spectral decomposition of $D_m$ on $\CL^2(\CF)$ these Eisenstein series span the continuous spectrum.
Let us start with Dirichlet boundary-conditions and only the odd automorphic functions with respect to $x$ survive in the spectral expansion of the automorphic kernel. Let $f\in\CL^2(\CF)$ an odd eigenfunction in $x$ of $D_m$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$. A glance on the continuous spectrum shows that the Eisenstein series $e(z,s)$ drop out, c.f. according to a theorem by Venkov \[\]. Then $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
(\widehat L_Df)(z)
&=\half\int_{\widehat\CF}\widehat K_D(z,z')f(z')dV(z')
\\ &=\half(Lf)(z)-\half(Lf)(-\bar z)=\Lambda(\lambda)f(z);
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ if $f\in\CL^2(\CF)$ even, similarly for Neumann boundary-conditions $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
(\widehat L_Nf)(z)
&=\half\int_{\widehat\CF}\widehat K_N(z,z')f(z')dV(z')
\\ &=\half(Lf)(z)+\half(Lf)(-\bar z)=\Lambda(\lambda)f(z).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ In the case of Dirichlet boundary-conditions we are thus left with the spectral expansion of the automorphic kernel into [*odd discrete*]{} eigenfunctions $\Psi_n$ on $\CH$ $$\widehat K_D(z,w)=\sum_n h(p_n)\Psi_n(z)\Psi_n(w),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $\Lambda(\lambda_n)=\Lambda(p_n^2+\viert)\equiv h(p_n)$. In the case of Neumann boundary-conditions we get the spectral expansion of the automorphic kernel into [*even discrete and continuous*]{} eigenfunctions $\Phi_n$ and $e(z,s)$, respectively, on $\CH$ $$\widehat K_N(z,w)=\sum_n h(p_n)\Phi_n(z)\Phi_n(w)
+{1\over4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty h(p)
e(z,\bhalf+ip)\overline{e(w,\bhalf+ip)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$
[*2.Conjugacy classes on bordered Riemann surfaces and the trace formula.*]{} As usual the quantity $N_\gamma$ is called [*norm*]{} of an hyperbolic $\gamma\in\Gamma$ and $N_{\gamma_0}$ will denote the norm of a primitive hyperbolic $\gamma\in\Gamma$, and $l_\gamma=\ln N_{\gamma}$ denotes the [*length*]{} corresponding to a $\gamma\in\Gamma$. $\gamma_0\in\Gamma$ is called a primitive element, if it is not a power of any other element of $\Gamma$. Each element $\gamma\in\Gamma/
\{\pm\bbbone\}$ is thus uniquely described as $\gamma=k^{-1}\gamma_0k$ for some primitive $\gamma_0$, $n\in\bbbn$ and $k\in\Gamma/
\Gamma_{\gamma_0}$. Conjugacy classes are defined by $\{\gamma\}
:=\{\gamma_i\in\Gamma| \gamma_i=k^{-1}\gamma k,k\in\Gamma\}$. $\sum_{\{\gamma\}}$ denotes the summation over primitive conjugacy classes of a particular conjugacy class $\{\gamma\}$ within the Fuchsian group $\hatGamma$. In the following I will omit the index “$0$” in $\gamma_0$ if it is obvious that indeed the primitive $\gamma_0$ is meant and no confusion can arise.
Let $\kappa$ be the number of inequivalent cups on the fundamental domain $\hatCF$ (the number of primitive parabolic conjugacy classes in $\widehat \Gamma$), and by $\Gamma_\rho$ the restriction of $\hatGamma$ to this inversion counterpart, where I have abbreviated $\rho:=\gamma\CI$. In order to investigate the various conjugacy classes for the formulation of the Selberg trace-formula for bordered Riemann surfaces, we have to distinguish the original conjugacy classes which appear already for closed Riemann surfaces and additional conjugacy classes due to $\gamma\CI$. The new conjugacy classes can be characterized by their traces. We consider first compact Riemann surfaces, i.e. compact polygons as fundamental domains. The case of the closed Riemann surfaces gives us hyperbolic and elliptic conjugacy classes which correspond to $|\tr(\gamma)|>2$, respectively $|\tr(\gamma)|<2$.
In the theory of symmetric spaces it is convenient to consider the following isomorphic model of $\CH$. One defines the positive definite symmetric matrices $$z(x;y)=\pmatrix y+x/y^2 &x/y \\
x/y &1/y \endpmatrix,
\qquad(x\in\bbbr,y>0).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ If $g\in\SL(2,\bbbr)$, then the group action has the form $$gz(x;y)=g[z(x;y)]g^t,
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $g^t$ denotes the transpose of $g$. In this model it is easy to implement the involution $\CI$ in terms of the matrix $$\CI=\pmatrix 1 &0 \\
0 &-1 \endpmatrix,
\tag\NUM.\num$$ i.e. $\CI$ is an element in $\GL(2,\bbbr)/\{\pm\bbbone\}$.
Within this model we find, first, for $\tr(\rho)\not=0$ that the relative centralizer is of the form $$\pmatrix b &0 \\ 0&-b^{-1}\endpmatrix,\qquad (\mod\pm1).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ \[Centralizers $\Gamma_\gamma$ are defined by $\Gamma_\gamma:=
\{\gamma_i\in\Gamma| \gamma_i^{-1}\gamma\gamma_i=\gamma\}$\]. Therefore $\Gamma\CI\subset\hatGamma$ consists of hyperbolic elements and the identity and since $\hatGamma$ is discrete of a single hyperbolic element. The second case gives $\tr(\rho)=0$. Then the relative centralizer consists of elements of the form $$\rho_1=\pmatrix c &0 \\ 0&c^{-1}\endpmatrix,\qquad
\rho_2=\pmatrix 0 &d \\ -d^{-1} &0\endpmatrix,\qquad
(\mod\pm1).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $\rho_2$ is an elliptic element of order two. Thus $\gamma\CI$ consists of hyperbolic, elliptic and the identity element. However, due to the construction $\rho_1^n\rho_2$ $(n\in\bbbz)$ we see that we can generate infinitely many elliptic conjugacy classes which is impossible, since $\hatGamma$ is discrete. Therefore the relative centralizer of $\gamma
\CI$ with $\tr(\gamma\CI)=0$ consists either of hyperbolic elements and the identity or by a single elliptic generator of order two. The explicit computation reveals that in the compact case only the former case is possible, the latter leading to a divergency.
The conjugacy classes of $\rho\in\hatGamma\CI$ can therefore be distinguished in two ways \[, , \] according to their squares $\rho^2\in\hatGamma$. Let $\rho\in\hatGamma$ be primitive, that is not a positive power of any other element of $\hatGamma\CI$. Then
[i)]{} $\rho=\rho_i$, $\rho_i^2\in\{C_i\}_{\hatGamma}$, $i=1,
\dots,n$. The $\{C_i\}_{\hatGamma}$ are the conjugacy classes of the $C_i$ in $\hatGamma$ which correspond to the closed geodesics $c_i$ on $\widehat\Sigma$.
[ii)]{} $\rho=\rho_p$, $\rho_p^2$ being a primitive element in $\hatGamma$ and $\rho_p^2\not=\{C_i\}
_{\hatGamma}$.
In the notation of Venkov \[\] the relative hyperbolic conjugacy classes with $\{\rho\}$ with $\tr(\rho)=0$ correspond to the case i), and the relative hyperbolic conjugacy classes with $\{\rho\}$ with $\tr(\rho)\not=0$ correspond to the case ii).
Thus it follows that the sum over conjugacy classes for $\rho\in
\hatGamma\CI$ is divided into first the conjugacy classes of the $C_i$ in $\hatGamma$, which correspond to the closed geodesics $c_i$ on $\widetilde\Sigma$, and second into conjugacy classes such that for all $\rho\in\hatGamma\CI$ there is a unique description $\gamma=k^{-1}
\rho^{2n-1}k$ $(n\in\bbbn)$, for $\rho\in\hatGamma\CI$ inconjugate and primitive, and $k\in\Gamma_{\rho^2}\backslash\widehat \Gamma$.
Let us continue by considering a non-compact polygon. The additional conjugacy classes are again classified according to their trace. The conjugacy class $\tr(\gamma)=2$ with corresponding non-compact Fuchsian group $\hatGamma$ gives the already known parabolic conjugacy classes. Each conjugacy classes with $\tr(\rho)=0$ give rise to an elliptic transformation whose centralizer is generated by a single generator of order two (see above). In other words, for each $\gamma\in\hatGamma$ there exists an element $g\in\PSL(2,\bbbr)$ having the properties $$g\rho g^{-1}=\CI,\qquad
g\hatGamma_\rho g^{-1}
\left\{\bbbone_2,\pmatrix 0 &a\\-1/a &0\endpmatrix
(\mod\pm1)\right\},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $a\geq1$. These classes play the rôle of the parabolic classes in the classical Selberg trace formula. Evaluating all contributions, we can write down
[**Theorem 2.1**]{} \[, , \]: *The Selberg trace formula on arbitrary bordered Riemann surfaces for automorphic forms of weight $m$, $m\in\bbbz$, is given by $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\sum_{n=1}^\infty h(p_n)
&=-{\hatCA\over16\pi^2}
\int_0^\infty{\cosh{um\over2}\over\sinh{u\over2}}g'(u)du
+\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{\chi_{\gamma}^{mk}l_\gamma g(kl_\gamma)\over\sinh{kl_\gamma\over2}}
\\ &\quad+
{i\over4}\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu -1}\chi_{R}^{mk}
{e^{i(m-1)k\pi/\nu}\over\nu\sin(k\pi/\nu)}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty du\,g(u)
{e^{(m-1)u/2}(e^u-e^{2ik\pi/\nu})\over\cosh u+\cos[\pi-2(k\pi/\nu)]}
\\ &\quad-
\viert\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
{\chi^{m(2k+1)}_\rho \chi_\CI^m l_{\rho^2}g[(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}]
\over\cosh{\big[\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}\big]}}
-\half\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{\chi_{C_i}^{mk}l_{C_i}g(kl_{C_i})\over\cosh{kl_{C_i}\over2}}
\\ &\quad+
{g(0)\over2}
\left[\viert\sum_{\scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \tr(\rho)=0}\chi_\rho^{m}
\ln\bigg({a(\rho)\over\nu(\rho)}\bigg)-\tkappa\ln2-{L\over2}\right]
+{\tkappa\over8}h(0)
\\ &\quad-
{\tkappa\over4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty h(p)\Psi(\bhalf+ip)dp
+{\tkappa\over4}\int_0^\infty{g(u)\over\sinh{u\over2}}
\bigg(1-\cosh{um\over2}\bigg)du.
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ with the abbreviation $L=\sum_{i=1}^n l_{C_i}$ and where the $\lambda_n=\viert+p_n^2$ on the left run through the set of all eigenvalues of the Dirichlet problem, and the summation on the right is taken over all primitive conjugacy classes $R\in\hatGamma$ with $\tr(R)<2$, $\gamma\in\hatGamma$ with $\tr(\gamma)>2$, and $\gamma\CI\in\hatGamma$, $\tr(\rho)\not=0$. The lengths $l_{C_i}$ are twofold degenerate, since $C_i$ and $C_i^{-1}$ both have to be included into the sum. $h(p)$ denotes an even function in $p$ and must has the following properties*
[i)]{} $h(p)$ is holomorphic in the strip $|\Im(p)|\leq\half+\epsilon$, $\epsilon>0$.
[ii)]{} $h(p)$ has to decrease faster than $|p|^{-2}$ for $p\to\pm\infty$.
[iii)]{} $g(u)=\pi^{-1}\int_0^\infty h(p)\cos(\pi p)dp$.
height0.02cm depth0.3cm width0.3cm
Note that for Neumann boundary-conditions the inverse-hyperbolic terms change their signs. In this case, however, the parabolic terms are quite different, due to the additional presence of the continuous spectrum represented by Eisenstein-series, see e.g. Ref.\[\].
$a(\rho)$ and $\mu(\rho)$ are quantities specific to the conjugacy class of the elliptic $\gamma\in \hatGamma$ with $\tr(\rho)=0$ which will be explained later on \[c.f. Theorem 4.2\], and we require the following property of the multiplier system $$\tkappa:=\sum_{\{S\}}\chi_S^m
=\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \tr(\rho)=0}\chi_\rho^m.
\tag\NUM.\num$$
=0 by 1
[*1. Super Riemann surfaces and construction of bordered super Riemann surfaces.*]{} We sketch some important facts about super Riemann surfaces. For more details I refer to Batchelor et al. \[, \], DeWitt \[\], Moore, Nelson and Polchinski \[\], Ninnemann \[\], Rabin and Crane \[\], and Rogers \[\]. Let us start with a $(1|1)$ (complex)-dimensional (not necessarily) flat superspace, parameterized by even coordinates $Z\in\bbbc_c$ and odd (Grassmann) coordinates $\theta\in\bbbc_a$, respectively. Let $\Li$ be the infinite dimensional vector space generated by elements $\zeta_a$ $(a=1,2,\dots)$ with basis $1,\zeta_a,\zeta_a\zeta_b,\dots$ $(a<b)$ and the anticommuting relation $\zeta_a\zeta_b=-\zeta_b\zeta_a$, $\forall_{a,b}$. Every $Z\in\Li$ can be decomposed as $Z=Z_B+Z_S$ with $Z_B\in\bbbc_c\equiv\bbbc$, $Z_S=\sum_n{1\over n!}c_{a_1,\dots,a_n}\zeta^{a_n}\dots\zeta^{a_1}$, with the $c_{a_1,\dots,a_n}\in\bbbc_a$ totally antisymmetric. $Z_B$ and $Z_S$, respectively, are called the [*body*]{} (sometimes denoted by $Z_B=Z_{red}$) and [*soul*]{} of the supernumber $Z$, respectively. The notion of superspace and supermanifolds as introduced by Batchelor and Bryant \[, \], DeWitt \[\], Rabin and Crane \[\], and Rogers \[\] enables one to represent supersymmetry transformations as pure geometric transformations in the coordinates $Z=(z,\theta)\in\bbbc_c\times\bbbc_a$. As is well-known, a usual complex manifold of complex dimension equal to one is already a Riemann surface. The definition of a super Riemann surface, however, requires the introduction of a super-conformal structure. Let us consider the operator $D=\theta\partial_z+\partial_\theta$ (note $D^2=\partial_z$). Further we consider a general superanalytic coordinate transformation $\widetilde z=\widetilde z(z,\theta)$, $\widetilde\theta
=\widetilde\theta(z,\theta)$. A superanalytic coordinate transformation is called superconformal, iff the $(0|1)$-dimensional subspace of the tangential space generated by the action of $D$ is invariant under such a coordinate transformation, i.e.$D=(D\widetilde\theta)\widetilde D$. This means that a coordinate transformation is super-conformal iff $Dz'=\theta'D\theta'$.
To study supersymmetric field theories one needs even and odd superfields. Here now the definition of DeWitt \[\] of super Riemann manifolds conveniently comes into play. The infinity dimensional algebra $\Li$ supplies all the required quantities. Domains in $\bbbc^{(1|1)}$ with coordinates $(z,\theta)$ are constructed in such a way that the entire Grassmann algebra are attached to the usual complex coordinates. If one considers the universal family of DeWitt super Riemann manifolds with genus $g$, then only $2g-2$ parameters of $\Li$ are required, the remaining ones are redundant.
An important property we need in our investigations is, when a supermanifold is split. This means that for a coordinate transformation $Z\to Z'$ ($Z,Z'\in\Li$) the coefficient functions do not mix which each other. Let $x$ be usual local coordinates, and $\zeta\in\Li$ local Grassmann coordinates, then if a supermanifold is split then there is a global isomorphism such that the coefficient functions $y$ and $\eta$ of a super-functions $F(x,\zeta)$ transform according to $$\left.
\aligned
y &=a_0(x)+a_{ij}(x){\zeta}^i{\zeta}^j+\dots,
\\
\eta&=b_{1,i}(x){\zeta}^i+b_{3,ijk}(x){\zeta}^i{\zeta}^j{\zeta}^k+\dots,
\endaligned\quad\to\quad\aligned
&a_0'(x')+a_{ij}'(x'){\zeta'}^i{\zeta'}^j+\dots,
\\
&b_{1,i}'(x'){\zeta'}^i+b_{3,ijk}'(x')
{\zeta'}^i{\zeta'}^j{\zeta'}^k+\dots,
\endaligned\qquad\right\}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ for $Z\to Z'$. Due to a theorem of Batchelor \[\] every differentiable supermanifold is split, and in particular every complex supermanifold of dimension $(d|1)$. The super Riemann surfaces in question can be seen as complex a $(1|1)$-dimensional supermanifold, respectively a real $(2|2)$-dimensional manifold, where the coordinate transformations are super-conformal mappings \[\].
To generalize the uniformization theorem for Riemann surfaces to super Riemann surfaces $\CM$, one shows that unique generalizations $\widehatC^{(1|1)}$, $\bbbc^{(1|1)}$ and $\CH^{(1|1)}:=
\{(z,\theta)\in\bbbc^{(1|1)} |\Im(z)>0\}$ of simple connected Riemann surfaces exist, and endows $U=\widehatC^{(1|1)}$, $\bbbc^{(1|1)}$ and $\CH^{(1|1)}$, respectively, with a super-conformal structure, such that the local coordinate transformations are super-conformal mappings \[\].
In the case of non-euclidean harmonic analysis in the context of super Riemann surfaces we consider the group $\OSp(2,\bbbc)$ of super conformal automorphisms on super Riemann surfaces as a natural generalization of Möbius transformations. They have the form $$\multline
\OSp(2,1;\bbbc_c^2\times\bbbc_a):=\left\{
\gamma=\pmatrix
a &b &\chi_\gamma(b\alpha-a\beta) \\
c &d &\chi_\gamma(d\alpha-c\beta) \\
\alpha &\beta &\chi_\gamma(1-\alpha\beta) \endpmatrix\right|
a,b,c,d\in\bbbc_c;
\hfill\\ \hfill
\alpha,\beta\in\bbbc_a;\,ad-bc=1+\alpha\beta;
\,\sdet \gamma=\chi_\gamma\in\{\pm1\}\Bigg\}
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ ($\alpha,\,\beta$ real, with the complex conjugate rules $\overline{f+g}
=\bar f+\bar g$, and $\overline{f\cdot g}=\bar f\cdot\bar g$). Its generators are the operators $L_0$, $L_1$, $L_{-1}$, $G_{1/2}$ and $G_{-1/2}$ of the Neveu-Schwarz sector of the super Virasoro algebra of the fermionic string. Elements $\gamma\in \OSp(2,1;\bbbc_c^2\times\bbbc_
a)$ act on elements $x=(z_1,z_2,\xi)\in \bbbc_c^2\times\bbbc_a\setminus
\{0\}$ by matrix multiplication, i.e. $x'=\gamma x$. By means of a local coordinate system $(z,\theta)=(z_1/z_2,\xi/z_2)$ and the requirements of superconformal transformation the local coordinate transformations are fixed and the super Möbius transformations explicitly have the form \[, , , , \] $$z'={az+b\over cz+d}+\theta{\alpha z+\beta\over(cz+d)^2},\qquad
\theta'={\alpha+\beta z\over cz+d}
+{\chi_\gamma\theta\over cz+d}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The $\chi_\gamma$ with $\chi_\gamma=\pm1$ lead to the description of spin structures on a super Riemann surface. The transformation factor of the $D$ operator yields to $$F_\gamma:=(D\theta')^{-1}=\chi_\gamma(cz+d+\delta\theta),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with $\delta=\chi_\gamma\sqrt{1+\alpha\beta}\,(\alpha d+\beta c)$. This general super-Möbius transformation does mix the coefficient functions of superfunctions $F\in\Li$. Since we required that the super Riemann surfaces in question is split, the odd quantities $\alpha,\beta$ are not necessary and can be omitted. It is sufficient to consider transformations $\gamma\in\OSp(2,1)$ with $\alpha=\beta=0$ and the characters $\chi_\gamma$ which describe spin structures. Furthermore $\gamma$ and $-\gamma$ describe the same transformation. We thus have that the automorphisms on $\SCH$ are given by $$\Aut\SCH={\OSp(2|1,\bbbr)\over\{\pm\bbbone\}}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and a super Fuchsian group $\Gamma$ denotes a discrete subgroup of $\Aut\SCH$. Therefore we obtain for the transformations $z\to z'$ and $\theta\to\theta'$ \[, \] $$z'={az+b\over cz+d},\qquad
\theta'={\chi_\gamma\theta\over cz+d}\enspace,
\tag\NUM.\num$$ \[here $F_\gamma=\chi_\gamma(cz+d)$\]. $M_{\xi=0}$ corresponds to the usual Riemann surface $M_{red}$ with some spin-structure, since a $\gamma\in\Aut\SCH$ is fixed by a $\PSL(2,\bbbr)$ transformation and a character $\chi_\gamma=\pm1$. The properties of the odd coordinates is determined by the properties of $M_{red}$ and $\theta$ is the cut of a spinor-bundle.
[*2. Dirac-Laplace operators and conjugacy classes on super Riemann surfaces.*]{} We need some further ingredients. Let us introduce the quantities $N_\gamma$ and $l_\gamma$ $$2\cosh{l_\gamma\over2}=N_\gamma^{1/2}+N_\gamma^{-{1/2}}
=a+d+\chi_\gamma\alpha\beta.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $N_\gamma$ is called [*norm*]{} of an hyperbolic $\gamma\in\Gamma$ in a (general) super Fuchsian group, and $N_{\gamma_0}$ will denote the norm of a primitive hyperbolic $\gamma\in\Gamma$, and $l_\gamma=\ln
N_{\gamma}$ denotes the [*length*]{} corresponding to a $\gamma\in\Gamma$ and all notions from the bosonic case are interpreted in a straightforward way into their super generalization. Each element $\gamma\in\Gamma/ \{\pm\bbbone\}$ is thus uniquely described as $\gamma=k^{-1} \gamma_0k$ for some primitive $\gamma_0$, $n\in\bbbn$ and $k\in\Gamma/ \Gamma_{\gamma_0}$. For $\OSp(2,\bbbr)/\{\pm\bbbone\}$ in homogeneous coordinates a hyperbolic transformation is always conjugate to the transformation $z'=N_\gamma z,\ \theta'=
\chi_\gamma\sqrt{N_\gamma} \,\theta$, or in matrix representation $$\hbox{hyperbolic $\gamma\in\Gamma$ conjugate to}\qquad
\pmatrix N_\gamma^{1/2} &0 &0 \\
0 &N_\gamma^{-{1/2}} &0 \\
0 &0 &\chi_\gamma
\endpmatrix.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Hyperbolic transformations are also called dilatations.
The generators of a particular super Fuchsian group of a super Riemann surface with genus $g$ obey the constraint $$(\gamma_0\gamma_1^{-1}\dots\gamma_{2g-2}\gamma_{2g-1}^{-1})
(\gamma_0^{-1}\gamma_1\dots\gamma_{2g-2}^{-1}\gamma_{2g-1})=
\bbbone_{2|1}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ In order to construct explicitly a metric on $\SCH$ one starts with the super Vierbeins in flat superspace and performs a super Weyl transformation \[\] to obtain the metric $ds^2=dq^a{_a}g_bdq^b$ in $\SCH$ \[\]. The scalar product has the form $$(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)=\int_\SCH{dzd\bar zd\theta d\bar\theta\over 2Y}
\Phi_1(Z)\bar\Phi_2(Z)
\equiv\int_\SCH dV(Z)\Phi_1(Z)\bar\Phi_2(Z),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ for super functions $\Phi_1,\Phi_2\in L^2(\SCH)$ and $Y=y+
i\theta\bar\theta/2=y+\theta_1\theta_2$ $(\theta=\theta_1+i\theta_2$). We have one even and one odd point pair invariant given by \[, , \] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
R(Z,W)&={|z-w-\theta\nu|^2\over YV}
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
r(Z,W)&=i{2\theta\bar\theta+(\nu+\bar\nu)(\theta-\bar\theta)\over4Y}
+i{2\nu\bar\nu+(\theta+\bar\theta)(\nu-\bar\nu)\over4V}
\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad
+{(\nu-\bar\nu)(\theta-\bar\theta)\Re(z-w-\theta\nu)\over4YV}
\tag\NUM.\num a\\ &
={(\theta_1-\nu_1)\theta_2\over y}+{(\nu_1-\theta_1)\nu_2\over v}
+{\theta_2\nu_2\Re(z-w-\theta\nu)\over4YV}
\tag\NUM.\num b\endalign$$ ($Z,W\in\SCH$, $W=(w,\nu)=(u+iv,\nu_1+i\nu_2), V=v+i\nu\bar\nu/2$) as derived form classical mechanics on the Poincaré super upper half-plane \[, , \]. We introduce the Dirac-Laplace operators $\square_m$ and $\hsquare_m$, respectively \[, \] $$\square_m=2YD\bar D+im(\bar\theta-\theta)\bar D,\qquad
\hsquare_m=2YD\bar D+{im\over2}(\bar\theta-\theta)(D+\bar D),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and $\square_m$ and $\hsquare_m$ are related by a linear isomorphism $\square_m=Y^{-m/2}(\hsquare_m+im/2)Y^{m/2}$. Particularly we have for $m=0$ $$\hsquare_0=\square_0\equiv\square
=2Y(\partial_\theta\partial_{\bar\theta}
+\theta\bar\theta\partial_z\partial_{\bar z}
+\theta\partial_{\bar\theta}\partial_z
-\bar\theta\partial_\theta\partial_{\bar z}).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ With the notation $-\Delta_m=-4y^2\partial_z\partial_{\bar z}
+imy\partial_x=-y^2(\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2)+imy\partial_x$ we obtain for a super function $$\Psi(Z,\bar Z)=A(z,\bar z)+{\theta\bar\theta\over y}B(z,\bar z)
+{1\over\sqrt{y}}\Big(\theta\chi(z,\bar z)
+\bar\theta\widetilde\chi(z,\bar z)\Big)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ the following equivalence \[, , \] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\hsquare_m\Psi(Z,\bar Z)
&=s\Psi(Z,\bar Z)
\\
&\Longleftrightarrow\left\{\aligned
&-\Delta_{m}A(z,\bar z)=s(s+i)A(z,\bar z),
\\
&B(z,\bar z)={s\over2}A(z,\bar z),
\\
&\bigg(s-{im\over2}\bigg)\widetilde\chi(z,\bar z)
=-2y\partial_{\bar z}\chi(z,\bar z)+{i\over2}(m+1)\chi(z,\bar z)
\\
&-\Delta_{(m+1)}\chi(z,\bar z)=\bigg(\viert+s^2\bigg)\chi(z,\bar z).
\endaligned\right.
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ An explicit solution of Eq.() for $m=0$ on the entire $\SCH$ is given by \[\] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\Phi_{p,k}(z,\bar z,\theta,\bar\theta)
&=\sqrt{2i\sinh\pi p\over \pi^3}\,
\bigg(1-i{1+2ip\over4y}\theta\bar\theta\bigg)
\sqrt{y}\,e^{ikx}K_{ip}(|k|y)
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
\phi_{p,k}(z,\bar z,\theta,\bar\theta)
&=\sqrt{\cos[\pi(c+ip)]\over2\pi^2(c+ip)^{\sigma_k-1}}
{e^{ikx}\over\sqrt{y}}
\\ &\qquad\times
\Big[\theta W_{\sigma_k/2,c+ip}(2|k|y)
+i(c+ip)^{\sigma_k}\bar\theta W_{-\sigma_k/2,c+ip}(2|k|y)\Big]
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ with $s=-i(\half+ip)$, $\sigma_k=\sign(k)$, $(k\not=0)$, and $c\in\bbbr$, $|c|\leq\half$. $K_\nu$ and $W_{\mu,\nu}$ denote modified Bessel- and Whittaker-functions, respectively. Due to the particular form of the differential equation for $\Phi(Z,\bar Z)$ we see that the solutions can be characterised by their parity with respect to the coordinate $x$, i.e. they can have even and odd parity with respect to $x$.
I have proposed in II similarly as for the hyperbolic $T\in\Gamma$, elliptic and parabolic $T\in\Gamma$, and appropriate super fundamental domains $\SCF$, a decomposition of an appropriate $T\in\Gamma$ as follows \[\] $$\multline
(\hbox{$T\in\Gamma$ conjugate to)}\qquad
\gamma\times R\times S
=\pmatrix N_\gamma^{1/2} &0 &0 \\
0 &N_\gamma^{-{1/2}} &0 \\
0 &0 &\chi_\gamma
\endpmatrix
\\ \times \pmatrix
\cos\phi &-\sin\phi &0 \\
\sin\phi &\cos\phi &0 \\
0 &0 &\chi_R
\endpmatrix\cdot\pmatrix
1 &n &0 \\
0 &1 &0 \\
0 &0 &\chi_S \endpmatrix,
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with $n\in\bbbn$ and $0<\phi<\pi$, and $\gamma,\,R$ and $S$, respectively, denote hyperbolic, elliptic and parabolic transformations, acting by matrix multiplication \[c.f. p.\]. The body $\CF$ of a fundamental domain $\SCF$ has according to \[\] $4g+2s+2\kappa$ sides, the boundaries being geodesics, of course. We also maintain the notion of $\chi_T$ irrespective, whether $T\in\Gamma$ is hyperbolic, elliptic or parabolic, respectively, and we choose $\chi_T$ according to the spin structure of the super Riemann surface in question. For a super Riemann surface of genus $g$ there are obviously $2^{(\#
generators)}=2^{(2g+s+\kappa)}$ possible spin structures.
The constraint () is altered due to the presence of of elliptic fixed points and cusps according to \[, \] $$(\gamma_0\gamma_1^{-1}\dots\gamma_{2g-2}\gamma_{2g-1}^{-1})
(\gamma_0^{-1}\gamma_1\dots\gamma_{2g-2}^{-1}\gamma_{2g-1})
R_1\dots R_s S_1\dots S_\kappa=\bbbone_{2|1}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$
[*3. Construction of bordered super Riemann surfaces.*]{} Because it is sufficient to consider super Riemann surfaces without odd parameters we can propose a construction of a bordered super Riemann surface. To construct a bordered super Riemann surface we take the construction of a usual bordered Riemann surface and endow it with the Grassmann algebra $\Li$. Because we know how to define a closed super Riemann surface, we take $\widehat\Sigma$ and enlarge it to $\widehat\Sigma^{(1|1)}$ together with its corresponding super Fuchsian group $\hatGamma^{(1|1)}$ constructed from $\hatGamma$ and the super fundamental domain $\hatSCF$. A convenient way to introduce the super-analogue of the involution $\CI$ turns out to be the [*super involution*]{} $$\left.\aligned
\CI Z &=\CI(z,\theta)=(-\bar z,-i\bar\theta),
\\
\CI\bar Z &=\CI(\bar z,\bar\theta)=(-z,-i\theta)
\endaligned\qquad\qquad\right\}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ respectively $\CI(z,\theta_1,\theta_2)=(-\bar z,-i\theta_1,i\theta_2)$. It has the properties $$\CI D=i\bar D,\qquad \CI\bar D=iD.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Note $\CI^4Z=Z$ and $\CI^4D=D$. Furthermore for the Dirac-Laplace operator $\hsquare_m$ we have $$\CI\,\hsquare_m=\hsquare_{-m}=\overline{\hsquare_m}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$
Similarly as for the usual bordered Riemann surface where $\Sigma=
\widehat\Sigma\backslash\CI$, we then define the bordered super Riemann surface $\Sigma^{(1|1)}$ as $\Sigma^{(1|1)}=\widehat\Sigma^{(1|1)}
\backslash\CI$. The corresponding discs $d_1^{(1|1)}, \dots,$ $d_n^{(1|1)}$ then are super-conformal non-overlapping superdiscs seen as usual conformal non-overlapping discs endowed with the Grassmann algebra $\Li$. The particular form of the involution () enables us to work directly on the fundamental domains $\hatSCF$. The super Fuchsian group $\hatGamma$ is consequently a symmetric super Fuchsian group.
[*4. The Selberg supertrace formula for hyperbolic conjugacy classes.*]{} Turning to the Selberg supertrace formula, let us introduce the Selberg super operator $L$ by \[-, \] $$\left.\aligned
(L\phi)(Z)&=\int_{\SCH}dV(W)k_m(Z,W)\phi(W),
\\
k_m(Z,W)&=J^m(Z,W)\big\{\Phi[R(Z,W)]+r(Z,W)\Psi[R(Z,W)]\big\},
\\
J^m(Z,W)&=\left({z-\bar w-\theta\bar\nu
\over\bar z-w-\bar\theta\nu}\right)^{m/2}.
\endaligned\qquad\qquad\right\}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $k_m(Z,W)$ is the integral kernel of an operator valued function of the Dirac-Laplace operator $\square_m$ (respectively $\hsquare_m$), and $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are sufficiently decreasing functions at infinity. Note $J^m(\gamma Z,\gamma W)=j(\gamma,Z)J^m(Z,W)j^{-1}(\gamma, W)$ with $j(\gamma,Z)$ given by $j(\gamma,Z)=(F_\gamma/|F_\gamma|)^m$, where $F_\gamma=D\theta'$ \[, \]. We have $j(\gamma\sigma,Z)=j(\gamma,\sigma Z)j(\sigma,Z)$ ($\forall
\gamma,\sigma\in\Gamma$ and $Z\in\SCH$). A superautomorphic form $f(Z)$ is then defined by \[, \] $f(\gamma Z)=j(\gamma,Z)f(Z)$ $(\forall\gamma\in\Gamma)$. The super-automorphic kernel is defined as $$K(Z,W)=\half\sum_{\{\gamma\}}k_m(Z,\gamma W)j(\gamma,W),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ (“$\half$” because both $\gamma$ and $-\gamma$ have to be included in the sum) i.e. $(L\phi)(z)=[h(\square_m)](z)$. $L$ is acting on super-automorphic functions $f(Z)$.
For the point pair invariants we find for the action of $\CI$ $$\left.\aligned
R(Z,\CI W)&=R(\CI Z,W)
\\
r(Z,\CI W)&=\overline{r(\CI Z,W)},
\endaligned\qquad\qquad\right\}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ furthermore $J(Z,\CI W)=\overline{J(\CI Z,W)}$, and due to the construction of $k_m$ $$k_m(Z,\CI W)=\overline{k_m(\CI Z, W)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$
Let $f$ be a super-automorphic function with $f(\gamma Z)=j(\gamma,Z)
f(Z)$ and $g=Lf$. Let $\SCFg$ a fundamental domain of $\gamma\in\Gamma$ whose body equals $\rSCF=\CF$ (and is constructed in the same sense as the generalization $\SCH$ of $\CH$). The expansion into hyperbolic conjugacy classes yields $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\str(L)
&=\int_\SCFg dV(Z)K(Z,Z)
\\
&=\int_\SCFg\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}k_m(Z,\gamma Z)dV(Z)
={i^m\over2}\CA\,\Phi(0)
+\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\gamma\}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\gamma)+\chi_\gamma>2}
\chi_\gamma^mA(\gamma).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Here I have assumed without loss of generality $a+d\geq0$ for a $\gamma\in\hatGamma$, since $\Aut\SCH=\OSp(2|1,\bbbr)/\{\pm\bbbone\}$. The first term corresponds to the identity transformation (zero-length term) and the second $A(\gamma)$ is given by $$A(\gamma)=\chi_\gamma^{-m}\int_\SCFg
k_m(Z,\gamma Z)j(\gamma,W)dV(Z).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ In Refs.\[, \] these two terms corresponding to the identity transformation and hyperbolic conjugacy classes, respectively, were calculated, i.e. I have discussed in detail
[**Theorem 3.1**]{} \[-, \]: *The Selberg supertrace formula for $m$-weighted Dirac-Laplace operators on closed super Riemann surfaces for hyperbolic conjugacy classes is given by: $$\multline
\!\!\!\!
\sum_{n=0}^\infty\bigg[h\bigg({1+m\over2}+ip_n^{(B)}\bigg)
-h\bigg({1+m\over2}+ip_n^{(F)}\bigg)\bigg]
=-{\CA(\CF)\over4\pi}\int_0^\infty{g(u)-g(-u)\over\sinh{u\over2}}
\cosh\bigg({um\over2}\bigg)\,du
\hfill\\
+\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{l_\gamma\chi_\gamma^{mk}\over2\sinh{kl_\gamma\over2}}
\bigg[g(kl_\gamma)+g(-kl_\gamma)
-\chi_\gamma^k\bigg(g(kl_\gamma)e^{-kl_\gamma/2}
+g(-kl_\gamma)e^{kl_\gamma/2}\bigg)\bigg].
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The test function $h$ is required to have the following properties*
[i)]{} $h({1+m\over2}+ip)\in C^\infty(\bbbr)$,
[ii)]{} $h({1+m\over2}+ip)$ need not to be an even function in $p$,
[iii)]{} $h(p)$ vanishes faster than $1/|p|$ for $p\to\pm\infty$.
[iv)]{} $h({1+m\over2}+ip)$ is holomorphic in the strip $\Im(p)\leq1
+{m\over2}+\epsilon$, $\epsilon>0$, to guarantee absolute convergence in the summation over $\{\gamma\}$.
The above Selberg supertrace formula () is valid for discrete hyperbolic conjugacy classes and in this case the noneuclidean area of the (“bosonic”) fundamental domain is $\CA=4\pi(g-1)$. The Fourier transformation $g$ of $h$ is given by $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
g(u)&={1\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
h\bigg({1+m\over2}+ip\bigg)e^{-iup}dp
\\ &
=\viert\int_{4\sinh^2{u\over2}}^\infty {dx\over(x+4)^{m/2}}
\left\{{\Psi(x)+2(e^u-1)\Phi'(x)\over\sqrt{x-4\sinh^2{u\over2}}}
\big[\alpha_+^m(x,u)+\alpha_-^m(x,u)\big]
\right.\\ &\left.
\vphantom{{\Psi(x)+2(e^u-1)\Phi'(x)\over\sqrt{x-4\sinh^2{u\over2}}}}
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-ime^{u/2}\Phi(x){\alpha_+^m(x,u)-\alpha_-^m(x,u)\over x+4}\right\},
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where $\alpha_{\pm}^m(x,u)= \left(\pm\sqrt{x-4\sinh^2{u\over2}}
-2i\cosh{u\over2}\right)^{m/2}$. Specific trace formulæ, in particular for the heat kernel were considered by Aoki \[\], Oshima \[\], Yasui \[, \] and Uehara and Yasui \[\], as well as an explicit evaluation for the energy dependent resolvent kernel for the operator $\hsquare^2$ \[, \]. From Eq.() an explicit formula for $\Phi(x)$ can be derived \[\] which has the form $$i^m\Phi(x)={1\over\pi\sqrt{x+4}}\int_x^\infty
{dy\over\sqrt{y+4}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty Q_1'(y+t^2)
\left({\sqrt{y+t^2+4}-t\over\sqrt{y+t^2+4}+t}\right)^{m/2}dt,
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with $Q_1(w)=2\coth{u\over2}[g(u)-g(-u)]$, $w=4\sinh^2{u\over2}$. Let us consider the combination $$\multline
g(u)e^{-u/2}-g(-u)e^{u/2}={i^m\over2}\sinh{u\over2}
\\ \times
\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\xi
\left({\sqrt{w+4}+i\xi\over\sqrt{w+4}-i\xi}\right)^{m/2}
\bigg[4\Phi'(w+\xi^2)-\Psi(w+\xi^2)\bigg].
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ We define $Q_3(w)=2[g(u)e^{-u/2}-g(-u)e^{u/2}]/\sinh{u\over2}$ and obtain the general inversion formula for $\Psi(x)$ $$i^m\Psi(x)=4i^m\Phi'(x)+{1\over\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty Q_3'(x+t^2)
\left({\sqrt{x+4+t^2}-t\over\sqrt{x+4+t^2}-t}\right)^{m/2}dt.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Alternatively, this can be rewritten as $$i^m\Psi(x)=-{i^m\Phi(x)\over2(x+4)}
+{1\over\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\left({\sqrt{x+4+t^2}-t\over\sqrt{x+4+t^2}-t}\right)^{m/2}
\bigg[Q_3'(x+t^2)-{Q_1'(x+t^2)\over x+4}\bigg]dt.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ For $m=0$ we obtain simple inversion formulæ for $\Phi(t)$ and $\Psi(t)$, respectively $$\Phi(t)=-{1\over\pi}\int_t^\infty{Q_1(w)dw\over(w+4)\sqrt{w-t}},
\qquad
\Psi(t)=-{1\over2\pi}\int_t^\infty{Q_2'(w)dw\over\sqrt{w-t}},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with $Q_2(w)=2[g(u)e^{-u/2}+g(-u)e^{u/2}]/\cosh{u\over2}$. The incorporation of the elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes was discussed in Ref.\[\] and is not repeated here.
=0 by 1
I first proceed by considering the Selberg supertrace formula where the body of the underlying fundamental domain is compact, and second where it is non-compact. Let us consider the super-automorphic Selberg operator with Dirichlet boundary-conditions $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
(\widehat Lf)(Z)
&=\viert\int_{\SCH}dV(W)[k_m(Z,W)-k_m(Z,\CI W)]f(W)
\\
&=\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}
\int_{\gamma\hatSCFg}dV(W)[k_m(Z,W)-k_m(Z,\CI W)]f(W)
\\
&=\half\int_{\hatSCFg}dV(W) K(Z,W)f(W),
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where $$K(Z,W)=\half\sum_{\{\gamma\}}[k_m(Z,\gamma W)-k_m(Z,\gamma\CI W)]
\tag\NUM.\num$$ is the super-automorphic kernel on bordered super Riemann surfaces. Now we have for a superfunction $\phi$ which is odd with respect to $x$ $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\half&\int_{\hatSCFg}dV(W) K(Z,\CI W)\phi(W)
\\ &=\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\int_{\hatSCFg}dV(W)
k_m(Z,\gamma \CI W)\phi(W)
\\ &=-\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\int_{\hatSCFg}dV(\CI W)
k_m(Z,\gamma W)\phi(W)
\\ &=-\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\int_{\gamma\hatSCFg}dV(\CI W)
k_m(Z,W)\phi(W)
\\ &=\half\int_{\SCH}dV(W)k_m(Z,\CI W)\phi(W)
\\ &=\half\int_{\SCH}dV(W)\overline{k(\CI Z,W)}\phi(W)
=\half\overline{(L\bar\phi)(\CI Z)},
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ due to the properties of the super Selberg operator. Let now $\Phi$ be an eigenfunction of $\,\hsquare_m$ which is odd with respect to $x$, i.e. $\hsquare_m\Phi=s\Phi$. Then $\overline{s\Phi}=\bar
s\bar\Phi=\hsquare_{-m}\bar\Phi$ and $\bar\Phi$ is an odd eigenfunction of $\hsquare_{-m}$ with eigenvalue $\bar s$. Denote by $\widehat L$ the Selberg super operator on the super Riemann surface $\widehat\Sigma$; let $(L\phi)(Z)=\Lambda(s)\phi(Z)$ and $\overline{(L\bar\phi)(\CI Z)}
=\overline{\Lambda'(\bar s)}\phi(\CI Z)$ on $\Sigma$ and $\CI\Sigma$, respectively. Then $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
(\widehat L\phi)(Z)
&=\half(L\phi)(Z)-\half\overline{(L\bar\phi)(\CI Z)}
\\
&=\half\Lambda(s)\phi(Z)-\half\overline{\Lambda'(\bar s)}\phi(\CI Z)
=\half\Big[\Lambda(s)+\Lambda'(s)\Big]\phi(Z).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ The equivalence relation () shows that the eigenvalue problem for the operator $\hsquare_m$ is closely related to the eigenvalue problem of the operator $-\Delta_{m}$, both for eigenfunctions which are even or odd with respect to $x$. Now, an odd eigenfunction of $-\Delta_{m}$ is also an odd eigenfunction of $-\Delta_{-m}$, and the solution of the corresponding differential equations depend only on $m^2$ but not on $m$ \[, pp.266-68; , pp.203-5\], hence, the spectrum depends only on $|m|$ (compare also \[\]). Therefore we conclude that a with-respect-to-$x$ odd eigenfunction of $\square_m$ is also a with-respect-to-$x$ odd eigenfunction of $\CI\,\square_m$ with the eigenvalue $\bar s$, furthermore $\Lambda=\Lambda'$ \[\], and we can infer \[together with the usual identification $h(p)=\Lambda(\half+ip)]$ $$(\widehat L\phi)(Z)=h(p)\phi(z).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Let $Z_\Gamma(\gamma)$ the centralizer of a $\gamma\in\Gamma$. For $\str(\widehat L)$ we obtain on the one hand $$\str(\widehat L)=\sum_n\Big[h(p_n^{(B)})-h(p_n^{(F)})\Big],
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $s_n^{(B,F)}=\half+ip_n^{(B,F)}$ are the bosonic and fermionic eigenvalues, respectively, of $\square_m$. \[According to Eq.() we should consequently write $s=-i(\half+ip)$, which looks, however, somewhat artificial and is therefore not adopted.\] On the other we have $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\str(\widehat L)
&=\half\int_{\hatSCFg}dV(W) K(Z,Z)
\\
&=\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}
\int_{\hatSCFg}[k_m(Z,\gamma Z)-k_m(Z,\gamma\CI Z)]dV(Z),
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where $\hatSCF(\gamma)$ denotes the fundamental region for the super Fuchsian group $Z_\Gamma(\gamma)$, the centralizer of $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
[*1) $\hrSCF$ is compact.*]{} For convenience we set $\rho=\gamma\CI$ and use the classification of the inverse-hyperbolic transformations according to $\rho\in\bGamma
\CI$, respectively, $\rho^2\in\bGamma$. We generalize the result of the conjugacy classes for the usual case of bordered Riemann surfaces and consider the two cases i) and ii) for the conjugacy classes in $\gamma\CI$ (c.f. p.). The expansion into the conjugacy classes yields for the Selberg super operator for Dirichlet boundary-conditions \[c.f. the discussion following Eq.()\] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\str(\widehat L)&=
\half\int_\hatSCFg\sum_{\{\gamma\}}
\Big[k_m(Z,\gamma Z)-k_m(Z,\gamma\CI Z)\Big]dV(Z)
\\ &
={\hatCA\over4}\,\Phi(0)
+\half\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\int_{\hatSCF(\gamma)} k_m(Z,\gamma Z)
-
\half\sum_{\{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,hyp}}
\int_{\hatSCF(\rho)} k_m(Z,\rho Z).
\\ &
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Let us consider the involution term. We obtain $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\sum_{\gamma\in\bGamma}
&\int_\hatSCFg dV(Z)k_m[Z,\CI Z)]
\\ &=\sum_{\rho\in\bGamma\CI}\int_\hatSCFg dV(Z)k_m(Z,\rho Z)
=:\sum_{\rho\in\bGamma\CI}A(\rho)
\\ &=\sum_{\rho_p}\sum_{k=0}^\infty A(\rho_p^{2k+1})
+\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{\rho_i}\sum_{k=0}^\infty A(\rho_i^{2k+1}).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Now observe $$k_m(\gamma Z,\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z)
=k_m(Z,\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z)
j(\gamma,Z)j^{-1}(\gamma,\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
j(\rho^{2k+1}\gamma,Z)
&=j(\gamma,Z)j(\rho^{2k+1},\gamma Z)
=j(\gamma\cdot\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma, Z)
\\ &=j(\gamma,\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z)
j(\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma, Z).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ We then get $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\sum_\rho\sum_{k=0}^\infty A(\rho^{2k+1})
&=\sum_{\{\rho\}}
\sum_{\sigma\in\{\rho\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\int_{\hatSCF}dV(Z) k_m(Z,\sigma^{2k+1}Z)
\\ &=\sum_{\{\rho\}}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\rho^2}\backslash\bGamma}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{\hatSCF}dV(Z)
k_m(Z,\gamma^{-1}\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z)
\\ &=\sum_{\{\rho\}}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\rho^2}\backslash\bGamma}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \int_{\hatSCF}dV(Z)
j(\rho^{2k+1},\gamma Z)k(\gamma Z,\rho^{2k+1}\gamma Z)
\\ &=\sum_{\{\rho\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\rho^2}\backslash\bGamma}
j(\rho^{2k+1},Z)\int_{\gamma\hatSCF}dV(Z)k_m(Z,\rho^{2k+1} Z)
\\ &=\sum_{\{\rho\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\int_{\Gamma_{\rho^2}\backslash\CH}dV(Z)
j(\rho^{2k+1},Z)k_m(Z,\rho^{2k+1} Z).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ By an overall conjugation in $\OSp(2|1,\bbbr)$ we can arrange for $\gamma$ to be a dilatation, i.e. $\rho z=-\sqrt{N}\,\bar z$ and $\nu_1=\rho\theta_1=-\chi_\rho N^{1/4}\theta_1$, $\nu_2=\rho\theta_2=-\chi_\rho N^{1/4}\theta_2$. Similarly as in the usual hyperbolic case \[\] we find for the two-point invariants \[$M=N^{k+1/2}$\] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
R(Z,\rho Z)&={|z+M\bar z|^2\over My^2}
\bigg(1-{2\theta_1\theta_2\over y}\bigg)
\equiv R_0\bigg(1-{2\theta_1\theta_2\over y}\bigg)
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
r(Z,\rho Z)&={\theta_1\theta_2\over y}
\Big[2+\chi(M^{1/2}+M^{-1/2})\Big].
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Furthermore $j(\rho^{2k+1},Z)=\chi_\rho^{(2k+1)m}$ and $$J^m(Z,\rho^{2k+1}Z)
=\bigg({\zeta+2i\cosh{u\over2}\over\zeta-2i\cosh{u\over2}}\bigg)^{m/2}
\bigg(1-{2im\chi^{2k+1}_\rho\zeta\theta_1\theta_2\over
y(\zeta^2+4\cosh^2{u\over2})}\bigg),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $\zeta=2x\cosh{u\over2}/y$ and $u=(2k+1)\ln\sqrt{M}=(k+1/2)
l_{\rho^2}$. The evaluation of the conjugacy classes $\{\rho\}$ is straightforward and similar to the usual hyperbolic case. Evaluating the relevant terms we obtain
[**Theorem 4.1**]{}: *The Selberg supertrace formula for $m$-weighted Dirac-Laplace operators $\square_m$ on compact bordered super Riemann surfaces with Dirichlet boundary-conditions is given by: $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\Big[h(p_n^{(B)})-h(p_n^{(F)})\Big]
=-{\hatCA\over4\pi}\int_0^\infty{g(u)-g(-u)\over\sinh{u\over2}}
\cosh\bigg({um\over2}\bigg)\,du
\\ &
+\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{\chi_\gamma^{km}l_\gamma\over\sinh{kl_\gamma\over2}}
\bigg[g(kl_\gamma)+g(-kl_\gamma)
-\chi_\gamma^k\bigg(g(kl_\gamma)e^{-kl_\gamma/2}
+g(-kl_\gamma/2)e^{kl_\gamma/2}\bigg)\bigg]
\\ &
-\viert\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
{\chi_{\rho^2}^{(k+1/2)m}l_{\rho^2}
\over\cosh\big[\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}\big]}
\bigg\{g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}
\bigg(g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{-\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}\bigg)\bigg\}
\\ &
-\half\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{\chi_{C_i}^{km}l_{C_i}
\over\cosh{kl_{C_i}\over2}}\bigg[g(kl_{C_i})+g(-kl_{C_i})
-\chi_{C_i}^k\bigg(g(kl_{C_i})e^{-kl_{C_i}/2}
+g(-kl_{C_i})e^{kl_{C_i}/2}\bigg)\bigg],
\\ &\quad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where $\lambda_n^{(B,F)}=\half+ip_n^{(B,F)}$ on the left runs through the set of all eigenvalues of this Dirichlet problem, and the summation on the right is taken over all primitive conjugacy classes $\{\gamma\}_{\hatGamma}$, $\str(\gamma)+\chi_{\gamma}>2$, and $\{\rho\}_{\hatGamma}$, $\rho$ hyperbolic. The test function $h$ is required to have the following properties*
[i)]{} $h(p)\equiv h({1+m\over2}+ip)\in C^\infty(\bbbr)$,
[ii)]{} $h(p)$ need not to be an even function in $p$,
[iii)]{} $h(p)$ vanishes faster than $1/|p|$ for $p\to\pm\infty$.
[iv)]{} $h(p)$ is holomorphic in the strip $\Im(p)\leq1+{m\over2}+
\epsilon$, $\epsilon>0$, to guarantee absolute convergence in the summation over $\{\gamma\}$ and $\{\rho\}$.
Note that there is no $k=0$ contribution from the last summand. $g(u)$ is given by Eq.().
Note that in the case of Neumann boundary-conditions the last two terms just change their signs.
[*2) $\hrSCF$ is non-compact.*]{} I only consider the case $m=0$. We now include all relevant conjugacy classes and get $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\str(\widehat L)&=
\half\int_{\hatSCF(T)}\sum_{\{T\}}\Big[k(Z,TZ)-k(Z,T\CI Z)\Big]dV(Z)
\\ &
=\viert\hatCA\,\Phi(0)
+\half\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\gamma\}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\gamma)+\chi_\gamma>2 }
\int_{\hatSCFg} k(Z,\gamma Z)
\\ &\quad
-\half\sum_{\{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,hyp}}
\int_{\hatSCF(\rho)} k(Z,\rho Z)
\\ &\quad
+\half\sum_{ \scriptstyle R\in\hatGamma
\atop\scriptstyle \str(R)+\chi_R<2 }
\int_{\hatSCF(R)} k(Z,RZ)
\\ &\quad
+\half\lim_{y_m\to\infty}\int_{\hySCF}dV(Z)
\\ &\qquad\times\left\{
\sum_{\{S\}}\sum_{\gamma'\in\hatGamma_S\backslash\Gamma}
k(Z,{\gamma'}^{-1}S\gamma'Z)
-\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0}
\sum_{\gamma'\in\hatGamma_S\backslash\Gamma}
k(Z,{\gamma'}^{-1}\rho\gamma'Z)\right\}.
\\ &\quad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ with some properly defined compact domain $\hySCF$ depending on a large parameter $y_M$, and where the sum is taken over all hyperbolic conjugacy classes $\{\gamma\}$, elliptic conjugacy classes $\{R\}$ and parabolic conjugacy classes $\{S\}$ in $\bGamma$ with representatives $\gamma$, $R$ and $S$, respectively, over all relative non-degenerate classes $\{\rho\}$, $\rho$ hyperbolic, and over the relative conjugacy classes $\{\rho\}$ with $\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0$, $\rho$ elliptic.
The hyperbolic contributions have just been calculated (c.f.Eq.(). Because there are no additional elliptic terms, we can just take the result of Ref.\[\] \[c.f. the discussion following Eq.()\] and obtain $$\multline
\viert\int_{\hatSCF(R)} k(Z,RZ)
=\half\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{1\over\nu}
\Bigg\{\bigg(1-\chi_R^k\cos{k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\\ \times
\int_0^\infty{g(u)e^{-u/2}+g(-u)e^{u/2}\over
\cosh u-\cos(2k\pi/\nu)}du
+\int_0^\infty{g(u)-g(-u)\over
\cosh u-\cos(2k\pi/\nu)}\sinh{u\over2}du\Bigg\}.
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$
Turning to the “parabolic terms” we consider the transformation $Z\to W=\CI S^nZ$. In Ref.\[\] I obtained by considering $y_M$ finite with the corresponding fundamental domain $\hySCF(S)$ $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\half\int_{\hySCF(S)}{d\theta d\bar\theta\over Y} k(Z,SZ)
\\ &
=\half\int_0^1dx\int_0^{y_M}dy\int{d\theta d\bar\theta\over Y}
\sum_{n\not=0}k(Z,S^nZ)
\\ &
=\kappa_-\Bigg\{(\ln y_M-\ln2)g(0)+\half\int_0^\infty g(-u)du
\\ &\quad
-{1\over4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\big[\Psi(1-ip)+\Psi(1+ip)\big]h(p)dp\Bigg\}
+{\kappa\over4}\int_0^\infty\big[g(u)-g(-u)\big]du
+O\bigg({1\over\sqrt{y_M}}\bigg)
\\ &
=\kappa_-\Bigg[\!\!\Bigg[(\ln y_M+C-\ln2)g(0)
+\half\int_0^\infty g(-u)du
\\ &\quad
-\half\int_0^\infty\ln(1-e^{-u})
\bigg\{{d\over du}\big[g(u)+g(-u)\big]\bigg\}du\Bigg]\!\!\Bigg]
+{\kappa\over4}\int_0^\infty\big[g(u)-g(-u)\big]du
+O\bigg({1\over\sqrt{y_M}}\bigg)
\\ &\quad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ \[$\kappa_{\pm}=\sum_{\{S\}}\, (1\pm\chi_S)$\], and I have stated the result in two alternative ways. Note that Euler’s constant $C=0.577\,215\,66490\dots$ appears only in the representation where $g(u)$ instead of $h(p)$ is used.
As we know from the discussion in section III from the usual Selberg case, the conjugacy class with $\tr(\rho)=0$, $\rho$ elliptic, contains an element of order two. In the super-case this is generalized to $$\gamma_a=\pmatrix 0 &a &0\\ -a^{-1} &0&0\\
0 &0 &\chi_{\gamma_a} \endpmatrix,\qquad
(\mod\pm1),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with some $a\geq1$. Because $\gamma_a$ is an elliptic element of order two we have to consider $$\int_{\Cup\gamma'\hySCF,\gamma'\in\hatGamma}
k(Z,\rho Z)
=|\hatGamma(\rho)|
\int_{\Cup\gamma'\hySCF,\gamma'\in
\hatGamma\CI\backslash\hatGamma} k(Z,\rho Z)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and $|\hatGamma(\rho)|=\order[\hatGamma(\rho)]=2$ which yields an additional factor $\half$ in the second term in the parabolic contribution of Eq.().
For a proper asymptotic expansion \[\] of the corresponding integral we remove from $\SCH$ two regions, denoted by $B_1^{(1|1)}=
\{Z\in\SCH|x\geq y_M\}$ and $B_2^{(1|1)}= \gamma_a B_1$, respectively, i.e. we consider $$B^{(1|1)}=\SCH-B_1^{(1|1)}-B_2^{(1|1)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ First let us insert a $n=0$ “parabolic term” into the super-automorphic kernel; this gives the integral $$\int_{\Cup\gamma\hySCF,\{\gamma\}} k(Z,\rho Z)
=\int_{B^{(1|1)}}dV(Z) k(Z,\CI Z)+o(1),\qquad (y_m\to\infty),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ whose asymptotic behaviour must be studied. By the definition of $B^{(1|1)}$ the above integral separates into two contributions $$\int_0^\infty dx\int_{a^2/y_M}^{y_M}dy
\int{d\theta_1d\theta_2\over y+\theta_1\theta_2}k(Z,\CI Z)
-\int_0^{a^2/y_M}dy\int_{y\sqrt{a^2/yy_M-1}}^\infty dx
\int{d\theta_1d\theta_2\over y+\theta_1\theta_2} k(Z,\CI Z)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ In order to evaluate the first integral we set $y_0=a^2/y_M$. $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\half\int_0^\infty &dx\int_{y_0}^{y_M}dy
\int{d\theta_1d\theta_2\over y+\theta_1\theta_2}
\Big\{\Phi\big[R(Z,\CI Z)\big]
+r(Z,\CI Z)\Psi\big[R(Z,\CI Z)\big]\Big\}
\\ &
=\int_0^\infty dx\int_{y_0}^{y_M}{dy\over y^2}
\bigg[\half\Phi\bigg({4x^2\over y^2}\bigg)
+{4x^2\over y^2}\Phi'\bigg({4x^2\over y^2}\bigg)
+(1-\chi_S)\Psi\bigg({4x^2\over y^2}\bigg)\bigg]
\\ &
=\viert\int_0^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}\int_{y_0}^{y_M}{dy\over y}
\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)+(1-\chi_S)\Psi(t)\bigg]
\\ &
=(\ln y_M-\ln a)(1-\chi_S)g(0),
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where we have explicitly inserted $y_0$, and the terms with $\Phi$ vanish by a partial integration. Note that this term must be sufficient for the regularization and indeed is. In the second part of the integral of the next term we integrate out the $\theta_1\theta_2$ quantities, perform a partial integration, and get the result (set $\tau=a^2/yy_M$) $$\multline
\viert\int_1^\infty{d\tau\over\tau}
\int_{4(\tau-1)}^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}
\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)+(1-\chi_S)\Psi(t)\bigg]
\hfill\\ \qquad
=\viert\int_1^\infty d(\ln\tau)
\int_{4(\tau-1)}^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}
\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)+(1-\chi_S)\Psi(t)\bigg]
\hfill\\ \qquad
=-(1-\chi_S)g(0)\ln2 +\viert\int_0^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}
\ln(t+4)\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)+(1-\chi_S)\Psi(t)\bigg],
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and this contribution is independent of $a$ and $y_M$, respectively. Furthermore I have used the differentiation rule $${d\over da}\int_{\psi(a)}^{\phi(a)}f(x,a)dx
=f[\phi(a),a]{d\phi(a)\over da}
+f[\psi(a),a]{d\psi(a)\over da}
+\int_{\psi(a)}^{\phi(a)}{df(x,a)\over da}dx.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Let us consider the various terms. Firstly we have $$\multline
\viert\int_0^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}\ln(t+4)
\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)\bigg]
\hfill\\ \qquad
=-\viert\int_0^\infty{\sqrt{t}\,\Phi(t)\over t+4}dt
={1\over4\pi}\int_0^\infty{Q_1(w)\over w+4}dw
\int_0^w{\sqrt{t}\,dt\over(t+4)\sqrt{w-t}}
\hfill\\ \qquad
=\half\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over2}\tanh{u\over4}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du.
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Here I have used the integral \[, p.287\] $$\int_0^u x^{\nu-1}(x+\alpha)^\lambda(u-x)^{\mu-1}dx
=\alpha^\lambda u^{\mu+\nu-1}B(\mu,\nu)
{_2}F_1\bigg(-\lambda,\nu,\mu+\nu;-{u\over\alpha}\bigg)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ together with \[, p.101\] $$(1-z)^{1/2}{_2}F_1(a,a+\bhalf;2a;z)={_2}F_1(a-\bhalf,a;2a;z)
=\bigg(\half+\half\sqrt{1-z}\,\bigg)^{1-2a}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Next we get $$\multline
\viert\int_0^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}\ln(t+4)\Psi(t)
\hfill\\ \qquad
=-{1\over4\pi}\int_0^\infty dw\,Q_2'(w)
\int_0^w{\ln(t+4)dt\over\sqrt{t(w-t)}}
\hfill\\ \qquad
={g(0)\ln2\over2}+{1\over32}\int_0^\infty{Q_2(w)dw\over
\sqrt{1+w/4}\,\big(1+\sqrt{1+w/4}\,\big)}
\hfill\\ \qquad
={g(0)\ln2\over2}+\viert\int_0^\infty
\tanh{u\over4}\bigg\{\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]
-\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]\bigg\}du.
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Collecting terms we obtain $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\viert\int_1^\infty{d\tau\over\tau}
\int_{4(\tau-1)}^\infty{dt\over\sqrt{t}}
\bigg[\half\Phi(t)+t\Phi'(t)+(1-\chi_S)\Psi(t)\bigg]
\\ &
=-\half(1-\chi_S)g(0)\ln2
\\ &\quad
+{1-\chi_S\over4}\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]du
+{1+\chi_S\over4}\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}
\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du
\\ &
=-\half(1-\chi_S)g(0)\ln2
\\ &\quad
+{1-\chi_S\over4}\Bigg\{\int_0^\infty\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]du
-{2\over\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty h(p)
\big[\beta(1+2ip)+\beta(1-2ip)\Big]dp\Bigg\}
\\ &\quad
+{1+\chi_S\over4}\Bigg\{\int_0^\infty\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du
-{1\over\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty h(p)
\bigg[\beta\bigg(\half+ip\bigg)
-\beta\bigg(\half-ip\bigg)\bigg]dp\Bigg\}.
\\ &\quad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Here use has been made of the integrals \[, p.304, p.356\] $$\int_0^\infty{e^{-\mu x}\over1+e^{-x}}dx=\beta(\mu),\qquad
\int_0^\infty{e^{-\mu x}\over\cosh x}dx
=\beta\bigg({\mu+1\over2}\bigg),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ and $\beta(x)$ is the $\beta$-function defined by $\beta(x)=\bhalf\big[\Psi\big(\hbox{${1+x\over2}$}\big)
-\Psi\big(\hbox{${x\over2}$}\big)\big]$, with $\Psi(z)=\Gamma'(z)/\Gamma(z)$ the logarithmic derivative of the $\Gamma$-function. To finish the discussion we have to consider $$\int_{\Cup g\gamma\hySCF,\{\gamma\}}
k(Z,\rho Z),\qquad g\in\OSp(2|1,\bbbr).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ According to Venkov \[\], this has the consequence that the asymptotic behaviour in the limit $y_m\to\infty$ is changed by a scaling such that the integral is calculated with respect to the variable $\nu y_M$ instead of $y_M$. The fixed number $\nu$ is denoted by $\nu(\rho)$. Similarly, $a$ is denoted by $a(\rho)$. Hence we obtain $$\multline
-\viert\int_{\hySCF}dV(Z)
\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0}
k(Z,{\gamma'}^{-1}\rho\gamma'Z)
\\ \qquad
=-\viert q(\hatCF)(1-\chi_S)
\left(\ln y_M-
\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0}
\ln{a(\rho)\over\nu(\rho)}\right)g(0)
+{1\over8}(1-\chi_S)q(\hatCF)g(0)\ln2
\hfill\\ \qquad\qquad
-{1-\chi_S\over16}q(\hatCF)
\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]du
\hfill\\ \qquad\qquad
-{1+\chi_S\over16}q(\hatCF)
\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du+o(1).
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Here $q(\hatCF)$ denotes the number of classes $\{\rho\}$ having the property $\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0$ and $\rho$ elliptic. Because we know that all terms in the supertrace formula must be finite we deduce $q(\hatCF)=4\kappa$. Therefore we obtain for the regularized “parabolic terms” in the Selberg supertrace formula for bordered super Riemann surfaces $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\half\lim_{y_m\to\infty}\int_{\hySCF}dV(Z)
\left\{\sum_{\{S\}}\sum_{\gamma'\in\hatGamma_S\backslash\Gamma}
k(Z,{\gamma'}^{-1}S\gamma'Z)
-\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0}
\sum_{\gamma'\in\hatGamma_S\backslash\Gamma}
k(Z,{\gamma'}^{-1}\rho\gamma'Z)\right\}
\\ &
=\kappa_{S}g(0)+{\kappa_-\over2}\int_0^\infty g(-u)du
\\ &\quad
-{\kappa_-\over2}\int_0^\infty\ln(1-e^{-u})
\bigg\{{d\over du}\Big[g(u)+g(-u))\Big]\bigg\}du
+{\kappa\over4}\int_0^\infty\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du
\\ &\quad
-{\kappa_-\over4}\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]du
-{\kappa_+\over4}
\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du.
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Here I have abbreviated $$\kappa_{S}=\half\sum_{\{S\}}(1-\chi_S)\ln2
-\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0}
\ln{a(\rho)\over\nu(\rho)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Therefore we obtain
[**Theorem 4.2**]{}: *The Selberg supertrace formula for the Dirac-Laplace operator $\square$ on bordered super Riemann surfaces with hyperbolic, elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes with Dirichlet boundary-conditions is given by: $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\Big[h(p_n^{(B)})-h(p_n^{(F)})\Big]
=i{\hatCA\over4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty h(p)\tanh\pi pdp
\\ &\quad
+\viert\sum_{\{\gamma\}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{l_\gamma\over\sinh{kl_\gamma\over2}}
\bigg[g(kl_\gamma)+g(-kl_\gamma)
-\chi_\gamma^k\bigg(g(kl_\gamma)e^{-kl_\gamma/2}
+g(-kl_\gamma)e^{kl_\gamma/2}\bigg)\bigg]
\\ &\quad
-\viert\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
{l_{\rho^2}\over\cosh\big[\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}\big]}
\bigg\{g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}
\bigg(g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{-\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}\bigg)\bigg\}
\\ &\quad
-\half\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{l_{C_i}\over\cosh{kl_{C_i}\over2}}
\bigg\{g(kl_{C_i})+g(-kl_{C_i})
-\chi_{C_i}^k\bigg(g(kl_{C_i})e^{-kl_{C_i}/2}
+g(-kl_{C_i})e^{kl_{C_i}/2}\bigg)\bigg\}
\\
&\quad
+\half\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{1\over\nu}
\Bigg\{\bigg(1-\chi_R^k\cos{k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\\ &\qquad\qquad\times
\int_0^\infty{g(u)e^{-u/2}+g(-u)e^{u/2}\over
\cosh u-\cos(2k\pi/\nu)}du
+\int_0^\infty{g(u)-g(-u)\over
\cosh u-\cos(2k\pi/\nu)}\sinh{u\over2}du\Bigg\}
\\ &\quad
+(\kappa_{S}+\kappa_-)g(0)+{\kappa_-\over2}\int_0^\infty g(-u)du
\\ &\quad
-{\kappa_-\over2}\int_0^\infty\ln(1-e^{-u})
\bigg\{{d\over du}\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]\bigg\}du
+{\kappa\over4}\int_0^\infty\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du
\\ &\quad
-{\kappa_-\over4}\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\Big[g(u)+g(-u)\Big]du
-{\kappa_+\over4}
\int_0^\infty\tanh{u\over4}\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g(u)-g(-u)\Big]du,
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ where $\lambda_n^{(B,F)}=\half+ip_n^{(B,F)}$ on the left runs through the set of all eigenvalues of this Dirichlet problem, and the summation on the right is taken over all primitive conjugacy classes $\{\gamma\}
_{\hatGamma}$, $\str(\gamma)+\chi_\gamma>2$, $\{R\}_{\hatGamma}$, $\str(R)+\chi_R<2$, $\{\rho\}_{\hatGamma}$, $\rho$ hyperbolic, $\{S\}_{\hatGamma}$, $\str(S)+\chi_S=2$, and $\{\rho\}_{\hatGamma}$, $
\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho=0$, $\rho$ elliptic. The test function $h$ is required to have the following properties*
[i)]{} $h(p)\in C^\infty(\bbbr)$,
[ii)]{} $h(p)$ need not to be an even function in $p$,
[iii)]{} $h(p)$ vanishes faster than $1/|p|$ for $p\to\pm\infty$.
[iv)]{} $h(p)$ is holomorphic in the strip $\Im(p)\leq\half+
\epsilon$, $\epsilon>0$, to guarantee absolute convergence in the summation over $\{\gamma\}$ and $\{\rho\}$.
In the case of Neumann boundary-conditions the regularization procedure is similar to the treatment in Ref.\[\] which is due to the fact that in this case the continuous spectrum does not drop out and must be taken into account. This will not discussed here again. The full picture emerges then by a proper combination of Ref.\[\] and Theorem 4.2.
=0 by 1
The Selberg zeta-function was originally introduced by Selberg \[\] in order to study spectra of Laplacians on compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$. It is defined by $$Z(s):=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\big[1-e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\big],\qquad(\Re(s)>1).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ It is of further interest, because determinants of Laplacians can be expressed by combinations of the zeta-function and its derivatives. Define $D_\Delta(z)=\det'(-\Delta+z)$, where the prime denotes the omission of zero modes. Then the Selberg zeta-function for compact closed Riemann surfaces and $D_\Delta$ are connected by the relation \[, \]: $$Z(s)=s(s-1)D_\Delta[s(s-1)]
\big[(2\pi)^{1-s}e^{\widetilde C+s(s-1)}G(s)G(s+1)\big]^{2(g-1)},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $\widetilde C=\viert-\ln\sqrt{2\pi}-2\zeta'(-1)$ and $G(z)$ denotes the Barnes $G$-function \[\] (see also e.g. \[, , \]). The case of non-compact closed and open Riemann surfaces can be found in Venkov \[\] (also \[, \]). We cite the latter case to have a comparison with its generalization to the super-case. The Selberg zeta-function for bordered Riemann surfaces for automorphic $m$-forms is defined by $$\multline
\hat Z(s)=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\Big[1-\chi_\gamma^me^{-l_\gamma(s+k)}\Big]
\\ \times
\prod_{\scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,hyp}
\atop\scriptstyle \tr(\rho)\not=0}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1+\chi_\rho^me^{-l_\rho(s+k)}
\over 1-\chi_\rho^me^{-l_\rho(s+k)}}\right)^{(-1)^k\chi_\CI^m}
\times\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1\over1-\chi_{C_i}^me^{-l_{C_i}(s+k)}}\right)^{2(-1)^k},
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $\Re(s)>1$. Choosing the test-function $$h(p,s,b)={1\over(s-\half)^2+p^2}-{1\over(b-\half)^2+p^2}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ yields
[**Theorem 5.1**]{} \[, \]: *The Selberg trace formula for the Selberg zeta-function on bordered Riemann surfaces for automorphic $m$-forms is given by: $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
{{\hat Z}^{\prime}(s)\over \hat Z(s)}
&=(s-\bhalf){2\hatCA\over\pi}
\Bigg[\Psi\bigg(s+{m\over2}\bigg)
+\Psi\bigg(s-{m\over2}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg(b+{m\over2}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg(b-{m\over2}\bigg)\Bigg]
\\ &\quad
-i\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{1\over\nu\sin(k\pi/\nu)}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\Bigg[{e^{-2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2-m/2)}\over s+l-m/2}
-{e^{ 2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2+m/2)}\over s+l+m/2}\Bigg]
\\ &\quad
+4(s-\bhalf)\sum_j\bigg({1\over(s-\half)^2+p_j^2}
-{1\over(b-\half)^2+p_j^2}\bigg)
+const_1+const_2(s-\bhalf)
\\ &\quad
+2\tkappa\Psi(1-s)
-4\tkappa(s-\bhalf)
\sum_{k=0}^\infty{1\over(s-\half)^2-(k+\half)^2}
\\ &\quad
+\tkappa\Bigg[\Psi(s)-\Psi\bigg(s+{m\over2}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg(s+{m\over2}\bigg)\Bigg],
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ with some constants $const_{1,2}$.*
The zero- and pole-structure can be read off, see Refs.\[, \]. The functional equation has the form $$\hat Z(1-s)=\hat Z(s)\hat\Psi_Z(s)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the function $\hat\Psi_Z(s)$ given by $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\hat\Psi_Z(s)&=
\bigg[{\Gamma(1-s)\over\Gamma(s)}\bigg]^{2\kappa}
\exp\Bigg\{-4\hatCA\int_0^{s-\half}t
\pmatrix \tan(\pi t)\\ \cot(\pi t)\endpmatrix dt+4\hat c(s-\bhalf)
\\ &
+i\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{1\over\nu\sin(k\pi/\nu)}
\int_0^{s-1/2}\sum_{l=0}^\infty
\Bigg[{e^{-2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2-m/2)}\over s+l-m/2}
+{e^{-2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2-m/2)}\over s-l+(m-3)/2}
\\ &\qquad\qquad
-{e^{-2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2+m/2)}\over s+l+(m-1)/2}
+{e^{-2i(k\pi/\nu)(l+1/2+m/2)}\over s-l-(m-3)/2}\Bigg]
dt\Bigg\},
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ and the $\tan(\pi t)$-, respectively the $\cot(\pi t)$-term, has to be taken whether $m$ is even or odd, and the constant $\hat c$ given by $$\hat c=\viert\left[
\sum_{ \scriptstyle \{\rho\};\,\hatGamma_{\rho,ell}
\atop\scriptstyle \tr(\rho)=0}\chi_\rho^m
\ln\bigg({a(\rho)\over\mu(\rho)}\bigg)
-\tkappa\ln2-{L\over2}\right].
\tag\NUM.\num$$
Let us consider the two Selberg super zeta-functions $Z_0$ and $Z_1$, respectively, defined by \[, \] $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
Z_0(s)&=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\Big[1-e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\Big],
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
Z_1(s)&=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\Big[1-\chi_\gamma e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\Big]
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ for $\Re(s)>1$; and furthermore the functions $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
R_0(s)&={Z_0(s)\over Z_0(s+1)}=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}
\Big(1-e^{-sl_\gamma}\Big),\qquad
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
R_1(s)&={Z_1(s)\over Z_1(s+1)}=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}
\Big(1-\chi_\gamma e^{-sl_\gamma}\Big),
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ for $\Re(s)>1$; the analytic properties of the $Z_{0,1}$-functions can be derived from the $R_{0,1}$-functions. The analytic properties for these functions for closed super Riemann surfaces were discussed in I and II. However, in the case of bordered super Riemann surfaces we will consider the [*modified Selberg super zeta-functions*]{} on bordered super Riemann surfaces $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\mZO(s)&=
\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty\Big[1-e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\Big]
\\ &\qquad\times\!\!\!\!
\prod_{ \scriptstyle\{\rho\}
\atop\scriptstyle\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho\not=0 }
\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1+e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}\over
1-e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}}\right)^{(-1)^k}
\times\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1\over1-e^{-l_{C_i}(s+k)}}\right)^{2(-1)^k},
\\ &\qquad
\tag\NUM.\num
\\ \global\plus
\mZE(s)&=
\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\Big[1-\chi_\gamma e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\Big]
\\ &\qquad
\times\!\!\!\!
\prod_{ \scriptstyle\{\rho\}
\atop\scriptstyle\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho\not=0 }
\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1+\chi_\rho e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}
\over
1-\chi_\rho e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}}\right)^{(-1)^k}
\times\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1\over1-\chi_{C_i}e^{-l_{C_i}(s+k)}}\right)^{2(-1)^k}
\\ &\qquad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ for $\Re(s)>1$. For convenience we will consider the functions $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&\mRO(s):={\mZO(s)\over\mZO(s+1)}
=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\Big(1-e^{-sl_\gamma}\Big)
\\ &\qquad\times\!\!\!\!
\prod_{ \scriptstyle\{\rho\}
\atop\scriptstyle\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho\not=0 }
\!\!\!\!\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1+e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}\over
1-e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}}\right)^{\alpha_k(-1)^k}
\!\!\!\!\times\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1\over1-e^{-l_{C_i}(s+k)}}\right)^{2\alpha_k(-1)^k},
\\ &\qquad
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
&\mRE(s):={\mZE(s)\over\mZE(s+1)}=
\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\Big(1-\chi_\gamma e^{-sl_\gamma}\Big)
\\ &\qquad\times\!\!\!\!
\prod_{ \scriptstyle\{\rho\}
\atop\scriptstyle\str(\rho)+\chi_\rho\not=0 }
\!\!\!\!\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1+\chi_\rho e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}\over
1-\chi_\rho e^{-(s+k)l_\rho}}\right)^{\alpha_k(-1)^k}
\!\!\!\!\times\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\left({1\over1-\chi_{C_i}e^{-l_{C_i}(s+k)}}\right)^{2\alpha_k(-1)^k},
\\ &\qquad
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ by -1 $\alpha_k=1\,(m=0)$, $\alpha_k=2\,(k\in\bbbn)$, and $\Re(s)>1$. As we shall see, only functional relations for the ${\hat R}_{0,1}$-functions can be derived, but not for the ${\hat Z}_{0,1}$-functions.
[*1. The Selberg super zeta-function $R_1$*]{}. We first discuss the function $\mRE(s)$. In order to do this we choose the test function \[\] $(\Re(s,a)>1)$ $$h_1(p,s,a)=2ip\bigg({1\over s^2+p^2}-{1\over a^2+p^2}\bigg),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the Fourier transformed function $g_1(u)$ given by $$g_1(u,s,a)=\sign(u)\Big(e^{-s|u|}-e^{-a|u|}\Big).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The regularization term is needed to match the requirements of a valid test function in the trace formula. The relevant integrals have been already calculated in Refs.\[, \], such that we just take the results. The exceptions are the new terms in the supertrace formula corresponding to the involuted orbits and the last summand in Eq.(). For the latter we obtain by using the integrals () $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\int_0^\infty
&\tanh{u\over4}\tanh{u\over2}\Big[g_1(u,s,a)-g_1(-u,s,a)\Big]du
\\ &=4\int_0^\infty\bigg(1-{1\over\cosh u}\bigg)
\bigg(e^{-2su}-e^{-2au}\bigg)du
\\ &=2\bigg[{1\over s}-{1\over
a}-\Psi\bigg({s\over2}+{3\over4}\bigg)
+\Psi\bigg({s\over2}+\viert\bigg)
+\Psi\bigg({a\over2}+{3\over4}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg({a\over2}+\viert\bigg)\bigg].
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Let us consider the term corresponding to the $\{\rho\}$-conjugacy classes in Eq.(). We get by inserting $g_1(u)$ on the one hand $$\multline
-\viert\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
{l_{\rho^2}\over\cosh\big[\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}\big]}
\bigg\{g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
\\ \qquad
-\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}
\bigg(g\big[\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{-\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}
+g\big[-\big(k+\bhalf\big)l_{\rho^2}\big]
e^{\half(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}\bigg)\bigg\}
\hfill\\ \qquad
=-\half\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}l_{\rho^2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}\tanh[\bhalf(k+\bhalf)l_{\rho^2}]
\Big(e^{-s(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}-e^{-a(k+\half)l_{\rho^2}}\Big).
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ On the other we have by means of $$\ln{1+x\over1-x}=2\sum_{k=0}^\infty{x^{2k+1}\over2k+1}
\tag\NUM.\num$$ for the logarithmic derivative of the inverse hyperbolic terms of the $\mRE$-function $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
{d\over ds}&\ln\prod_{\{\rho\}}\prod_{m=0}^\infty
\left({1+\chi_\rho e^{-(s+m)l_\rho}\over
1-\chi_\rho e^{-(s+m)l_\rho}}\right)^{\alpha_m(-1)^m}
\\ &
=2\sum_{\{\rho\}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
{\chi_\rho^{2k+1}\over2k+1}\bigg({d\over ds}e^{-sl_\rho(2k+1)}\bigg)
\sum_{m=0}^\infty\alpha_m(-1)^me^{-ml_\rho(2k+1)}
\\ &
=-\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}l_{\rho^2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}e^{-sl_{\rho^2}(k+\half)}
\left[1+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty(-1)^me^{-ml_{\rho^2}(k+\half)}\right]
\\ &
=-\sum_{\{\rho^2\}}l_{\rho^2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\chi_{\rho^2}^{k+\half}e^{-sl_{\rho^2}(k+\half)}
\tanh\big[\bhalf l_{\rho^2}(k+\bhalf)\big].
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ And similarly for the third term in $\mRE$. Therefore we obtain the Selberg supertrace formula for the test function $h_1(p,s,a)$ as follows $$\multline
\!\!\!\!
{\mREp(s)\over\mRE(s)}-{\mREp(a)\over\mRE(a)}
\\
=4\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left[
{\lambda_n^{(B)}-\half\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(B)}-\half)^2}
-{\lambda_n^{(B)}-\half\over a^2-(\lambda_n^{(B)}-\half)^2}
-{\lambda_n^{(F)}-\half\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(F)}-\half)^2}
+{\lambda_n^{(F)}-\half\over a^2-(\lambda_n^{(F)}-\half)^2}\right]
\hfill\\ \qquad
-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{\chi_R^k\over\nu}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\cos\bigg[(2l+1){k\pi\over\nu}\bigg]
\bigg({1\over s+l+\half}-{1\over a+l+\half}\bigg)
\hfill\\ \qquad
-{\hatCA\over2\pi}\Big[\Psi(s+\bhalf)-\Psi(a+\bhalf)\Big]
+\kappa\bigg({1\over s}-{1\over a}\bigg)
\hfill\\ \qquad
-\kappa_+\bigg[\Psi\bigg({s\over2}+{3\over4}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg({s\over2}+\viert\bigg)-\Psi\bigg({a\over2}+{3\over4}\bigg)
+\Psi\bigg({a\over2}+\viert\bigg)\bigg].
\hfill\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Thus we read off
[**Theorem 5.2**]{}: *The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRE(s)$ is a meromorphic function on $\Li$ and has furthermore the following properties:*
[A)]{} The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRE(s)$ has “trivial” zeros at the following points and nowhere else $s=-\half-l$, $(l=0,1,2,\dots)$ and the multiplicity of these zeros is given by $$\# N_l={\hatCA\over2\pi}
-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{\chi_R^k\over\nu}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\cos\bigg[(2l+1){k\pi\over\nu}\bigg].
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Note that if $\# N_l<0$, we have poles instead of zeros. $s=0$ with the multiplicity given by $\# N_0=\kappa$. $s=-{3\over2}-2l$, $(l=0,1,2,\dots)$, with the multiplicity given by $\# N_l=2\kappa_+$.
[B)]{} The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRE(s)$ has “trivial” poles at the following points and nowhere else $s=-\half-2l$ $l=0,-1,-2,\dots$ with the multiplicity given by $\# P_l=2\kappa_+$.
[C)]{} The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRE(s)$ has “non-trivial” zeros and poles at the following points and nowhere else \[\] $s=ip_n^{(B,F)}$: there are zeros (poles) with twice the multiplicity as the corresponding eigenvalue of $\square$. $s=-ip_n^{(B,F)}$: reversed situation for poles and zeros. $s=\lambda^{(B,F)}_n-\half$ there are zeros (poles), and $s=-(\lambda^{(B,F)}_n-\half)$ there are poles with twice the multiplicity as the corresponding eigenvalue of $\square$, respectively. The last two cases describe so-called small eigenvalues of the operator $\square$. All these “nontrivial” eigenvalues are supernumbers $s\in\Li$.
Of course, Eq.() can be extended meromorphically to all $s\in\Li$.
By means of the relation () the analytic properties of the Selberg super zeta-functions $\mZE$ can be derived, compare also Ref.\[\].
The test functions $h_1(p,s,a)$ is symmetric by the interchange $s\to-s$. Therefore subtracting the trace formula for $h_1(p,s,a)$ and $h_1(p,-s,a)$ yields the functional equation for $\mRE$ in differential form $$\multline
{d\over ds}\ln\big[\mRE(s)\mRE(-s)\big]
\\ \qquad
=-{\hatCA\over2}\tan\pi s
-\kappa_+\bigg[\Psi\bigg({s\over2}+{3\over4}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg({3\over4}-{s\over2}\bigg)-\Psi\bigg(\viert+{s\over2}\bigg)
+\Psi\bigg(\viert-{s\over2}\bigg)\bigg]
\hfill\\
+{2\kappa\over s} -2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{\chi_R^k\over\nu}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\cos\bigg[(2l+1){k\pi\over\nu}\bigg]
\bigg({1\over s+l+\half}+{1\over s-(l+\half)}\bigg)
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ \[note $\Psi(\half+s)=\Psi(\half-s)+\pi\tan\pi s$\]. The integrated functional equation therefore has the form $$\mRE(s)\mRE(-s)=const.\,(\cos\pi s)^{\hatCA/2\pi} s^{2\kappa}
\left[{\Gamma(\viert+{s\over2})\Gamma(\viert-{s\over2})
\over \Gamma({3\over4}-{s\over2})\Gamma({3\over4}+{s\over2})}\right]
^{2\kappa_+}\mPsiE(s),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the function $\mPsiE(s)$ given by $$\mPsiE(s)=\exp\left\{
-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{\chi_R^k\over\nu}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\cos\bigg[(2l+1){k\pi\over\nu}\bigg]
\ln\Big|s^2-(l+\bhalf)^2\Big|\right\}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ We can check the consistence of the functional equation with respect to the analytical properties of the Selberg super-zeta function $\mRE$. In the case that there are no elliptical and parabolic terms the functional equation simplifies into $$\mRE(s)\mRE(-s)=A_1(\cos\pi s)^{\hatCA/2\pi},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $A_1$ is a constant given e.g.by $A_1=R_1(s_0)R_1(-s_0)(\cos\pi
s_0)^{-\hatCA/2\pi}$ with some $s_0\in\bbbc$, which is however, independent of $s_0$.
[*2. The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRO$.*]{} Let us turn to the discussion of the Selberg super zeta-function $\mRO$. We consider the test-function $(\Re(s,a)>1)$ $$h_0(p,s,a)=2\Big(\bhalf+ip\Big)\bigg(
{1\over s^2-(\half+ip)^2}-{1\over a^2-(\half+ip)^2}\bigg),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the Fourier transform $g_0(u,s,a)$ given by $$g_0(u,s,a)=\sign(u)e^{u/2}\Big(e^{-s|u|}-e^{-a|u|}\Big).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Again the regularization term is needed to match the requirements of a valid test function for the trace formula. Similarly as in the previous case we obtain the Selberg super trace formula for the test function $h_0(p,s,a)$ as follows $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&{\mROp(s)\over\mRO(s)}-{\mROp(a)\over\mRO(a)}
\\ &
=4\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left[
{\lambda_n^{(B)}\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(B)})^2}
-{\lambda_n^{(B)}\over a^2-(\lambda_n^{(B)})^2}
-{\lambda_n^{(F)}\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(F)})^2}
+{\lambda_n^{(F)}\over a^2-(\lambda_n^{(F)})^2}\right]
\\ &\qquad
-\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1} {1\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\left[{1\over s+l-1}-{1\over s+l+1}-{1\over a+l-1}+{1\over a+l+1}\right]
\\ &\qquad
-{\hatCA\over4\pi}\Big[\Psi(s)+\Psi(s+1)-\Psi(a)-\Psi(a+1)\Big]
\\ &\qquad
+{\kappa\over2}\bigg({1\over s-\half}+{1\over s+\half}
-{1\over a-\half}-{1\over a+\half}-{4\over s}+{4\over a}\bigg).
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Note that no terms proportional to $\chi$ are present. Therefore we have shown
[**Theorem 5.3**]{}: *The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRO(s)$ is a meromorphic function on $\Li$ and has furthermore the following properties:*
[A)]{} The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRO(s)$ has “trivial” zeros at the following points and nowhere else: First note that $${1\over\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}\sum_{l=1}^\infty
\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\bigg({1\over s+l-1}-{1\over s+l+1}\bigg)
={1\over s} +{\cos({2k\pi\over\nu})\over s+1}
+2\sum_{l=2}^\infty{\cos({2lk\pi\over\nu})\over s+l}.$$ $s=0$ with multiplicity $$\# N_0={\hatCA\over4\pi}-2\kappa -\sum_{\{R\}}{\nu-1\over\nu}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $s=-1$ with multiplicity $$\# N_1={\hatCA\over2\pi}-\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu}\cos\bigg({2k\pi\over\nu}\bigg).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $s=-n$ $(n=2,3,\dots)$ with multiplicity $$\# N_n={\hatCA\over2\pi}-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=2}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu}\sum_{l=2}^\infty\cos\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Note that if $\# N_n<0$, we have poles instead of zeros. $s=-\half$ with multiplicity $\# N_{-1/2}=\kappa/2$. $s=\half$ with multiplicity $\# N_{\half}=\kappa/2$.
[B)]{} The Selberg super zeta-function $\mRO(s)$ has “non-trivial” zeros and poles at the following points and nowhere else \[\] $s=ip_n^{(B,F)}+\half$: there are zeros (poles) with twice the multiplicity as the corresponding eigenvalue of $\square$. $s=-ip_n^{(B,F)}-\half$: reversed situation for poles and zeros. $s=\lambda^{(B,F)}_n$ there are zeros (poles), and $s=-\lambda^{(B,F)}_n$ there are poles with twice the multiplicity as the corresponding eigenvalue of $\square$, respectively. The last two cases describe so-called small eigenvalues of the operator $\square$. All these “nontrivial” eigenvalues are supernumbers $s\in\Li$.
Of course, Eq.() can be extended meromorphically to all $s\in\Li$.
By means of the relation () the analytic properties of the Selberg super zeta-functions $\mZO$ can be derived, compare also Ref.\[\].
The test function $h_0(p,s,a)$ is symmetric with respect to $s\to-s$. Therefore subtracting the trace formulæ of $h_0(p,s,a)$ and $h_0(p,-s,a)$ from each other yields the functional equation for the $\mRO$-function in differential form $$\multline
{d\over ds}\ln\Big[\mRO(s)\mRO(-s)\Big]
\\ \qquad
={\hatCA\over2\pi}{d\over ds}\ln(\sin\pi s)
+\kappa\bigg({1\over s+\half}+{1\over s-\half}-{4\over s}\bigg)
\hfill\\ \qquad\qquad
-\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\hfill\\ \times
\left[{1\over s+l-1}+{1\over s-(l-1)}-{1\over s+l+1}-{1\over s-(l+1)}
\right].
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ In integrated form, this gives the functional equation $$\mRO(s)\mRO(-s) = const.\,(\sin\pi s)^{\hatCA/2\pi}
\bigg({s^2-\viert\over s^4}\bigg)^{\kappa}\,\mPsiO(s),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the function $\mPsiO(s)$ given by $$\mPsiO(s)=\exp\left\{-\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\ln\left|{(s^2-(l-1)^2)\over(s^2-(l+1)^2)}\right|\right\}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ We can check the consistence of the functional equation with respect to the analytical properties of the Selberg super-zeta function $\mRO$. In the case that there are no elliptical and parabolic terms the functional equation simplifies into $${\mZO(s)\mZO(-s)\over\mZO(1+s)\mZO(1-s)}=
\mRO(s)\mRO(-s)=A_0(\sin\pi s)^{\hatCA/2\pi},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where the constant $A_0$ is e.g.given by $A_0
=\mRO(s_0)\mRO(-s_0) (\sin\pi s_0)^{-\hatCA/2\pi}$ with some $s_0\in\bbbc$, where $\widetilde B_0$ is independent of $s_0$.
[*3. The Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS$.*]{} Following Refs.\[, , \] we can also introduce the Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS(s)$ defined by $$\mZS(s)={\mZO(s)\mZO(s+1)\over\mZEz(s+\half)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The appropriate test function is $(\Re(s)>1)$ $$h_S(p,s)={1\over s^2-\lambda^2}\bigg|_{\lambda=\half+ip}
={1\over (s^2-\viert)-ip+p^2}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The corresponding Fourier transform $g_S$ is given by $$g_S(u,s)={1\over2s}e^{u/2-s|u|}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ The evaluation of the various terms in the Selberg supertrace formula is straightforward similarly to the previous two cases. We just present the evaluation of the fourth last term in Eq.() proportional to $\kappa_-$. We obtain $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\int_0^\infty&\ln(1-e^{-u})
\bigg\{{d\over du}\Big[g(u)+g(-u))\Big]\bigg\}du
\\ &
=-{1\over2s}\int_0^\infty\ln(1-e^{-u})
\Big[(s-\bhalf)e^{-u(s-\half)}
+(s+\bhalf)e^{-u(s+\half)}\Big]
\\ &
=-{1\over2s}\int_0^1\ln x
\Big[(s+\bhalf)(1-x)^{s-\half}+(s-\bhalf)(1-x)^{s-{3\over2}}\Big]
\\ &
={1\over2s}\Big[2C+\Psi(s+\hbox{${3\over2}$})+\Psi(s+\bhalf)\Big].
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ Here use has been made of the integral \[, p.538\] $$\int_0^1 x^{\mu-1}(1-x^r)^{\nu-1}\ln x dx
={1\over r^2}B\bigg({\mu\over r},\nu\bigg)
\bigg[\Psi\bigg({\mu\over r}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg({\mu\over r}+\nu\bigg)\bigg].
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Therefore we obtain $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
&{1\over 2s}{\mZSp(s)\over\mZS(s)}
={1\over 2s}{d\over ds}\ln\bigg[{\mZO(s)\mZO(s+1)\over\mZEz(s+\half)}\bigg]
\\ &=
2\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left[{1\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(B)})^2}
-{1\over s^2-(\lambda_n^{(F)})^2}\right]
+{\hatCA\over8\pi}{1\over s^2}
\\ &\quad
-{1\over2s}\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty
{\sin(2lk\pi/\nu)\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\bigg[{4(1-\chi_R^k\cos({k\pi\over\nu}))\over s+l}
+{1\over s+l-1}+{1\over s+l+1}-{2\over s+l}\bigg]
\\ &\quad
+{C\kappa_{-}-\kappa_s-\kappa_-\over s}
+{\kappa\over4s}
\bigg({4\over s}+{1\over s-\half}-{1\over s+\half}\bigg)
\\ &\quad
+{\kappa_-\over s}\Psi(s)
+{\kappa_+\over2s}\bigg[\Psi\bigg({s\over2}\bigg)
-\Psi\bigg({s+1\over2}\bigg)\bigg].
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ This gives
[**Theorem 5.4**]{}: *The Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS$ is a meromorphic function on $\Li$ and has furthermore the following properties: A) The Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS(s)$ has “trivial” zeros at the following points and nowhere else*
[i)]{} $s=0$ with multiplicity $$\# N_0={\hatCA\over4\pi}-\sum_{\{R\}}{\nu-1\over\nu}+2\kappa.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ [*$s=-1$ with multiplicity*]{} $$\# N_1=-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}{1\over\nu}
\bigg[1-2\chi_R\cos\bigg({k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
+\cos\bigg({k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)\bigg]-4\kappa.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ $s=-n$ $(n=-2,3,4,\dots)$ with multiplicity $$\# N_n=4\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=2}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\bigg[\sin^2\bigg({k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
-\bigg(1-\chi_R\cos{k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)\bigg]
\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)-4\kappa.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ **
[ii)]{} $s=\half$ with multiplicity $\# N_{1/2}=\kappa/2$.
[iii)]{} $s=-1-2l$, $l=0,1,2,\dots$, with multiplicity $\# N_l=2\kappa_+$.
Note that if $\# N_l<0$, we have poles instead of zeros.
B\) The Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS(s)$ has “trivial” poles at the following points and nowhere else
[i)]{} $s=-\half$ with multiplicity $\# P_{-1/2}=\kappa/2$.
C\) The Selberg super zeta-function $\mZS(s)$ has “non-trivial” zeros and poles at the following points and nowhere else \[, \]
[i)]{} $s=\pm(\half+ip_n^{(B)})$ there are zeros and
[ii)]{} $s=\pm(\half+ip_n^{(F)})$ there are poles, with twice the multiplicity as the corresponding eigenvalue of $\square$, respectively.
Of course, Eq.() can be extended meromorphically to all $s\in\Li$.
The test function $h_S(p,s)$ is symmetric with respect to $s\to-s$ and therefore we can deduce the functional relation $$\multline
{\mZS(s)\over\mZS(-s)}
=const.\,e^{4s(C\kappa_{-}-\kappa_{S}-\kappa_-)}
\\ \times
\bigg({s-\half\over s+\half}\bigg)^{\kappa}
\bigg({\Gamma(s)\over\Gamma(-s)}\bigg)^{2\kappa_-}
\bigg({\Gamma({s\over2})\Gamma(\half-{s\over2})\over
\Gamma(\half-{s\over2})\Gamma(-{s\over2})}\bigg)^{2\kappa_+}
\mPsiS(s),
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ with the function $\mPsiS(s)$ given by $$\multline
\mPsiS(s)=\exp\left\{-2\sum_{\{R\}}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu-1}
{1\over\nu\sin(2k\pi/\nu)}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty\sin\bigg({2lk\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\right.\\ \times\left.\vphantom{\sum_{\{R\}}^1}
\Bigg[2\bigg(1-2\chi_R^k\cos{k\pi\over\nu}\bigg)
\ln\bigg|{s+l\over s-l}\bigg|
+\ln\bigg|{(s+l-1)(s+l+1)\over(s-l+1)(s-l-1)}\bigg|\Bigg]\right\}.
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ We can check the consistence of the functional equation with respect to the analytical properties of the Selberg super-zeta function $\mZS$. In the case, where only hyperbolic conjugacy classes are present in the super Fuchsian group, Eq.() reduces to the simple functional equation \[\] $$\mZS(s)=\mZS(-s).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Let us note that the relation $$\multline
{d\over ds}\ln\bigg[{\mZO(s)\mZO(s+1)\over\mZE(s+\half)}\bigg]
-{d\over ds}\ln\bigg[{\mZO(s+1)\mZO(s+2)\over\mZE(s+{3\over2})}\bigg]
\\
={\mROp(s)\over\mRO(s)}+{\mROp(s+1)\over\mRO(s+1)}
-2{\mREp(s+\half)\over\mRE(s+\half)}
\endmultline
\tag\NUM.\num$$ provides a consistency check for the zeta functions $\mRO$, $\mRE$ and $\mZS$, respectively.
Let us note that in the case of Neumann boundary-conditions the Selberg super zeta-functions must be differently defined due to the changed signs of the $\gamma\CI$-terms, i.e. the power of the corresponding terms in the zeta-functions is reversed. This concludes the discussion.
=0 by 1
Since $\square_m^2$ is not a positive definite operator I calculate the super-determinants of $(c^2-\square_m^2)$ for $\Re(c)>0$ and analytically continue in $c$. Similar considerations have been done by Aoki \[\] and Ref.\[\] by means of the supertrace of the heat kernel of $\square_m^2$ for the case of closed super Riemann surfaces.
The super-determinant is defined using the $\zeta$-function regularization in the following way $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\sdet(c^2-\square_m^2)&=\exp\left[-{\partial\over\partial s}
\zeta(s;c)\bigg|_{s=0}\right]
\\
\zeta(s;c) &=\str\big[(c^2-\square_m^2)^{-s}\big]
={1\over\Gamma(s)}\int_0^\infty dt\,t^{s-1}
\str\{\exp[-t(c^2-\square_m^2)]\}.
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ The function $h$ corresponding to the heat-kernel of $(c^2-\square_m^2)$ reads $h_{hk}(s)=e^{t[(s+m/2)^2-c^2]}$. This gives $$G(u,\chi)={1\over\sqrt{\pi t}}e^{-u^2/4t-c^2t}
\bigg[\cosh(m+1){u\over2}-\chi\cosh{um\over2}\bigg].
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Splitting now the calculation of $\zeta(s;c)$ into two terms corresponding to the identity transformation and the length term, respectively, gives: $$\zeta(s;c)
=\zeta_I(s;c)+\zeta_\Gamma(s;c).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ We have \[, \] $$\zeta_I(s;c)
=-{\hatCA\over8\pi\Gamma(s)}\sum_{k=0}^m
\int_0^\infty t^{s-1}e^{-(c^2-k^2)t}=
-{\hatCA\over8\pi}\sum_{k=0}^m(c^2-k^2)^{-s},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ therefore $${\partial\over\partial s}\zeta_I(s;c)\bigg|_{s=0}=
{\hatCA\over8\pi}\sum_{k=0}^m\ln(c^2-k^2).
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Let us consider the representation ($\Re(s)<1$): $$t^{s-1}={2\over\Gamma(1-s)}\int_0^\infty
{\lambda+c\over[\lambda(\lambda+2c)]^s}
e^{-\lambda(\lambda+2c)t}d\lambda;
\tag\NUM.\num$$ This integral representation follows with the help of \[, p.318\] ($\Re(\nu)>-1$): $$\int_u^\infty(x-u)^\nu e^{-\mu x}dx
=\mu^{-\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu+1)e^{-u\mu}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Therefore we get for the $\zeta_\Gamma(c;s)$-contribution \[, \] in Eq.() ($m$ even) $$\zeta_\Gamma(s;c)=
{\sin\pi s\over8\pi}
\int_0^\infty{d\lambda\over[\lambda(\lambda+2c)]^s}
{d\over d\lambda}\ln\left[
{\mZO(\lambda+c+1+{m\over2})\mZO(\lambda+c-{m\over2})\over
\mZE(\lambda+c+{1-m\over2})\mZE(\lambda+c+{m+1\over2})}\right],
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where the logarithmic derivative of the super zeta-functions has been used. Let be $f(s)=\sin(\pi s)[\lambda(\lambda+2c)]^{-s}]$. Then $f'(s)
|_{s=0}=\pi$ and we get for $\zeta^{\prime}(0;c)$ $(\Re(s)>0$): $$\zeta'(0;c)={\hatCA\over8\pi}\ln c^2
-\half\ln\left[{\mZO(c+1+{m\over2})\mZO(c-{m\over2})
\over\mZE(c+{1-m\over2})\mZE(c+{m+1\over2})}\right].
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Here it has been have used that $\lim_{s\to\infty}{\widehat Z}_q(s)=1$, which follows at once from the Euler product representation of the Selberg super zeta-functions. Performing the limit $c\to\epsilon$ for $|\epsilon|\ll1$, I get for $m=0$ and $m=-1$, respectively $$\allowdisplaybreaks\align
\sdet(-\square_0^2)
&=\pi^{\hatCA/4\pi}{\mZO(1)\over{\mZE}(\half)}
\sqrt{\mZE(0)\over\mZE(1)},
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
\sdet(-\square_{-1}^2)
&=\pi^{-\hatCA/4\pi}{\mZE(\half)\over{\mZO}(1)}
\sqrt{\mZE(1)\over\mZE(0)}.
\tag\NUM.\num\endalign$$ In the general case we obtain by -2 $$\allowdisplaybreaks\alignat 3
\sdet(-\square_m^2)
&=\bigg({\pi\over m!}\bigg)^{\hatCA/4\pi}
{\mZO(1+{m\over2})\over{\mZE}({m+1\over2})}
\sqrt{\mZE(0)\over\mZE(1)}, &\qquad &m=2,4,\dots
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
\sdet(-\square_{-m}^2)
&=\bigg({(m-2)!\over\pi}\bigg)^{\hatCA/4\pi}
{\mZO({m\over2})\over{\mZE}({m+1\over2})}
\sqrt{\mZE(1)\over\mZE(0)}, &\qquad &m=2,4,\dots
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
\sdet(-\square_m^2)
&=\bigg({\pi\over im!}\bigg)^{\hatCA/4\pi}
{\mZE(1+{m\over2})\over{\mZO}({m+1\over2})}
\sqrt{\mZE(0)\over\mZE(1)}, &\qquad &m=1,3,\dots
\tag\NUM.\num\\ \global\plus
\sdet(-\square_{-m}^2)
&=\bigg({i(m-2)!\over\pi}\bigg)^{\hatCA/4\pi}
{\mZE({m\over2})\over{\mZO}({m+1\over2})}
\sqrt{\mZE(1)\over\mZE(0)}, &\qquad &m=3,5,\dots
\tag\NUM.\num\endalignat$$ (note for instance the relation $\sdet(-\square_0^2)\cdot
\sdet(-\square_{-1}^2)=1$). Here, of course, use has been made of the functional relations for the modified Selberg super zeta-functions. In particular we get \[c.f. Eq.()\] $$[\sdet(-\square_0^2)]^{-5/2}[\sdet(-\square_2^2)]^{1/2}
={\pi^{-\hatCA/2\pi}\over\sqrt{2}}
\bigg({\mZO(1)\over\mZE(\half)}\bigg)^{-5/2}
\bigg({\mZO(2)\over\mZE({3\over2})}\bigg)^{1/2}
{\mZE(0)\over\mZE(1)},
\tag\NUM.\num$$ These determinants are the ones for the Dirac-Laplace operator for Dirichlet boundary-conditions on bordered super Riemann surface. In order to distinguish from the those with Neumann boundary-conditions, ${\sdet^{(N)\,\prime}_{\Sigma}}(-\square_0^2)$, we denote therefore $\sdet(-\square_0^2)\equiv\sdet^{(D)}_{\Sigma}(-\square_0^2)$. Now we know that the Selberg super zeta-functions have concerning the $\gamma\CI$-length product the reverse power behaviour, denoted by an index “$(N)$”, i.e. $Z^{(N)}(s)$. Furthermore we have to take into account that instead of bosonic and fermionic eigenfunctions which are odd with respect to $x$ of $\square_0$, we have that bosonic and fermionic eigenfunctions which are even with respect to $x$ appear, i.e. we have for instance $${\sdet^{(N)\,\prime}_{\Sigma}}
(-\square_0^2)=(-1)^{1-2q}\pi^{\hatCA/4\pi}
{\mZEN(1)\over{\widetilde Z}_1^{(N)}(\half)}
\sqrt{\mZEN(0)\over\mZEN(1)}.
\tag\NUM.\num$$ Here by ${\widetilde Z}_1^{(N)}(\half)$ the order of ${\hat Z}_1^{(N)}$ at $s=\half$ is denoted, depending whether $\Delta n_0^{(0)}\leq0$ or $\Delta n_0^{(0)}>0$, respectively. $\Delta n_0^{(0)}=n_0^B-n_0^F$ denotes the difference between the number of even bosonic- and fermionic zero-modes of the Dirac-Laplace operator $\square_0$. According to Ref.\[\] $\Delta n_0^{(0)}=1-2q$ with $q=\dim\ker\bar\partial_1$ and $\bar\partial_p^{\dag}
=-y^2\partial_z+\half py$. From the corresponding expressions for $\sdet^{(D)}_{\Sigma}(-\square_m^2)$ and ${\sdet^{(N)\,\prime}_{\Sigma}}
(-\square_m^2)$, respectively, now follows $$\sdet^{(D)}_{\Sigma}(-\square_m^2)\cdot
{\sdet^{(N)\,\prime}_{\Sigma}}(-\square_m^2)
={\sdet_{\widehat\Sigma}}'(-\square_m^2),
\tag\NUM.\num$$ where $\widehat\Sigma$ denotes the closed double of the bordered super Riemann surface. The corresponding Selberg super zeta-functions on $\widehat\Sigma$ are then defined by \[\] $$Z_q(s)=\prod_{\{\gamma\}}\prod_{k=0}^\infty
\Big(1-\chi_\gamma^q e^{-(s+k)l_\gamma}\Big)
\tag\NUM.\num$$ ($q=0,1$). Equation () shows in a nice way the super-analogue of Eq.() and concludes the discussion.
=0 by 1
In this paper I have discussed a super extension of the Selberg trace formula for bordered Riemann surfaces, the Selberg supertrace formula for bordered super Riemann surfaces, including hyperbolic, elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes. In the case of the incorporation of parabolic conjugacy classes an appropriate regularization scheme had to be applied. In the case of Dirichlet boundary-conditions, Eisenstein series representing the continuous spectrum of the Dirac-Laplace operator $\square$ were not needed because the have even parity with respect to $x$ and they dropped out.
Furthermore, I could discuss Selberg super zeta-functions. Similarly as in the usual case, there appeared additional “trivial zeros” and “trivial poles” in comparison to the “trivial zeros” of the super zeta-function due to the additional elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes. In particular, the elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes altered the multiplicity of the trivial poles already due to the hyperbolic conjugacy classes, the parabolic terms introduced new structure.
I also could calculate super-determinants of the Dirac-Laplace operators on bordered super Riemann surfaces, for Dirichlet and Neumann boundary-conditions respectively. These determinants were expressed in terms of the Selberg super-zeta functions which gave a closed expression for the integrand in the Polyakov path integral for open fermionic strings. Within this formalism it could also be shown that the product of these determinants gave the determinants of the Dirac-Laplace operators on the doubled surface.
However, there are still open problems and questions. For instance, it is not difficult to derive the corresponding so-called Weyl’s and Huber’s laws for the increase in the number of the energy levels and the norms of the hyperbolic conjugacy classes, respectively. Whereas in the former case one gets $\#N [\lambda_n^{(B)}-\lambda_n^{(F)}]\propto{\
CA/4\pi}$ $(\lambda\to\infty)$, which gives a Witten-index, in the latter one finds $\# N(L)\propto e^{\Delta n_0^{(0)}L}/L$ $(L\to\infty)$ form which follows $\Delta n_0^{(0)}>0$.
The case of super automorphic $m$-forms ($m\not=0$) is only available for hyperbolic conjugacy classes, which are the most important ones due to their appearance in the evaluation of determinants. In order to set up the corresponding supertrace formula which include elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes as well, the inversion formulæEqs.(,) must be exploited which are very involved and give rise to considerably complicated expressions.
Finally, we must note that it is not clear for general non-cocompact (super) Fuchsian groups, whether the Maass-Laplacian $\Delta_m$ and its super counterpart $\square_m$ have infinitely many eigenvalues. In fact, for non-arithmetic groups a conjecture by Phillips and Sarnak \[\] says that this will not be the case. In the case of arithmetic groups it is then possible to evaluate all contributions needed for the calculation of determinants in the trace formula \[\]. However, it is nevertheless possible to [*define*]{} (super-) determinants by means of Selberg (super) zeta-functions which are constructed in the usual way (see Takhtajan and Zograf \[\] for a discussion). However, a treatment of this matter for the case of (bordered) super Riemann surfaces is beyond the scope of this paper and is devoted to future investigations.
Fruitful discussions are gratefully acknowledged with J. Bolte, H. Ninnemann, C. Reina and F. Steiner. Special thanks are given to D. Hejhal, and I thank K. Aoki and S. B. Giddings for helpful communications. I would also like to thank the members of the II.Institut für Theoretische Physik, Hamburg University, for their kind hospitality.
[\[\]]{} Alvarez, O.: Theory of Strings with Boundaries: Fluctuations, Topology and Quantum Theory. Nucl.Phys. [**B 216**]{}, 125-184 (1983)
[\[\]]{} Alvarez-Gaumé, L., Moore, G. and Vafa, C.: Theta Functions, Modular Invariance, and Strings. Commun.Math.Phys. [**106**]{}, 1-40 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Aoki, K.: Heat Kernels and Super Determinants of Laplace Operators on Super Riemann Surfaces. Commun.Math.Phys. [**117**]{}, 405-429 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Baranov, A.M., Manin, Yu.I., Frolov, I.V. and Schwarz, A.S.: The Multiloop Contribution in the Fermionic String. Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [**43**]{}, 670-671 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Baranov, A.M., Manin, Yu.I., Frolov, I.V. and Schwarz, A.S.: A Superanalog of the Selberg Trace Formula and Multiloop Contributions for Fermionic Strings. Commun.Math.Phys. [**111**]{}, 373-392 (1987)
[\[\]]{} Baranov, A.M., Frolov, I.V. and Shvarts, A.S.: Geometry of Two-Dimensional Superconformal Field Theories. Theor.Math.Phys. [**70**]{}, 64-72 (1987)
[\[\]]{} Baranov, A.M. and A.S.Schwarz, A.S.: Multiloop Contribution to String Theory. JETP Lett. [**42**]{}, 419-421 (1985); On the Multiloop Contributions to the String Theory. Int.J.Mod.Phys. [**A 2**]{}, 1773-1796 (1987)
[\[\]]{} Batchelor, M.: The Structure of Supermanifolds. Trans.Amer.Math.Soc. [**253**]{}, 329-338 (1979); Two Approaches to Supermanifolds. Trans.Amer.Math.Soc. [**258**]{}, 257-270 (1980)
[\[\]]{} Batchelor, M. and Bryant, P.: Graded Riemann Surfaces. Commun.Math.Phys. [**114**]{}, 243-255 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Blau, S.K. and Clements, M.: Determinants of Laplacians for World Sheets with Boundaries. Nucl. Phys. [**B 284**]{}, 118-130 (1987)
[\[\]]{} Blau, S.K., Clements, M., Della Pietra, S., Carlip, S. and Della Pietra, V.: The String Amplitude on Surfaces with Boundaries and Crosscaps. Nucl.Phys. [**B 301**]{}, 285-303 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Bolte, J. and Grosche, C.: Selberg Trace Formula for Bordered Riemann Surfaces: Hyperbolic, Elliptic and Parabolic Conjugacy Classes, and Determinants of Maass-Laplacians; [*DESY-Preprint*]{} DESY 92 - 118, and [*SISSA-Preprint*]{}, SISSA/139/92/FM, August 1992
[\[\]]{} Bolte, J. and Steiner, F.: Determinants of Laplace-Like Operators on Riemann Surfaces. Commun. Math.Phys. [**130**]{}, 581-597 (1990)
[\[\]]{} Bolte, J. and Steiner, F.: The Selberg Trace Formula for Bordered Riemann Surfaces. [*DESY Preprint*]{}, DESY 90-082, 1-14, July 1990
[\[\]]{} Burgess, C. and Morris, T.R.: Open and Unoriented Strings à la Polyakov. Nucl.Phys. [**B 291**]{}, 256-284 (1987); Open Superstrings à la Polyakov. Nucl.Phys. [**B 291**]{}, 285-333 (1987)
[\[\]]{} S.Carlip: Sewing Closed String Amplitudes. Phys.Lett. [**B 209**]{} 464-472 (1988)
[\[\]]{} De Beer, W. and Rodriguez, J.P.: Holomorphic Factorization and Open Strings. Phys.Lett. [**B 213**]{}, 291-297 (1988)
[\[\]]{} DeWitt, B.: Supermanifolds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
[\[\]]{} D’Hoker, E. and Phong, D.H.: Loop Amplitudes for the Bosonic Polyakov String. Nucl.Phys. [**B 269**]{}, 205-234 (1986)
[\[\]]{} D’Hoker, E. and Phong, D.H.: On Determinants of Laplacians on Riemann Surfaces. Commun.Math. Phys. [**104**]{}, 537-545 (1986)
[\[\]]{} D’Hoker, E. and Phong, D.H.: Loop Amplitudes for the Fermionic String. Nucl.Phys. [**B 278**]{}, 225-241 (1986)
[\[\]]{} D’Hoker, E. and Phong, D.H.: The Geometry of String Perturbation Theory. Rev.Mod.Phys. [**60**]{}, 917-1065 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Dunbar, D.C.: Boundary and Crosscap States in Compactification of Open and Closed Bosonic Strings. Int.J.Mod.Phys. [**A 4**]{}, 5149-5176 (1989)
[\[\]]{} Efrat, I.: Determinants of Laplacians on Surfaces of Finite Volume. Commun.Math.Phys. [**119**]{}, 443-451 (1988); and Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. [**119**]{}, 607 (1991)
[\[\]]{} Elstrodt, J.: Die Resolvente zum Eigenwertproblem der automorphen Formen in der hyperbolischen Ebene. Teil I. Math.Ann. [**203**]{}, 295-330 (1973)
[\[\]]{} Erdélyi, A., Magnus, W., Oberhettinger, F., and Tricomi, F.G. (eds.): Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol.I. New York: McGraw Hill, 1954
[\[\]]{} Gilbert, G.: String Theory Path Integral - Genus Two and Higher. Nucl.Phys. [**B 277**]{}, 102-124 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Gradshteyn, I.S. and Ryzhik, I.M.: Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. New York: Academic Press, 1980
[\[\]]{} Green, M.B.: Supersymmetrical Dual String Theories and Their Field Theory Limits. [Surveys in High Energy Physics]{} [**3**]{}, 127-160 (1983)
[\[\]]{} Green, M.B. and Schwarz, J.H.: Supersymmetrical Dual String Theory, I-III. Nucl. Phys. [**B 181**]{}, 502-530 (1982), [**B 198**]{}, 252-268, 441-460 (1982)
[\[\]]{} Green, M.B. and Schwarz, J.H.: Anomaly Cancelations in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory. Phys.Lett. [**B 149**]{}, 117-122 (1984); Infinity Cancelations in SO(32) Superstring Theory. Phys.Lett. [**B 151**]{}, 21-25 (1985); The Hexagon Gauge Anomaly in Type I Superstring Theory. Nucl.Phys. [**B 255**]{}, 93-114 (1985)
[\[\]]{} Green, M.B., Schwarz, J.H. and Witten, E.: Superstring Theory I&II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988
[\[\]]{} Grosche, C.: Selberg Supertrace Formula for Super Riemann Surfaces, Analytic Properties of the Selberg super zeta-functions and Multiloop Contributions to the Fermionic String. [*DESY Preprint*]{} DESY 89 - 010, February 1989, 1-102, and Commun.Math.Phys. [**133**]{}, 433-485 (1990)
[\[\]]{} Grosche, C.: Selberg Supertrace Formula for Super Riemann Surfaces II: Elliptic and Parabolic Conjugacy Classes, and Selberg Super Zeta-Functions. Commun.Math.Phys. [**151**]{}, 1-37 (1993)
[\[\]]{} Grosche, C.: Selberg Trace-Formulæ in Mathematical Physics; [*SISSA-Preprint*]{}, SISSA/177/92/FM, October 1992, to appear in: [*Proceedings of the Workshop “From Classical to Quantum Chaos (1892-1992)”, 21-24 July, 1992, Trieste*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore; eds.: G. Dell’Antonio, S. Fantoni and V. R.Manfredi.
[\[\]]{} Gross, D.J. and Periwal, V.: String Perturbation Theory Diverges. Phys.Rev.Lett. [**60**]{}, 2105-2108 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Hejhal, D.A.: The Selberg Trace Formula and the Riemann Zeta Function. Duke Math.J. [**43**]{}, 441-482 (1976)
[\[\]]{} Hejhal, D.A.: The Selberg Trace Formula for $\PSL(2,\bbbr)$, I, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol.548. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1976
[\[\]]{} Hejhal, D.A.: The Selberg Trace Formula for $\PSL(2,\bbbr)$, II, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol.1001. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1981
[\[\]]{} Howe, P.S.: Superspace and the Spinning String. Phys.Lett. [**B 70**]{}, 453-456 (1977); Super Weyl Transformations in Two Dimensions. J.Phys.A: Math.Gen. [**12**]{}, 393-402 (1979)
[\[\]]{} Jaskolski, Z.: The Polyakov Path Integral over Bordered Surfaces (the Open String Amplitudes). Commun.Math.Phys. [**128**]{}, 285-318 (1990); The Polyakov Path Integral over Bordered Surfaces (the Closed String Off-Shell Amplitudes). Commun.Math.Phys. [**139**]{}, 353-376 (1991)
[\[\]]{} Koyama, S.-Y.: Determinant Expression of Selberg Zeta Functions. I-III. Trans.Amer.Math.Soc. [**324**]{}, 149-168 (1991); Trans.Amer.Math.Soc. [**329**]{}, 755-772 (1992); Proc.Amer.Math.Soc. [**113**]{}, 303-311 (1991)
[\[\]]{} Losev, A.S.: Calculation of a Scalar Determinant in the Theory of Open Strings. JETP Lett. [**48**]{}, 330-333 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Luckock, H.: Quantum Geometry of Strings with Boundaries. Ann.Phys.(N.Y.) [**194**]{}, 113-147 (1989)
[\[\]]{} Manin, Yu.I.: The Partition Function of the Polyakov String can be Expressed in Terms of Theta Functions. Phys.Lett. [**B 172**]{}, 184-185 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Martín-Delgado, M.A. and Mittelbrunn, J.R.: Bordered Riemann Surfaces, Schottky Groups and Off-Shell String Amplitudes. Int.J.Mod.Phys. [**A 6**]{}, 1719-1747 (1991)
[\[\]]{} Matsumoto, S., Uehara, S. and Yasui, Y.: Hadamard Model on the Super Riemann Surface. Phys. Lett. [**A 134**]{}, 81-86, (1988)
[\[\]]{} Matsumoto, S., Uehara, S. and Yasui, Y.: A Superparticle on the Super Riemann Surface. J.Math. Phys. [**31**]{}, 476-501 (1990)
[\[\]]{} Moore, G., Nelson, P. and Polchinski, J.: Strings and Supermoduli. Phys.Lett. [**B 169**]{}, 47-53 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Mozorov, A. and Rosly, A.: On Many-Loop Calculations in the Theory of Open Strings. Phys.Lett. [**B 214**]{}, 522-526 (1988); Some Examples of Computation of the Scalar Determinant in Open String Theory. Theor.Math.Phys. [**80**]{}, 899-911 (1989); and Nucl.Phys. [**B 326**]{}, 185-204 (1989); Strings and Riemann Surfaces; Nucl.Phys. [**B 326**]{}, 205-221 (1989)
[\[\]]{} Namazie, M.A. and Rajjev, S.: On Multiloop Computations in Polyakov’s String Theory. Nucl.Phys. [**B 277**]{}, 332-348 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Ninnemann, H.: Holomorphe and Harmonische Formen auf Super-Riemannschen Flächen und ihre Anwendung auf den Fermionischen String. [*Diploma Thesis*]{}, Hamburg University, 1989; Deformations of Super Riemann Surfaces. [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{} [**150**]{}, 267–288 (1992)
[\[\]]{} Ohndorf, T.: Covariant Operator Formalism of the Bosonic String and Polyakov’s Path Integral on Bordered Riemann Surfaces. [*Heidelberg Preprint*]{}, HD-THEP-1988-37, 1-140, October 1988
[\[\]]{} Oshima,K.: Completeness Relations for Maass Laplacians and Heat Kernels on the Super Poincaré Upper Half-Plane. J.Math.Phys. [**31**]{}, 3060-3063 (1990)
[\[\]]{} Phillips, R.S. and Sarnak, P.: On Cusp Forms for Cofinite Subgroups of $\PSL(2,\bbbr)$. Invent.Math. [**80**]{}, 339-364 (1985)
[\[\]]{} Polyakov, A.M.: Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings. Phys.Lett. [**B 103**]{}, 207-210 (1981)
[\[\]]{} Polyakov, A.M.: Quantum Geometry of Fermionic Strings. Phys.Lett. [**B 103**]{}, 211-213 (1981)
[\[\]]{} Rabin, J.M. and Crane, L.: Global Properties of Supermanifolds. [Commun.Math. Phys\]]{} [**100**]{}, 141-160 (1985); How Different are the Supermanifolds of Rogers and DeWitt?. Commun.Math.Phys. [**102**]{}, 123-137 (1985); Super Riemann Surfaces: Uniformization and Teichmüller Theory. Commun.Math. Phys. [**113**]{}, 601-623 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Rodriguez, J.P.: Open Strings from Closed Strings: Period Matrix, Measure and Ghost Determinant. Phys.Lett. [**B 202**]{}, 227-232 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Rodriguez, J.P. and Van Tander, A.: Spin Structures for Riemann Surfaces with Boundaries and Cross-Caps. Phys.Lett. [**B 217**]{}, 85-90 (1989)
[\[\]]{} Rogers, A.: A Global Theory of Supermanifolds. J.Math.Phys. [**21**]{}, 1352-1364 (1980); On the Existence of Global Integral Forms on Supermanifolds. J.Math.Phys. [**26**]{}, 2749-2753 (1985); Graded Manifolds, Supermanifolds and Infinite-Dimensional Grassmann Algebras. Commun.Math.Phys. [**105**]{}, 375-384 (1986)
[\[\]]{} Schwarz, J.H.: Superstring Theory. Phys.Rep. [**89**]{}, 223-322 (1982)
[\[\]]{} Selberg, A.: Harmonic Analysis and Discontinuous Groups in Weakly Symmetric Riemannian Spaces With Application to Dirichlet Series. J.Indian Math.Soc. [**20**]{}, 47-87 (1956)
[\[\]]{} Shohkranian, S.: The Selberg-Arthur Trace Formula, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol.1503. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1992
[\[\]]{} Sibner, R.J.: Symmetric Fuchsian Groups. Am.J.Math. [**90**]{}, 1237-1259 (1968)
[\[\]]{} Steiner, F.: On Selberg’s Zeta Function for Compact Riemann Surfaces. Phys.Lett. [**B 188**]{}, 447-454 (1987); Quantum Chaos and Geometry. In: Mitter, H. and Pittner, L.(eds.): Recent Developments in Mathematical Physics, 26.Internationale Universitätswochen, Schladming 1987, 305-312. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1987
[\[\]]{} Takhtajan, L.A. and Zograf, P.G.: A Local Index Theorem for Families of $\bar\partial$-Operators on Punctured Riemann Surfaces and a New Kähler Metric on Their Moduli Spaces. [Commun.Math.Phys\]]{} [**137**]{}, 399-426 (1991)
[\[\]]{} Uehara, S. and Yasui, Y.: A Superparticle on the “Super” Poincaré Upper Half Plane. Phys.Lett. [**B 202**]{}, 530-534 (1988); Super-Selberg’s Trace Formula from the Chaotic Model. J.Math.Phys [**29**]{}, 2486-2490 (1988)
[\[\]]{} Venkov, A.B.: On an Asymptotic Formula Connected with the Number of Eigenvalues Corresponding to Odd Eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator on a Fundamental Region of the Modular Group $\PSL(2,\bbbz)$. Sov.Math.Dokl. [**18**]{}, 524-526 (1977); Selberg’s Trace Formula and Non-Euclidean Vibrations of an Infinite Membrane. Sov.Math.Dokl. [**19**]{}, 708-712 (1979); Selberg’s Trace Formula for the Hecke Operator Generated by an Involution, and the eigenvalues of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator on the Fundamental Domain of the Modular Group $\PSL(2,\bbbz)$. Math.USSR.Izv. [**12**]{}, 448-462 (1978)
[\[\]]{} Venkov, A.B.: Spectral Theory of Automorphic Functions, the Selberg Trace Formula, and Some Problems of Analytic Number Theory and Mathematical Physics. Russian Math.Surveys [**34**]{}, 79-153 (1979)
[\[\]]{} Venkov, A.B.: Spectral Theory of Automorphic Functions. Proc.Math.Inst.Steklov [**153**]{}, 1-163 (1981)
[\[\]]{} Venkov, A.B.: Spectral Theory of Automorphic Functions and Its Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990
[\[\]]{} Voros, A.: The Hadamard Factorization of the Selberg Zeta Function on a Compact Riemann Surface. Phys.Lett. [**B 180**]{}, 245-246 (1986); Spectral Functions, Special Functions and the Selberg Zeta Function. Commun.Math.Phys. [**110**]{}, 439-465 (1987)
[\[\]]{} Wu, S.: Determinants of Dirac Operators and Thirring Model Partition Functions on Riemann Surfaces with Boundaries. Commun.Math.Phys. [**124**]{}, 133-152 (1989)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Magnetic geodesics describe the trajectory of a particle in a Riemannian manifold under the influence of an external magnetic field. In this article, we use the heat flow method to derive existence results for such curves. We first establish subconvergence of this flow to a magnetic geodesic under certain boundedness assumptions. It is then shown that these conditions are satisfied provided that either the magnetic field admits a global potential or the initial curve is sufficiently small. Finally, we discuss different examples which illustrate our results.'
address:
- |
TU Wien\
Institut für diskrete Mathematik und Geometrie\
Wiedner Hauptstraße 8–10, A-1040 Wien
- |
Universität Potsdam\
Institut für Mathematik\
Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam
author:
- Volker Branding and Florian Hanisch
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Magnetic Geodesics via the Heat Flow
---
Introduction and Results
========================
The trajectory of a free point particle in a Riemannian manifold is modeled by a geodesic. Geodesics arise from a variational problem, the existence of closed solutions can be studied by various methods and is well understood at present. A powerful method to ensure their existence is the so called heat flow method. Here, one deforms a given initial curve $\gamma_0$ by a heat-type equation and obtains a closed geodesic in the end. For geodesics, this method was successfully applied by Ottarsson [@MR834094] building on the famous existence result for harmonic maps into manifolds with non-positive curvature due to Eells and Sampson [@MR0164306].
The aim of this article is to study the equation which determines the trajectory of a point particle in a Riemannian manifold in the presence of an external magnetic field. This equation is known as equation for *magnetic geodesics* or *prescribed geodesic curvature equation*. This equation can also be derived from a variational principle, however the corresponding energy functional is $U(1)$-valued in general.
The existence of magnetic geodesics has been ensured by various methods. This includes methods from dynamical systems and symplectic geometry [@MR890489], [@MR902290], [@MR1458315], [@MR1888853], [@MR1432462], [@MR1417851], [@MR2250797] and variational methods for multivalued functionals (Morse-Novikov-theory) [@MR1133303], [@MR1185286], [@MR730159]. Finally, one can also derive an existence result by Aubry-Mather’s theory [@MR2036336]. Recently, a new approach was introduced: An existence result for magnetic geodesics on $S^2$ [@MR2788659] and also on closed hyperbolic surfaces [@MR2959932] is established by studying the zeros of a certain vector field.
In this article we use the heat flow method to approach the existence of magnetic geodesics. Namely, we deform a given initial curve $\gamma_0$ by a heat type equation and study in which cases this equation converges to magnetic geodesic. This approach was initiated in [@MR2551140]. In [@MR1800592] a similar problem is discussed, namely the heat flow for harmonic maps coupled to a potential.
Let us describe the problem in more detail. Suppose that $N$ is a closed Riemannian manifold and $\gamma\colon S^1\to N$ is a smooth curve. The $U(1)$-valued energy functional for magnetic geodesics is given by $$\label{energy-functional-holonomy}
C^\infty(S^1,N)\to U(1),\qquad\gamma\mapsto e^{i\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'|^2ds}{\operatorname{Hol}}(\gamma),$$ where ${\operatorname{Hol}}(\gamma)$ represents the holonomy of the magnetic field (more precisely, of the corresponding gerbe ${{\mathcal G}}$) along $\gamma$. Moreover, $\gamma'$ represents the derivative with respect to the curve parameter $s$.
In the case that the magnetic field is given by an exact form (or in the language of gerbes: the curvature 2-form is exact), we may rewrite the energy functional as the sum of a kinetic and a magnetic contribution $$\label{energy-functional}
E(\gamma)= E_{kin}(\gamma) + E_A(\gamma) := \frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'|^2ds+\int_{S^1}\gamma^\ast Ads,$$ where the one-form $A$ is the potential for the magnetic field. The critical points of and are given by $$\tau(\gamma)=Z(\gamma'),$$ where $\tau$ denotes the tension field of the curve $\gamma$ and $Z\in\Gamma ({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$ represents the magnetic field strength. Note that the critical points are globally defined, even in the case that the energy functional is not.
In the following, we are studying the $L^2$-gradient flow of the energy functional (\[energy-functional\]), which is given by $$\label{gradient-flow}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\dot{\gamma}_t(s,t)=\tau(\gamma_t)(s,t)-Z(\gamma'_t)(s,t),\qquad (s,t)\in S^1\times [0,\infty),\\
\gamma(s,0)=\gamma_0(s)\\
\end{array} \right.$$ and we use a $\dot{\gamma}$ to denote the derivative of $\gamma$ with respect to $t$. Note that neither the functionals and nor the equations of motion derived from them are invariant under rescaling of the domain of definition. Thus, strictly speaking, we have a different problem for each class of curves $C^\infty(S^1_r, N)$, where $S^1_r$ denotes the circle of length $2\pi r$. From a physical point of view, the length of the circle encodes the period of revolution of the charged particle. Since we are interested in the existence of closed trajectories regardless of this time, we ultimately look for critical points defined on some $S^1_r$. We will nevertheless mostly work with $S^1 := S^1_1$ but make use of the possibility of rescaling the circle in Corollary \[CorRescaling\].\
The existence of a short-time solution of the evolution equation with existence interval $[0,T)$ for initial data $\gamma_0\in C^{2+\alpha}(S^1,N)$ is guaranteed by Theorem 19 in [@MR2551140]. Moreover, Theorem 1 in the same reference shows that has a unique, smooth solution for all $t\in[0,\infty)$. However, the question in which cases the gradient flow converges was not fully answered in [@MR2551140].\
In this article, we will prove the following main results:
Let $\gamma_t\colon S^1\times [0,\infty)\to N$ denote the unique solution of associated to $Z\in\Gamma ({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$ and initial condition $\gamma_0\in C^{2+\alpha}(S^1,N)$.
1. If the magnetic field admits a global potential, then (\[gradient-flow\]) subconverges and we obtain a smooth magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$. If $\gamma_0$ is not null-homotopic or $E(\gamma_0) \leq 0$ and $\gamma_0$ is not constant, then the magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$ is not trivial (i.e. not a point).
2. If $|Z|_{L^\infty}$ is sufficiently small and the initial curve has sufficiently small kinetic energy (see Lemma \[LemApplyOttarson\] for a precise formulation), then (\[gradient-flow\]) subconverges. Under a slightly stronger assumption on $|Z|_{L^\infty}$, $\gamma_t$ converges to a point. \[Item2\]
Case , where the magnetic field is not derived from a global potential, is particularly challenging since is no longer the gradient flow associated to a globally defined energy.\
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we recall the derivation of the equation for magnetic geodesics and the Bochner formulas for the associated evolution equation. Section 3 then discusses the convergence of the gradient flow. We give a general criterion for subconvergence of the flow (Theorem \[Convergence\]) and show that it can be applied to the cases where either the field admits a global potential (Theorem \[ThmConvExactCase\]) or the initial curve has sufficiently low energy and the magnetic field is weak (Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\]). Finally, in Section 4 we calculate some examples and compare our general theorems with these explicit results.
Critical points and the Gradient Flow
=====================================
Let us briefly recall the derivation of the critical points, see for example [@KohDiss] (Proposition 2.4).
1. The critical points of the energy functional (\[energy-functional\]) satisfy $$\label{first-variation}
\tau(\gamma)(s)=Z(\gamma')(s),$$ where $\tau$ is the tension field of the curve $\gamma$ and $Z\in\Gamma({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$.
2. The second variation of the energy functional (\[energy-functional\]) yields $$\label{second-variation}
\frac{\delta^2}{\delta\gamma^2}E(\gamma)=\int_{S^1}(|\nabla\eta|^2-\langle R^N(\eta,\gamma')\eta,\gamma'\rangle+\langle(\nabla_\eta Z)(\gamma'),\eta\rangle
+\langle Z(\nabla\eta),\eta\rangle)ds.$$
Solutions of ($\ref{first-variation}$) are called *magnetic geodesics*.
Consider a family of smooth variations of $\gamma$ satisfying $\frac{\partial\gamma_t}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}=\eta$. The first variation of the energy of a curve is given by $$\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma_t'|^2ds=-\int_{S^1}\langle\tau(\gamma),\eta\rangle ds$$ with variational vector field $\eta$, see for example [@MR2431658], p.2.
The first variation of the holonomy functional on the other hand gives $$\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0}\int_{S^1}\gamma_t^\ast A=-\int_{S^1}\Omega(\eta,\gamma')ds$$ with variational vector field $\eta$ and $\Omega = dA$, see for example [@MR2362847], p.234. To the 2-form $\Omega\in\Gamma(\Lambda^2T^*N)$, we associate the smooth section $Z$ of ${\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN)$ defined by the equation $$\label{EqZOmega}
\langle\eta,Z(\xi)\rangle=\Omega(\eta,\xi)$$ for all $\eta,\xi\in TN$ and thus the formula for the first variation follows.
Concerning the second variation, remember the second variation of the energy of a curve, (see for example [@MR2431658], p.8) $$\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma_t'|^2ds=\int_{S^1}(|\nabla\eta|^2-\langle R^N(\eta,\gamma')\eta,\gamma'\rangle)ds.$$ For the second variation of the magnetic term, consider again a variation of $\gamma$ satisfying $\frac{\partial\gamma_t}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}=\eta$ and calculate $$\frac{\nabla}{\partial t}Z(\gamma'_t)=(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma_t}}Z)(\gamma_t')+Z(\nabla\dot{\gamma_t}).$$ Evaluating at $t=0$ yields the result.
If the magnetic field is not exact, then the first variation of also gives .
Now we recall two standard Bochner-formulas, which were already proven in [@MR2551140], Proposition 10.
Let $\gamma_t\colon S^1\times [0,T)\to N$ be a solution of (\[gradient-flow\]) and let $Z\in\Gamma({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$. Then the following Bochner formulas hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bochner1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2=&\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2-|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2+\langle Z(\gamma'_t),\tau(\gamma_t)\rangle, \\
\label{bochner2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2=&\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2-|\nabla\dot{\gamma}_t|^2+\langle R^N(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma'_t)\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma'_t\rangle
-\langle(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma_t}}Z)(\gamma'_t),\dot{\gamma_t}\rangle-\langle Z(\frac{\nabla}{\partial t}\gamma'_t),\dot{\gamma}_t\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Regarding the first equation, a direct computation yields $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2=\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2-|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2-\langle \nabla Z(\gamma'_t),\gamma'_t\rangle.$$ Using the identity $$\langle \nabla Z(\gamma'_t),\gamma'_t\rangle=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\underbrace{\langle Z(\gamma'_t),\gamma'_t\rangle}_{=0}-\langle Z(\gamma'_t),\tau(\gamma_t)\rangle,$$ the first assertion follows. For the second statement, again by a direct computation we get $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2=\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2-|\nabla\dot{\gamma}_t|^2
+\langle R^N(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma'_t)\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma'_t\rangle
-\langle\frac{\nabla}{\partial t} Z(\gamma'_t),\dot{\gamma}_t\rangle.$$ Differentiating with respect to $t$ we find $$\frac{\nabla}{\partial t}Z(\gamma'_t)=(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma_t}}Z)(\gamma_t')+Z(\frac{\nabla}{\partial t}\gamma_t')$$ and thus the statement follows.
With the help of the maximum principle we are now able to derive estimates, which are obtained similar to Corollary 13 in [@MR2551140]:
Let $\gamma_t\colon S^1\times [0,T)\to N$ be a solution of (\[gradient-flow\]) and let $Z\in\Gamma ({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$. Then the following estimates hold $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimate-gamma'}
|\gamma'_t|^2\leq& |\gamma'_0|^2e^{C_1t},\\
\label{estimate-gamma-dot}
|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2\leq& |\dot{\gamma}_0|^2e^{C_2e^{t}+C_3t}.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $C_1$ depends on $|Z|_{L^\infty}$, the constant $C_2$ depends on $N,|Z|_{L^\infty},|\nabla Z|_{L^\infty},|\gamma_0'|$ and the constant $C_3$ depends on $|Z|_{L^\infty},|\gamma_0'|$.
To derive the first inequality we estimate the Bochner formula (\[bochner1\]) and find $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2\leq\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_t|^2+\frac{1}{4}|Z|^2_{L^\infty}|\gamma'_t|^2.$$ Now, apply the maximum principle and set $c_1=\frac{1}{2}|Z|^2_{L^\infty}$. Regarding the second inequality, we estimate the Bochner formula (\[bochner2\]) and use the estimate on $|\gamma_t'|^2$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2 \leq& \Delta\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2-|\nabla\dot{\gamma}_t|^2+c_2|\gamma'_t|^2|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2+c_3|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2|\gamma'_t|
+\sqrt{2c_1}|\dot{\gamma}_t||\frac{\nabla}{\partial t}\gamma'| \label{EqBochnerEstimate} \\
\leq&\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2
+c_2|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2|\gamma'_0|^2e^{c_1t}+c_3|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2|\gamma'_0|e^{\frac{c_1}{2}t}+\frac{c_1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2 \notag \\
\leq&\Delta\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2
+|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2\left(c_2|\gamma'_0|^2e^{c_1t}+c_3|\gamma'_0|e^{\frac{c_1}{2}t}+\frac{c_1}{2}\right) \notag\end{aligned}$$ with the constants $c_2=|R^N|_{L^\infty}$ and $c_3=|\nabla Z|_{L^\infty}$. Again, by application of the maximum principle, we have to estimate the solution of $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2\leq c_4|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2(e^{c_1t}+c_5)$$ with some positive constants $c_4$ and $c_5$. Integrating the ODE and rearranging the constants completes the proof.
The estimates from the last Lemma are sufficient to establish the following statement, which is proven in [@MR2551140][, Theorem 1]{}:
\[Dennislangzeit\] For any $\gamma_0\in C^{2+\alpha}(S^1,N)$, there exists a unique $\gamma \in C^{\infty}(S^1 \times [0,\infty),N)$ satisfying with initial condition $\gamma(\cdot,0)=\gamma_0$.
Convergence of the Gradient Flow {#SecConvergence}
================================
If we want to achieve the convergence of the gradient flow, we have to establish energy estimates that are independent of the deformation parameter $t$. Thus, we have to improve the estimates obtained by the maximum principle and . We will make use of the following Lemma, which combines the pointwise maximum principle with an integral norm.
\[maximum-principle-l2\] Assume that $(M,h)$ is a compact Riemannian manifold. If a function $u(x,t)\geq 0$ satisfies $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\leq \Delta_h u+Cu,$$ and if in addition we have the bound $$U(t)=\int_Mu(x,t)dM\leq U_0,$$ then there exists a uniform bound on $$u(x,t)\leq e^CKU_0$$ with the constant $K$ depending only on the geometry of $M$.
A proof can for example be found in [@MR2744149], p. 284.
Based on this result, we obtain the following general result concerning convergence of the heat flow:
\[Convergence\] Let $\gamma:S^1\times [0,\infty)\to N$ be a solution of and $(N,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold. If we have uniform bounds $$\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds\leq C,\qquad \int_0^\infty\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt\leq C$$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$, then the evolution equation subconverges in $C^2(S^1,N)$ to a magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$.
By assumption, we have a uniform bound on the $L^2$ norm of $\gamma'_t$. Together with the pointwise equation (\[bochner1\]) and Lemma \[maximum-principle-l2\] we get the pointwise bound $|\gamma'_t|^2\leq C$. Using this bound on $|\gamma'_t|^2$ together with an estimate analogous to , we note that $|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2$ now satisfies $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2\leq\Delta|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2+C|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2$$ for some constant $C$. Integrating over $S^1$ and $t$ from $0$ to $T$, we find the following bound $$\label{EqEstimate2}
\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2ds\leq \int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_0|^2ds + \int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt\leq C.$$ By Lemma \[maximum-principle-l2\] and the assumption, we now also obtain a pointwise bound on $|\dot\gamma_t|^2\leq C$, uniform in $t$.\
As a next step, we apply Nash’s embedding theorem, that is we assume that $N$ is realized as a Riemannian submanifold of some ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$. Thus, we may work with vector valued maps $S^1 \times [0,\infty) \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ and $S^1 \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ whose image is contained in $N \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ and use the associated Hölder spaces $C^{k,\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)$. Equation now takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqGradientFlowRn}
\dot{\gamma} &= -\Delta_{S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n}(\gamma) + \mathbb{I}^N(\gamma',\gamma') + Z(\gamma'), \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n}$ denotes the linear Hodge-Laplacian acting on $C^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)$ and $\mathbb{I}^N$ the second fundamental form of the embedding $N \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. We improve our estimates with the help of Schauder theory. Following the presentation in [@MR2551140][(proof of Theorem 22, in particular (31))]{} and viewing as a linear elliptic equation for $\gamma$, the elliptic Schauder estimates ([@MR2371700], p.463, Thm.27) in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_1_alpha_Reg}
|\gamma_t|_{C^{1,\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} &\leq C \bigl( |\gamma_t'|^2_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\gamma_t'|_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\gamma_t|_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\dot{\gamma}_t|_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} \bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ may depend on $N,Z, \gamma_0, \alpha$ and the embedding $N \hookrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ but not on $t \in [0,\infty)$. By the first part of the proof and the compactness of $N$, we thus get the bound $$\begin{aligned}
|\gamma_t|_{C^{1,\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} &\leq C \end{aligned}$$ uniform in $t$. Viewing as a linear parabolic equation for $\gamma$ and using the corresponding Schauder estimates (see again [@MR2551140], proof of Theorem 22 and also [@MR1465184], Theorem 4.9 for the local version of the estimate), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\gamma_t|_{C^{2,\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\dot{\gamma}_t|_{C^\alpha(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)}
&\leq C \bigl( |\mathbb{I}^N(\gamma_t',\gamma_t') + Z(\gamma_t')|_{C^\alpha(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\gamma_t|_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} \bigr) \\
&\leq C \bigl( |\gamma_t'|^2_{C^{\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\gamma_t'|_{C^\alpha(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} + |\gamma_t|_{L^\infty(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Using the compactness of $N$ and , we get bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqUniformBound1}
|\gamma_t|_{C^{2,\alpha}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)}, |\dot{\gamma}_t|_{C^\alpha(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)} &\leq C ,\end{aligned}$$ which are again uniform in $t \in [0,\infty)$. Now, by assumption, we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\infty}\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma_t}|^2dsdt\leq C.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, there exists a sequence $t_k \rightarrow \infty$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqL2Convergence}
|\dot{\gamma}_{t_k}|^2_{L^2(S^1)}\to 0 \end{aligned}$$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. Using the bounds from and the Theorem of Arzela and Ascoli, there exists a subsequence (again denoted by $\gamma_{t_k}$), which converges in $C^2$ to a limiting map $\gamma_\infty \in C^{2}(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)$ such that $\dot{\gamma}_{t_k}$ converges in $C^0(S^1,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q)$. In fact, $\gamma_\infty$ defines an element of $C^2(S^1,N)$ because we have $\gamma_t(S^1) \subset N \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ for all $t$. Finally, implies that $\lim_{k \to \infty}\dot{\gamma}_{t_k} = 0$ and we conclude that $\gamma_\infty$ is a $C^2$-solution of . Since $\gamma$ is smooth in $t$, it is moreover clear that $\gamma_\infty$ is homotopic to $\gamma_0$.
Since the limit in the previous proof is a $C^2$-solution of by construction and recalling that a magnetic geodesic has constant energy, which follows from $$\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\frac{1}{2}|\gamma'_\infty|^2=\langle\tau(\gamma_\infty),\gamma'_\infty\rangle=\langle Z(\gamma'_\infty),\gamma'_\infty\rangle=0,$$ the standard bootstrap argument for elliptic equations now implies the following regularity result:
The limit $\gamma_\infty$ from Theorem \[Convergence\] is smooth.
In the case of the heat flow for *geodesics* and under the assumption that the target manifold $N$ has non-positive curvature, a theorem due to Hartmann [@MR0214004] states that the limiting map $\gamma_\infty$ is independent of the chosen subsequence. This theorem uses the fact, that the second variation of the harmonic energy is positive. Due to the extra term in the energy functional , there is a corresponding term in the second variation and we do not get such a statement here.
So far, we have established the existence of a convergent subsequence. This does not necessarily imply that the gradient flow converges itself. This phenomena also occurs in the heat flow for closed geodesics, see [@choi-parker].
\[RemGeneralConvergence\] Let $\gamma_t$ be a solution of , then for $T > 0$, we have $$\label{energy-equality}
\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma_T'|^2ds+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}\Omega(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma_t')dsdt=\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_0|^2ds.$$ The only term in not having a definite sign is the last term on the left hand side. By Theorem \[Convergence\], we may in particular expect that if we have a uniform bound $$\int_0^T\int_{S^1}\Omega(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma_t')dsdt\geq C > -\infty,$$ then the evolution equation subconverges to a magnetic geodesic.
In the following we will describe two situations in which we can ensure the necessary estimates such that we can apply Theorem \[Convergence\].
The case of null-homotopic curves
---------------------------------
Throughout this section we assume that the curves $\gamma_t$ are null-homotopic. If $U$ is a subset of $N$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqDefKappa_r}
\kappa_U &:=\sup\{\langle R^N(X,Y)Y,X\rangle\mid X,Y\in T_pM,|X|=|Y|=1,p\in U\}\end{aligned}$$
To give a sufficient condition for the application of Theorem \[Convergence\], we want to apply the following Poincaré type inequality (for a derivation see [@MR834094], p.58):
\[ThmOttarson\] Let $\gamma\colon S^1\to N$ be a non-constant closed $C^2$ curve and assume w.l.o.g. that the maximum of the energy density occurs at $s=0$. Suppose that the image of $\gamma$ is contained in a ball $B_r(\gamma(0))$ such that the exponential map $$\exp_{\gamma(0)}\colon T_{\gamma(0)}N\to N,$$ restricted to $B_r(0)$ in $T_{\gamma(0)}N$, is a diffeomorphism onto $B_r(\gamma(0))$. In case $\kappa_B>0$, assume in addition that $r<(2\sqrt{\kappa_B})^{-1}$. Then the following inequality holds: $$\label{poincare-tension}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'|^2ds\leq\int_{S^1}|\tau(\gamma)|^2ds$$
\[RemOttarson\]
1. The estimate in can be improved for specific geometries. As an example, consider ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ with the flat Euclidean metric. A simple calculation using Fourier series (see also [@MR834094] p.57) then shows that the inequality still holds with $1/4\pi^2$ replaced by $1$. For a general Riemmanian manifold $(N,g)$, let us denote the optimal constant for by $O(N,g)$. By Theorem \[ThmOttarson\], we thus have $O(N,g) \in [1/(4\pi^2), \infty)$. Moreover, computing the integrals for $\gamma$ a circle with radius 1, it is straightforward to see that actually $O({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n,g_{Eucl}) = O(T^n,g_{flat}) = 1$.
2. The following examples show that the assumptions in Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] are necessary: Consider the two-dimensional flat torus and a nontrivial closed geodesic on it. Since is clearly violated, we see that the condition concerning the exponential map cannot be omitted. Similarly, the statement is not valid without the bound on the radius $r$ in case of $\kappa_{B_r} > 0$: Consider a circle $c_h$ of latitude $h > 0$ on $S^2$. Clearly, for each point $p$ on $c_h$, the curve is completely contained in the ball of radius $\pi$ (= the injectivity radius of $S^2$) around $p$. On the other hand, for $h \searrow 0$, this circle converges to the equator and hence $\int_{S^1} |\tau(c_h)|^2ds \rightarrow 0$, whereas $\int_{S^1} |c_h'|^2ds$ converges to some positive number. This shows that we have to restrict to balls of radius smaller than the injectivity radius in order to ensure without assuming $K \leq 0$.
\[LemZAssump\] Let $\gamma:S^1\times [0,\infty)\to N$ be a solution of (\[gradient-flow\]) and $(N,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold. Assume that $$|Z|^2_{L^\infty}\leq\frac{1}{4\pi^2}$$ and that Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] can be applied to the curves $\gamma_t$ for all $t \in [0,\infty)$. Then we obtain the uniform bounds $$\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds\leq C,\qquad \int_0^\infty\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt\leq C.$$
We rewrite (\[energy-equality\]) in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_T|^2ds+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_0|^2ds-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt-\int_0^T\int_{S^1}\Omega(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma_t')dsdt.\end{aligned}$$ By a direct calculation using the evolution equation (\[gradient-flow\]) we obtain $$-\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2-\Omega(\dot{\gamma}_t,\gamma'_t)=-\frac{1}{2}|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2+\frac{1}{2}|Z(\gamma_t')|^2.$$ Combining both equations, we find for $T>0$ $$\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_T|^2ds+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot{\gamma}_t|^2dsdt=\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_0|^2ds + \int_0^T\int_{S^1}(-|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2+|Z(\gamma'_t)|^2)dsdt.$$ Using the assumption on $|Z|^2_{L^\infty}$ and applying Ottarsson’s inequality , we obtain $$\int_{S^1}|Z(\gamma'_t)|^2ds-\int_{S^1}|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2ds\leq(4\pi^2|Z|^2_{L^\infty}-1)\int_{S^1}|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2ds\leq 0,$$ which gives the result.
If we think of magnetic geodesics as curves of prescribed geodesic curvature, then the assumption of Lemma means that we have to restrict to small curvature.
We next discuss the question whether the conditions from Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] are preserved under the flow, i.e. whether we may use estimate provided it is satisfied for $t =0$. The following Lemma shows, that this is indeed possible for curves of sufficiently low kinetic energy. To give a precise statement of this condition, let us define $$\begin{aligned}
r(N) &:= \begin{cases}
\mathrm{injrad}(N) &\text{ if } \kappa_N \leq 0, \\
\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{injrad}(N),(2\sqrt{\kappa_N })^{-1} ) &\text{ if } \kappa_N > 0,
\end{cases} \label{EqDefRadius}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_N$ was defined in .
\[LemApplyOttarson\] If the assumptions from Lemma \[LemZAssump\] on $Z$ are satisfied, then for any initial curve of kinetic energy smaller than $r(N)^2 / (16\pi)$, Ottarson’s estimate is valid for all curves $\gamma_t, \ t \in [0,\infty)$ of the associated flow.
We first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds=&-\int_{S^1}|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2ds+\int_{S^1}\langle\tau(\gamma_t),Z(\gamma'_t)\rangle ds \notag \\
\leq&\frac{1}{2}\big(-\int_{S^1}|\tau(\gamma_t)|^2ds+|Z|^2_{L^\infty}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds\big) \notag \\
\leq&\frac{1}{2}\big(|Z|_{L^\infty}^2-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\big)\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds, \label{EqEstimate1}\end{aligned}$$ where we applied (\[poincare-tension\]) in the last step. By the definition of $r(N)$ from and the compactness of $N$, we have $r(N) > 0$. Let $\gamma_0$ be an initial curve satisfying $E_{kin}(\gamma_0) < (r(N))^2 / (16\pi)$. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the length of $\gamma_0$ can be estimated by $L(\gamma_0) < r(N)/2$. Thus, for any point $p \in \gamma_0(S^1)$, we have $\gamma_0(S^1) \subset B_{r(N)}(p)$ and by the choice of $r(N)$ and continuity, we may apply Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] on some time interval $[0,{\varepsilon})$. Now assume that $$\begin{aligned}
J &:= \{t \in [0,\infty) \mid \eqref{poincare-tension} \text{ is not valid } \} \subset [0,\infty)\end{aligned}$$ is *not empty*. Then, $T := \inf(J) \geq {\varepsilon}> 0$ and holds on $[0,T)$. By and the assumption on $Z$, we have $\partial E_{kin}(\gamma_t) / \partial t \leq 0$ on $[0,T)$ which implies $E(\gamma_T) \leq E(\gamma_0)$. Thus, we may argue as before to show that is in fact valid on $[0, T+{\varepsilon}')$. This contradiction proves that $J$ must be empty, i.e. holds for all $t > 0$.
Combining the results of Theorem \[Convergence\] and Lemmas \[LemZAssump\], \[LemApplyOttarson\], we have shown
\[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] Let $Z$ satisfy $|Z|^2_{L^\infty} \leq 1/(4\pi^2)$ and assume that $E_{kin}(\gamma_0) < r(N)^2/(16\pi)$. Then the solution of subconverges to a magnetic geodesic.
Since all curves satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] are contractible, the question of nontriviality of the limit curve $\gamma_\infty$ arises naturally. To discuss this question, we first observe that integrating the estimate with respect to $t$ directly yields the following estimate on the kinetic energy under the flow:
\[LemEkinEstimate\] Let $\gamma:S^1\times [0,\infty)\to N$ be a solution of (\[gradient-flow\]) and $(N,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold. If Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] can be applied to the curves $\gamma_t$ for all $t \in [0,\infty)$, then we have $$\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_t|^2ds\leq e^{\big(|Z|_{L^\infty}^2-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\big)t}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_0|^2ds.$$
This allows us to conclude that the flow in fact converges to a point in many cases:
\[trivial-limit\] If the magnetic field $Z$ satisfies $$|Z|^2_{L^\infty} < \frac{1}{4\pi^2},$$ then the flow converges to the trivial magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$. In fact, under this assumption on $Z$, any magnetic geodesic that satisfies is trivial.
Lemma \[LemEkinEstimate\] directly implies, that $E_{kin}(\gamma_\infty)=0$, i.e. $\gamma_\infty$ is constant. An argument analogous to the one used in [@choi-parker] (Chapter 9) shows that under this condition, the flow does not only subconverge but actually converges. Moreover, if a curve $\gamma$ satisfies together with , we have $\int_{S^1} |\tau(\gamma)|^2ds \leq \frac{1}{4\pi^2}|Z|^2_{L^\infty} \int_{S^1} |\tau(\gamma)|^2ds$. Hence, $\int|\tau(\gamma)|^2 ds= 0$ and implies that $\gamma$ is constant.
The situation described in Corollary \[trivial-limit\] is similar to the one for the heat flow for geodesics, see [@MR834094], Theorem 4A and also [@choi-parker], Section 9.
\[RemZ\_Eins\_Optimal\] As noted in Remark \[RemOttarson\] (1), may be improved using the optimal constant $O(N,g)$. From the argument given in Corollary \[trivial-limit\], we see that we obtain convergence to a trivial limit in case $|Z|^2_{L^\infty} < O(N,g)$. A non-trivial limit $\gamma_\infty$ can only be obtained, if $|Z|^2_{L^\infty} = O(N,g)$ (note that for larger values, Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] may no longer be applied!). In general, it is difficult to say what happens in this case of equality. However, we will later see from Example \[ExTorusPart1\] that our result is in fact optimal in the following sense: In accordance with Corollary \[trivial-limit\], the flow converges to a point for $|Z|^2_{L^\infty} < 1 = O(T^2, g_{flat})$. For $|Z|^2_{L^\infty} = 1$, we do in fact obtain a nontrivial limit and for $|Z|_{L^\infty} > 1$, the flow does not converge in general. Finally, all periodic magnetic geodesics in this example are in fact contractible.
Theorem \[Dennislangzeit\] and Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] in fact also allow us to conclude the existence of nontrivial periodic magnetic geodesics via the heat flow method without assuming that $Z$ is small. Let $\Lambda > 0$ and $\gamma : S^1 \times [0,\infty) \rightarrow N$ a solution of , defined on the circle of length $2\pi$. Then, a straightforward calculation shows that the rescaled curve $\gamma_\Lambda : S^1_{\Lambda^{-1}} \times [0,\infty), \gamma_\Lambda(s,t) := \gamma(\Lambda s, \Lambda^2 t)$ satisfies the rescaled equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rescaledEOM}
\dot{\gamma}_\Lambda &= \tau(\gamma_\Lambda) - \Lambda Z(\gamma_\Lambda).\end{aligned}$$
Using this rescaling technique, we obtain
\[CorRescaling\] Given an arbitrary $Z \in \Gamma({\operatorname{Hom}}(TN,TN))$, there exist solutions to which converge to (possibly trivial) closed magnetic geodesics with respect to $Z$, defined on a possibly rescaled loop.
Let $O(N,g)$ denote the constant from Remark \[RemOttarson\] (1), choose $\Lambda \leq O(N,g)/|Z|^2_{L^\infty}$ and set $Z_\Lambda := \Lambda Z$ . Then Theorem \[Dennislangzeit\] guarantees a solution $\gamma_\Lambda : S^1 \times [0,\infty)$ to . By Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] and the choice of $\Lambda$, this flow subconverges (as $t \rightarrow \infty$) to $\gamma_{\Lambda,\infty}$, which satisfies $\tau(\gamma_{\Lambda,\infty}) = Z_{\Lambda}(\gamma'_{\Lambda,\infty})$. Scaling by $\Lambda^{-1}$ as described above, the resulting map $\gamma : S^1_{\Lambda} \times [0,\infty), \gamma(s,t) := \gamma_\Lambda(\Lambda^{-1} s, \Lambda^{-2} t)$ solves the original equation . It is clear that $\gamma$ still subconverges to a solution of the equation for magnetic geodesics with the original $Z$ which, however, is defined on $S^1_{\Lambda}$.
Of course, choosing $\Lambda < O(N,g)/|Z|^2_{L^\infty}$, Corollary \[trivial-limit\] implies, that the limit will aways be trivial.
It is well know that in our (approximately flat) physical space ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3$, periodic magnetic geodesics - in fact circles - can be observed for *homogeneous* magnetic fields of (almost) arbitrary strength $B_0$. This is included in Corollary \[CorRescaling\] but not in Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] if $B_0$ is large. In fact, it is easy to see that we have to perform a rescaling to include these solutions: Setting charge and mass to $1$, a straightforward calculation shows that equality of Lorentz- and centrifugal force translates into $2\pi/T = B_0$ where $T$ denotes the time of revolution. Since $T$ corresponds to the length of $S^1_\Lambda$, it is obvious that its length has to be “adjusted”.
The case of an exact magnetic field
-----------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the convergence of the gradient flow in the case that the magnetic field is exact. Under this assumption we can exploit the fact that is derived from a the well defined energy $E(\gamma)$.
\[ThmConvExactCase\] If the two-form $\Omega$ is exact, then the solution $\gamma$ of subconverges to a magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$.
Using the fact that our evolution equation is the $L^2$-gradient flow of $E(\gamma)$ we obtain $$\label{energy-inequality-exact}
E(\gamma_T)+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot\gamma_t|^2dsdt=\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_T|^2ds+\int_{S^1}\gamma_T^\ast Ads+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot\gamma_t|^2dsdt=E(\gamma_0).$$ Thus, we may directly conclude that $$\label{exact-energy-inequality}
\frac{1}{4}\int_{S^1}|\gamma'_T|^2ds+\int_0^T\int_{S^1}|\dot\gamma_t|^2dsdt\leq E(\gamma_0)+{{\operatorname{Vol}}}(S^1)|A|^2_{L^\infty}.$$ Using and together with , we obtain a uniform bound on $|\gamma_t'|^2$ and $|\dot\gamma_t|^2$ from . Thus, the assumptions of Theorem \[Convergence\] are satisfied and the evolution equation subconverges in $C^2(S^1,N)$ to a magnetic geodesic $\gamma_\infty$. Since $\gamma$ is smooth, it is clearly homotopic to $\gamma_0$.
Note that we did not use Ottarson’s Theorem \[ThmOttarson\] and henceforth do not have to restrict to contractible curves. Starting with initial conditions in a prescribed homotopy class, we thus obtain
If $\Omega$ is exact, then each homotopy class of curves in $N$ contains a magnetic geodesic.
Note that in contrast to the heat flow for geodesics on manifolds with negative curvature, the magnetic geodesic need not be unique in its homotopy class. The argument which is used for the heat flow of ordinary geodesics (see [@MR0214004]) is no longer valid because of the presence of the magnetic contribution to the energy. We will see an explicit counterexample in Example \[ExHyperbolic\]: $\mathbb{H}^2$ (or compact quotients thereof), equipped with a suitable magnetic field $Z$, allows for contractible nontrivial closed magnetic geodesics. The following statement shows that under additional assumptions on the initial conditions, the limit $\gamma_\infty$ will be nontrivial, even in the contractible case.
\[LemNonTriv1\] Let $\Omega= dA$ be exact and $\gamma_\infty$ be the limit of the associated flow (which exists by Theorem \[ThmConvExactCase\]) with initial condition $\gamma_0$. Moreover, assume $E(\gamma_0) \leq 0$ and in addition $\gamma_0 \neq \mathrm{constant \ curve}$ if $E(\gamma_0)=0$. Then, $\gamma_\infty$ is a nontrivial closed magnetic geodesic.
Let $\gamma$ be the solution to . By applied to the interval $t \in [t_1,t_2]$, we have $E(\gamma_{t_2})\leq E(\gamma_{t_1})$ for any $t_2 \geq t_1 $ and hence, $E(\gamma_\infty) \leq E(\gamma_t)$ for any $t \geq 0$. If $E(\gamma_t) < 0$ for some $t$ (in particular for $t=0$), this proves the claim since the energy of a constant curve clearly vanishes. If $E(\gamma_t) = 0$ for all $t$, then we conclude from that $\dot{\gamma}=0$ and $\gamma_\infty = \gamma_0$, which is nontrivial by assumption in this case.
The existence of contractible initial conditions $\gamma_0$ satisfying $E(\gamma_0) \leq 0$ can in fact be ensured provided the field does not vanish:
Assume that $\Omega = dA \neq 0$. Then there exists $\gamma_0 : S^1_\Lambda \rightarrow N$ for some $\Lambda > 0$ such that the resulting flow from Theorem \[Dennislangzeit\] subconverges to a nontrivial magnetic geodesic.
By assumption, $A \in \Omega^1(N)$ for $\Omega$ cannot be closed. Thus, we can always find a small ball $B \subset N$ and a loop $c : S^1 \rightarrow B$ s.t. $\int_{S^1} c^\ast A \neq 0$. Reversing the orientation of $c$ if necessary, we may assume $\int_{S^1} c^\ast A < 0$. Rescaling $c$ as described above , we see that $E_{kin}(c_\Lambda)$ becomes arbitrary small if $\Lambda$ tends to zero, whereas the term $\int_{S^1_\Lambda} (c_\Lambda)^\ast A$ is independent of $\Lambda$. Putting $\gamma_0 := c_\Lambda$ for an appropriate choice of $\Lambda$ yields $E(\gamma_0) \leq 0$ and we can apply Proposition \[LemNonTriv1\].
1. The previous result is similar to the one stated in Theorem 1 of [@MR2679767], which however uses a slightly different functional.
2. In case that $\Omega$ is not exact, the argument used in the proof of Proposition \[LemNonTriv1\] breaks down since there is no longer a well defined energy. Of course, $\Omega$ always admits local potentials $A_{loc}$ and the argument clearly remains valid provided one can show that the curves $\gamma_t$ stay inside the domain of $A_{loc}$. The examples in Section \[SecExamples\] show that this may or may not be the case, see Remark \[RemTorusEx\] and Remark \[RemSphere\]. We are currently not aware of a condition ensuring the applicability of Proposition \[LemNonTriv1\] in the non-exact case.
Examples {#SecExamples}
========
In this section we discuss some explicit examples on the two-dimensional torus $T^2$, on the two-dimensional sphere $S^2$, and in the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^2$. They illustrate the influence of different background geometries and initial conditions on the heat flow. Moreover, we believe it is helpful to discuss the abstract results from Section \[SecConvergence\] in view of these examples.
Magnetic geodesics on the torus {#ExTorus}
-------------------------------
A general existence result for magnetic geodesics on the two-dimensional flat torus has been obtained using methods from symplectic geometry in [@MR2036336] (Section 5). The heat flow in this specific case was studied in [@MR2551140], p.457ff. Here, we want to make some further remarks concerning this example.\
Let $C := S^1 \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ denote the cylinder of radius $1$. Using cylindrical coordinates $(\varphi,z) \in (-\pi,\pi) \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, a curve on $C$ depending on some parameter $t$ may be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_t &= (\cos(\varphi(s,t)),\sin(\varphi(s,t)),z(s,t)).\end{aligned}$$ The magnetic field $Z$ at $x \in C$ is defined by taking the vector product (in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3$) of $v \in T_xC$ and the vector $B(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqTorusZ}
Z_x(v) &:= v \times B(x), & B=B_0(\cos(\varphi(x),\sin(\varphi(x)),0).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $B_0 \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a constant describing the strength of the magnetic field. Since $B(x) \perp T_xC$, we clearly have $Z_x \in \mathrm{End}(T_xC)$. It follows directly from that $\nabla^C Z = 0$ and thus, the associated two-form $\Omega$ (cf. \[EqZOmega\]) is closed. Finally, taking the quotient by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ in z-direction, we obtain a field $Z \in \mathrm{End}(TT^2)$ enjoying the same properties. Note that the resulting induced field strength in $\Omega^2(T^2)$ is given by $\Omega_{T^2} = B_0 vol_{T^2}$. In particular, it is not exact. On the opposite, it is easy to check that on $C$, we have $\Omega_{C} = -d(z d\varphi)$, i.e. there exists a global potential $A = -z d\varphi \in \Omega^1(C)$.\
Before solving the flow equation, we briefly discuss the solution to the ODE for magnetic geodesics in case $B_0 \neq 0$. This is most easily done on the level of the universal coverings ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2 \rightarrow T^2$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2 \rightarrow C$, respectively. In fact, viewing ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ as subspace of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3$, we have to determine the trajectories subject to a magnetic field of constant strength $B_0$ which is perpendicular to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2$. It is well known that all the trajectories are circles in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ of radius $|B_0|$, so in particular they are closed and contractible. Projecting to $T^2$ or $C$, we conclude that all magnetic geodesics on these spaces subject to the magnetic field from are closed and contractible.\
The heat flow equation is equivalent to the following system of partial differential equations $$\dot\varphi=\varphi''-B_0z',\qquad \dot z=z''+B_0\varphi',$$ which can be rewritten in terms of the complex variable $\xi=\varphi+iz$ as $$\label{evolution-xi}
\dot{\xi}=\xi''+iB_0 \xi'.$$ The integrand of the magnetic term in the energy identity , which determines the asymptotic behaviour of the system, can be computed explicitly: $$\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')=\langle \dot{\gamma},Z(\gamma')\rangle=B_0\langle \dot{\gamma},\gamma'\times B\rangle=B_0(z'\dot{\varphi}-\dot{z}\varphi').$$ We can integrate directly and obtain a family of solutions $$\label{Eq_k_Mode}
\xi_k=e^{iks}e^{-(B_0k+k^2)t},$$ where $k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. The most general solution is obtained by summing over all $k$. Similar to [@MR2551140] we now solve this system for different types of initial data.\
1. \[ExTorusPart1\] Let $k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\setminus\{0\}$. Prescribing initial conditions $(\varphi_k(s,0),z_k(s,0))=(a\cos (ks),b\sin (ks))$ for $a,b> 0$, we find the following solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_k(s,t)&=\frac{a+b}{2}\cos (ks) e^{-(kB_0+k^2)t}+\frac{a-b}{2}\cos (ks) e^{-(-kB_0+k^2)t},\\
z_k(s,t)&=\frac{a+b}{2}\sin (ks)e^{-(kB_0+k^2)t}-\frac{a-b}{2}\sin (ks) e^{-(-kB_0+k^2)t}.\end{aligned}$$ Putting $B_0=k=1$, we reproduce the solution in [@MR2551140], Example 8a) and it is easy to see that the flow converges as $t \to \infty$. More general, a brief inspection of the exponents shows that the flow (sub)-converges if and only if $|B_0| \leq |k|$. In case $|B_0| < |k|$, the flow in fact shrinks to a point and we only obtain a nontrivial limit for $B_0 = \pm k$. It is not hard to check that these limits are in fact magnetic geodesics. Explicit computation of the magnetic term in the energy identity yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\int_{S^1}\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')dsdt = -\pi abkB_0
&- \tfrac{\pi}{4}(b-a)^2kB_0 e^{-2T(k^2-kB_0)} \\
&+ \tfrac{\pi}{4}(b+a)^2kB_0 e^{-2T(k^2+kB_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that in accordance with Remark \[RemGeneralConvergence\], this term is bounded below with respect to $T$ if and only if $|B_0|\leq k$, i.e. if and only if the flow (sub)-converges.
2. \[ExTorusPart2\] Prescribing the initial conditions $(\varphi(s,0),z(s,0))=(s,\mu \cos(s))$ for $\mu > 0$, we find the following solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\qquad \varphi=s+\frac{\mu}{2}\sin s(e^{(B_0-1)t}-e^{-(B_0+1)t}),\qquad
z=B_0t+\frac{\mu}{2}\cos s(e^{(B_0-1)t}+e^{-(B_0+1)t}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that this solution contains contributions from for all $k$. It is obvious that this solution does not converge as $t\to\infty$ for any choice of $B_0 \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\setminus\{0\}$. Again, this is reflected in the critical term in $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\int_{S^1}\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')dsdt
&= -2\pi B_0^2t + B_0\frac{\pi\mu^2}{4}(e^{-2T(1+B_0)}-e^{-2T(1-B_0)}),\end{aligned}$$ which is not bounded below with respect to $t$ for any choice of $B_0 \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\setminus\{0\}$. Note that the first term on the right hand side is multiplied by $B_0^2$. Thus, we cannot change the asymptotic behaviour of the solution by changing the sign of $B_0$, even if $|B_0|$ is small.
One may of course produce other explicit solutions using the Fourier decomposition of $\xi$ from .
Comparing the findings in this particular example with the general results from Theorem \[ThmConvergenceOttarson\] and Theorem \[ThmConvExactCase\], we can draw the following conclusions:
\[RemTorusEx\]
1. In general, we cannot expect to obtain the (sub)convergence of the flow to a magnetic geodesic in case $\Omega$ is not exact unless the initial curve $\gamma_0$ is contractible. In fact, since all solutions in this example are contractible, the initial conditions, being in the same homotopy class, have to be contractible, too. Part (2) of the example shows an initial curve wrapping around the torus and we have seen that the corresponding flow never converges.
2. Even if $\Omega$ is exact, we need additional assumptions to guarantee $|A|_{L^\infty} < \infty$ and hence (sub)-convergence of the flow to a magnetic geodesic. In fact, the flow from part , viewed as an element of $C^\infty(S^1 \times [0,\infty), C)$, is not subconvergent, which reflects the fact that the potential $A = z d\phi$ is not essentially bounded on the non-compact cylinder $C$.
3. An upper bound on $|Z|_{L^\infty}$ (as the one used in Lemma \[LemZAssump\]) is crucial to obtain convergence. In fact, choosing $k := 1 < B_0$ in part above provides an example of a divergent flow.
4. Even if the flow is subconvergent, the limit need not be a magnetic geodesic. Setting $\mu := 0$ in part , we obtain the constant sequence of curves $\gamma_{t_m} \in
C^\infty(S^1,T^2)$ for $t_m := 2\pi m$, $m \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. We have already seen that $\gamma_\infty$ cannot be a magnetic geodesic because it winds one time around the torus.
5. Provided $|B_0| \leq k$, part gives an example, where Proposition \[LemNonTriv1\] can be applied even though $\Omega$ is not exact. Moreover, we see that the condition $E(\gamma_0) \leq 0$ cannot be improved: Choosing $a=b=1$, we obtain $E(\gamma_0) = E_{kin}(\gamma_0) + E_A(\gamma_0) = \pi(k^2+kB_0)$. Thus, we find examples of a flow with positive total energy arbitrary close to zero, which shrinks to a point. On the other hand, we also see that the aforementioned condition is not necessary since $B_0 = k$ yields an example with positive initial energy converging to a nontrivial magnetic geodesic. \[RemTorusExEnergy\]
6. Part also illustrates the rescaling technique used in Corollary \[CorRescaling\]: For parameter $k > 1$, we may consider the flow as map $S^1_{1/k} \times [0,\infty) \rightarrow T^2$. Rescaling it by $\frac{1}{k}$, we get a new flow, defined on $S^1_1 \times [0,\infty)$, which solves for $\Lambda = \frac{1}{k}$. The rescaled flow converges provided $|\frac{B_0}{k}| \leq 1$ by \[RemZ\_Eins\_Optimal\]. This is equivalent to the condition $|B_0| \leq k$, which was obtained above by an explicit calculation. In particular, we find that convergence of the flow to magnetic geodesics may be obtained for arbitrary large values of $|B_0|$ by suitable rescaling in accordance with Corollary \[CorRescaling\].
Magnetic Geodesics on the two-dimensional sphere {#ExSphere}
------------------------------------------------
Now we study the case of a two-dimensional spherical target, $N := S^2\subset{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3$. Magnetic geodesics on $S^2$ have been extensively studied in [@MR2788659]. A natural choice for a magnetic force is given by $Z(\gamma')=B_0\gamma\times\gamma'$. Again, it is not hard to see that the associated 2-form is given by $\Omega = B_0 vol_{S^2}$, which is not exact. In this case, the equation for magnetic geodesics on $S^2$ acquires the form $$\label{magnetic-sphere}
\gamma''=-|\gamma'|^2\gamma+B_0\gamma\times\gamma'.$$ By a direct computation one can check that $$\label{solution-sphere}
\gamma(s)=(\sin\theta_0\cos(\frac{B_0}{\cos\theta_0}s),\sin\theta_0\sin(\frac{B_0}{\cos\theta_0}s),\cos\theta_0)$$ solves for a fixed value of $\theta_0$. However, note that this equation implicitly assumes that this solution is defined on a circle $S^1_r$ whose radius $r$ is an integer multiple of $\frac{B_0}{\cos\theta_0}$. The corresponding heat flow leads to the following system $$\dot{\gamma}=\gamma''+|\gamma'|^2\gamma-B_0\gamma\times\gamma'$$ with initial data $\gamma_0$. Here, the relevant term in term can be expressed as $$\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')=B_0\langle\dot{\gamma},\gamma\times\gamma'\rangle=B_0\det(\dot{\gamma},\gamma,\gamma')$$ and depending on its sign, we expect that the evolution equation converges or not. Let us analyze this evolution equation for several different ansätze.
1. We use the following ansatz: $$\label{EqSphereAnsatz1}
\gamma(s,t) = (\sin\theta(t)\cos\varphi(s),\sin\theta(t)\sin\varphi(s),\cos\theta(t))$$ This ansatz leads to a system of differential equations, which can be simplified easily. From the equation for $\gamma_3$ we obtain $$\frac{\dot\theta}{\sin\theta}=B_0\varphi'-\varphi'^2\cos\theta.$$ Equating the expressions for $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ yields $\tan(\varphi)\varphi''=-\cot(\varphi)\varphi''$, which implies that $\varphi''=0$. Hence, $\varphi(s) = c\cdot s$ and after a suitable rescaling, which only affects the value of $B_0$, we may assume $\varphi(s)=s$. The equations for $\gamma_i,i=1,2,3$ now lead to $$\label{evolution-theta-sphere}
\dot{\theta}=-\sin\theta\cos\theta+B_0\sin\theta = \sin\theta (B_0 - \cos\theta).$$ This equation cannot be integrated directly for arbitrary $B_0$.
To understand the asymptotics of , we study the zero’s of the right hand side. It can easily be checked that the right hand side vanishes for $\theta=0,\pi,\theta_0:= \arccos(B_0)$ and the functions $\theta(t)=0,\pi,\theta_0$ are clearly solutions of . Moreover, it is straightforward to check that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqThetaSigns}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\theta > \theta_0 \\
\theta < \theta_0
\end{array}
\right\}
&\Longrightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\theta (B_0 - \cos\theta) > 0 \\
\sin\theta (B_0 - \cos\theta) < 0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, depending on the initial condition, the solution will converge to $\theta_\infty=0$, $\theta_\infty=\pi$ or, more interestingly, to $\theta_\infty=\theta_0$, see also [@MR2961944], Lemma 1.1. Moreover we see that if $\theta(0)\neq \theta_0$, then the flow equation causes $\theta(t)$ to approach one of the poles, i.e. $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}\theta(t) = 0, \pi$. The corresponding limit curve $\gamma_\infty$ will either be one of the poles of the sphere (and hence constant) or given by the curve $$\gamma_\infty(s)=(\sqrt{1-B_0^2}\cos s,\sqrt{1-B_0^2}\sin s,B_0),$$ which is a reparametrization of . We have seen above that unless we already start on this particular solution ($\theta(0) = \theta_0$), the flow will converge to one of the poles. Hence, represents a non-stable solution, whereas both trivial solutions are stable, at least within the limits of our ansatz .\
In addition, we check the critical term in for this ansatz: $$\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')=B_0\langle\dot{\gamma},\gamma\times\gamma'\rangle=B_0\varphi'\tfrac{d}{dt}(\cos\theta).$$ When integrating this expression over $S^1$ we find that it vanishes, in accordance with Remark \[RemGeneralConvergence\] and the fact that this ansatz converges.
2. We now use a different ansatz: $$\gamma(s,t)=(\sin\theta(s)\cos\varphi(t),\sin\theta(s)\sin\varphi(t),\cos\theta(s))$$ The flow equation now reads $Z(\gamma')=B_0(-\sin\varphi(t)\theta',-\cos\varphi(t)\theta',0)$ and the equation for $\gamma_3$ then directly implies $\theta''=0$. Multiplying the equation for $\gamma_1$ with $\sin\varphi$, multiplying the equation for $\gamma_2$ with $\cos\varphi$ and adding up both contributions then yields $$\dot{\varphi}=-B_0\frac{\theta'}{\sin\theta}.$$ But this means that both sides have to be equal to a constant $\lambda$, leading to $$-\theta'=\lambda\sin\theta.$$ In addition, we know that $\theta'$ is constant, such that $\theta=0$. Hence, the curve $\gamma$ will stay at the north pole of $S^2$. The critical term in takes the form $$\Omega(\dot{\gamma},\gamma')=-B_0\dot{\varphi}\tfrac{d}{ds}(\cos\theta)$$ and this expression again vanishes when integrated over $S^1$.
In addition to the comments at the end of Example \[ExTorus\], we can draw additional conclusions concerning the heat flow approach from the current example on $S^2$:
\[RemSphere\]
1. By , there exist nontrivial contractible periodic magnetic geodesics. However, the heat flow method is not appropriate to establish their existence since the nontrivial solution is unstable. Given a generic choice for the initial curve $\gamma_0$, the flow will converge to one of the poles. This behaviour is analogous to the properties of the ordinary heat flow for closed geodesics on $S^2$.
2. The discussion of ansatz (1) also provides an example, where the criterion in Proposition \[LemNonTriv1\] for non-triviality of $\gamma_\infty$ explicitly fails. Choosing a potential $A_p$ on $S^2\setminus \{p\}$ for some point $p \in S^2$ and an initial curve $\gamma_0$ such that $\tfrac{1}{2}\int |\gamma_0'|^2ds + \int \gamma_0^\ast Ads \leq 0$, it may be shown that the flow either passes through $p$ at some time or converges to $p$. Thus, the argument in \[LemNonTriv1\] breaks down.
Magnetic Geodesics on the hyperbolic plane {#ExHyperbolic}
------------------------------------------
Finally, we assume that $N$ is the hyperbolic plane ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}^2$ with constant curvature $-1$. A general existence result for magnetic geodesics on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}^2$ was recently established in [@MR2959932]. We choose the convention $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}^2 = \{ (\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3 \mid \gamma_1^2-\gamma_2^2-\gamma_3^2=1 \},$$ i.e the axis of rotation of the hyperboloid points in the $\gamma_1$-direction. As in [@MR2959932], p.6, we define a modified cross product between two vectors $v,w$ by $$v\tilde{\times}w=(v_3w_2-v_2w_3,v_1w_3-v_3w_1,v_1w_2-v_2w_1).$$ The equation for magnetic geodesics is now given by $$\gamma''=\gamma|\gamma'|^2+B_0\gamma\tilde{\times}\gamma'$$ and as in the spherical case, an explicit solution can easily be found: $$\label{solution-hyperbolic}
\gamma(s)=(\cosh\theta_0,\sinh\theta_0\cos(\frac{B_0}{\cosh\theta_0}s),\sinh\theta_0\sin(\frac{B_0}{\cosh\theta_0}s)).$$ Note that for $B_0\to 0$, the solution shrinks to a point. This reflects the fact that there do not exist ordinary closed geodesics on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}^2$.\
The evolution equation for magnetic geodesics then reads $$\dot{\gamma}=\gamma''-\gamma|\gamma'|^2-B_0\gamma$$ for some given initial data $\gamma_0$. Let us make the following ansatz $$\gamma(s,t)=(\cosh\theta(t),\sinh\theta(t)\cos\varphi(s),\sinh\theta(t)\sin\varphi(s)).$$ Similar to the spherical case this leads to the following two equations $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\theta=-\cosh\theta\sinh\theta\varphi'^2-\sinh\theta\varphi',\qquad \varphi''=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, setting $\varphi=s$, we obtain $$\dot\theta=-\cosh\theta\sinh\theta+B_0\sinh\theta.$$ As in the spherical case, we cannot integrate this equation directly. Thus, we again analyze the zero’s of the right hand side, which are given by $0,\theta_0 := \operatorname{arcosh} B_0$. Similar to , we moreover have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqThetaSignsHyp}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\theta > \theta_0 \\
\theta < \theta_0
\end{array}
\right\}
&\Longrightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\sinh\theta (B_0 - \cosh\theta) < 0 \\
\sinh\theta (B_0 - \cosh\theta) > 0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ In contrast to the spherical case, we now find that unless $\theta(0) = 0$, we have $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\theta(t) = \theta_0$. Hence, depending on the initial condition, the solution will stay at $(1,0,0)$ if it started at this point or converges to the curve $$\gamma_\infty=(B_0,\sqrt{B_0^2-1}\cos s,\sqrt{B_0^2-1}\sin s),$$ which again coincides with up to a reparametrization.
In contrast to Example \[ExSphere\], the nontrivial solution on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}^2$ is stable, at least within the limits of our ansatz. In particular, the heat flow method is appropriate for establishing the existence of the nontrivial magnetic geodesics . Again, this reflects the properties of the heat flow for ordinary geodesics where critical points are stable if the manifold has strictly negative curvature. Due to the magnetic terms in , we do not fully understand the role of curvature for magnetic geodesics at present.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a classical complex Lie group, $P$ any parabolic subgroup of $G$, and $G/P$ the corresponding partial flag variety. We prove an explicit nonrecursive Giambelli formula which expresses an arbitrary Schubert class in $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(G/P)$ as a polynomial in certain special Schubert class generators; in the even orthogonal case this depends on the main result of [@BKT4]. Our formula extends to one that applies to the torus-equivariant cohomology ring of $G/P$ and to the setting of symplectic and orthogonal degeneracy loci.'
address: 'University of Maryland, Department of Mathematics, 1301 Mathematics Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA'
author:
- Harry Tamvakis
date: 'August 25, 2009'
title: A Giambelli formula for isotropic partial flag varieties
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The classical Giambelli formula [@G] is one of the fundamental results concerning Schubert calculus in the cohomology ring of the usual Grassmannian ${{\mathfrak X}}$. The cohomology of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ has an additive basis of Schubert classes, and is generated as a ring by certain [*special*]{} Schubert classes, which are the Chern classes of the universal quotient bundle over ${{\mathfrak X}}$. The formula of Giambelli writes a general Schubert class as a determinant of a Jacobi-Trudi matrix with entries given by special classes.
The Giambelli problem can be formulated for any homogeneous space $G/P$, where $G$ is a classical complex Lie group and $P$ a parabolic subgroup of $G$. One can choose as Schubert class generators for the cohomology ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(G/P)$ the pullbacks of the special Schubert classes on Grassmannians; typically these will be the Chern classes of the tautological quotient bundles over $G/P$. The question then is to find an explicit combinatorial formula which expresses a general Schubert class in $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(G/P)$ as a polynomial in the special classes. We proceed to give a brief survey of the work to date on the Giambelli problem for such homogeneous spaces.
The case of the full flag variety $G/B$, where the cohomology is generated by Schubert divisors, is more amenable to study. Note that in general, the Giambelli polynomials are only defined up to the ideal of relations generated by the invariant polynomials under the action of the Weyl group of $G$. Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand [@BGG] and Demazure [@D1; @D2] used divided difference operators to construct an algorithm that produces polynomials which represent the Schubert classes. For the general linear group, Lascoux and Schützenberger [@LS1] applied this method to define [*Schubert polynomials*]{}, a particularly nice choice of representatives with rich combinatorial properties. An explicit combinatorial formula for the coefficients of Schubert polynomials was given by Billey, Jockusch, and Stanley [@BJS] – thus resolving the Giambelli question in the case of the complete flag variety in type A. This was generalized to arbitrary $\operatorname{GL}_n$ partial flag varieties by Buch, Kresch, Yong, and the author [@BKTY §5].
In the other classical Lie types, one considers the varieties which parametrize flags of subspaces of a vector space which are isotropic with respect to an orthogonal or symplectic form. Pragacz [@P] found an explicit Giambelli formula for the maximal isotropic Grassmannians, in the form of a Schur Pfaffian [@Sch]. At the other extreme, for the full flag varieties $G/B$ in types B, C, and D, the analogous theory of Schubert polynomials is not uniquely determined (see [@BH; @Fu2; @FK2; @LP1; @LP2; @T1; @T3] for examples) and their combinatorics is more challenging.
Giambelli formulas for non-maximal isotropic Grassmannians were discovered only recently [@BKT2; @BKT4]. Unlike most previously known examples, the nature of the formulas in loc. cit. is not determinantal – instead, they are expressed using Young’s raising operators [@Y]. In the present work we will generalize these results to settle the Giambelli problem for any classical $G/P$ space (when $G$ is an even orthogonal group, the problem is reduced to the main result of [@BKT4]). One of our motivations for this is the fact that all the known Giambelli formulas expressed in terms of special Schubert classes have straightforward – often identical – extensions to the small quantum cohomology ring of $G/P$; see [@Bertram; @CF; @FGP; @KTlg; @KTog; @BKT3]. We expect that our new Giambelli formulas will similarly prove to be the right ones to look at in the quantum world.
The modern formulation of the Giambelli problem is in the setting of an algebraic family of varying partial flag varieties, with applications to [*degeneracy loci*]{} of vector bundles. This story also has a long history, from the work of Thom-Porteous and Kempf-Laksov [@KL] to the generalizations by Fulton, Pragacz, and others [@Fu1; @Fu2; @Fu3; @Fu4; @PR; @LP1; @KT; @IMN]; see [@FP; @Ma; @Tu] for expositions. It has been known at least since the paper of Graham [@Gra] that the degeneracy locus problem for the classical groups from [@Fu2; @Fu3] is equivalent to the Giambelli problem for the Schubert classes in the [*$T$-equivariant cohomology*]{} of $G/P$, where $T$ denotes the maximal torus in $G$. In type A, the project culminated with the combinatorial understanding of the polynomials representing quiver loci [@BF; @BKTY; @KMS].
Fulton asked in [@Fu3] for degeneracy locus formulas which have a similar shape for all the classical groups; moreover, that the formulas should be determinantal whenever possible. We give a complete answer to this question here, except that in addition to determinants we also require the raising operator Giambelli polynomials from [@BKT2; @BKT4]. Furthermore, the results provide a combinatorial link between the general $G/P$ Giambelli problem and the quiver formulas of [@BKTY].
We now state one of our main theorems, referring to §\[prelims\], §\[splitC\], and §\[flags\] for the precise definitions. Equip the vector space $E={{\mathbb C}}^{2n}$ with a nondegenerate skew-symmetric bilinear form. Fix a sequence ${{\mathfrak d}}\, :\, d_1 < \cdots < d_p$ of positive integers with $d_p \leq n$. Let ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak d}})$ be the variety parametrizing partial flags of subspaces $$\label{Eseq}
E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}\ :\ 0 \subset E_1 \subset \cdots \subset
E_p \subset E$$ with $\dim E_i = d_i$ for each $i$ and $E_p$ isotropic. The Schubert varieties ${{\mathfrak X}}_w$ in ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak d}})$ and their cohomology classes $[{{\mathfrak X}}_w]$ are indexed by signed permutations $w$ in the Weyl group of $\operatorname{Sp}_{2n}$ whose descent positions are included among the $d_i$. Let $E'_j =
E/E_{p+1-j}$ for $1\leq j\leq p$; the Chern classes of the $E'_j$ are the special Schubert classes in $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak d}}),{{\mathbb Z}})$. We then have $$\label{introgiam}
[{{\mathfrak X}}_w] = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^1}(E'_1)s_{{\lambda}^2}(E'_2-E'_1)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^p}(E'_p-E'_{p-1})$$ summed over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$ with ${\lambda}^1$ $k$-strict, where $k=n-d_p$. Here ${\Theta}_{{\lambda}^1}$ and $s_{{\lambda}^i}$ denote theta and Schur polynomials, respectively, and the coefficient $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ is a nonnegative integer which counts the number of $p$-tuples of leaves of shape $\underline{{\lambda}}$ in the groves of the transition forest associated to ${{\mathfrak d}}$ and $w$.
Let $\operatorname{IG}(n-k,2n)$ denote the Grassmannian parametrizing isotropic linear subspaces of $E$ of dimension $n-k$. The morphism which sends $E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ to $E_p$ realizes ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak d}})$ as a fiber bundle over $\operatorname{IG}(n-k,2n)$ with fiber equal to a type A partial flag variety. The mixed nature of the ingredients in formula (\[introgiam\]) is in harmony with this fact; however, this simple geometric observation cannot by itself produce an explicit solution to the Giambelli problem.
Our proof of (\[introgiam\]) and the corresponding formulas for degeneracy loci is mainly combinatorial. We work with the Schubert polynomials of Billey and Haiman [@BH], and more generally with their double versions introduced by Ikeda, Mihalcea, and Naruse [@IMN]. These objects have many of the properties of the type A Schubert polynomials, but their connection with the geometry is less clear. This problem was addressed for the single Schubert polynomials in [@T2; @T3] and in [@IMN] for their double counterparts. Using this theory, our geometric results follow readily by combining the Giambelli formulas for isotropic Grassmannians from [@BKT2; @BKT4] with new [*splitting theorems*]{} for these Schubert polynomials, which are analogues of [@BKTY Thm. 4 and Cor. 3] for the other classical Lie types.
A first step towards splitting the Billey-Haiman Schubert polynomials was formulated by Yong [@Yo]; however, his result does not suffice for the aforementioned applications to geometry. The point is that the flag of subspaces $E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ in (\[Eseq\]) need not contain a Lagrangian (i.e., a maximal isotropic) subspace. In terms of the Weyl group, this is simply the fact that the first descent position of a signed permutation $w$ need not be at [*zero*]{}.
To solve this problem, we introduce the [*mixed Stanley functions*]{}, denoted by $J_w(X,Y)$ in type C. The functions $J_w$ are defined as sums of products of type C and type A Stanley symmetric functions in two distinct sets of variables. For each fixed $m\geq 0$, they include among their coefficients the number of reduced words of a signed permutation $w$ such that the last $m$ letters in the word are positive (the letter $0$ is used to denote the sign change). When $w$ has no descents smaller than $k$, where $k\geq m$, the $J_w$ – suitably restricted – are nonnegative integer linear combinations of theta polynomials indexed by $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$. It is the [*mixed Stanley coefficients*]{} that appear in this expansion which enter into the splitting and degeneracy locus formulas. Finally, our combinatorial interpretation of the numbers $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ in (\[introgiam\]) depends on the [*transition equations*]{} of Lascoux and Schützenberger [@LS3] and Billey [@B]. It would be interesting to have tableau formulas for the $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$, analogous to the ones in [@BF; @BKTY; @KMS] for quiver coefficients.
This article is organized so that most of the exposition is in type C; a final section explains the analogous picture in types B and D. We review the Schur, theta, and Schubert polynomials, as well as the Stanley symmetric functions we require in §\[prelims\]. The mixed Stanley functions and their basic properties are studied in §\[transition\]; this includes applications to enumerating reduced words and product rules for theta polynomials. Our splitting theorems for Schubert polynomials are proved in §\[splitC\], and the applications to symplectic degeneracy loci and Giambelli formulas are deduced in §\[sdl\] and §\[flags\], respectively. We conclude with the Schubert splitting results for the orthogonal groups in §\[ogps\].
I grateful to my collaborators Anders Buch, Andrew Kresch, and Alexander Yong for their hard work on related papers, especially [@BKTY] and [@BKT1; @BKT2]. I also thank Leonardo Mihalcea for conversations about his joint paper [@IMN] on double Schubert polynomials, which played an important role in this project.
Preliminaries {#prelims}
=============
Schur and theta polynomials
---------------------------
An [*integer sequence*]{} is a sequence of integers ${\alpha}=({\alpha}_1,
{\alpha}_2,\ldots)$ only finitely many of which are non-zero. The largest integer $\ell\geq 0$ such that ${\alpha}_\ell\neq 0$ is called the [*length*]{} of ${\alpha}$, denoted $\ell({\alpha})$; we will identify an integer sequence of length $\ell$ with the vector consisting of its first $\ell$ terms, and set $|{\alpha}| = \sum {\alpha}_i$. An integer sequence ${\lambda}$ is a [*partition*]{} if ${\lambda}_i \geq {\lambda}_{i+1}\geq 0$ for all $i$. We will represent partitions ${\lambda}$ by their Young diagram of boxes, let ${\lambda}'$ denote the conjugate (or transpose) of ${\lambda}$, and write $\mu\subset{\lambda}$ for the containment relation between two Young diagrams. Following Young [@Y], given any integer sequence $\alpha$ and natural numbers $i<j$, we define $$R_{ij}(\alpha) = (\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_i+1,\ldots,\alpha_j-1,
\ldots).$$ A raising operator $R$ is any monomial in these $R_{ij}$’s. If $(u_1,u_2,\ldots)$ is any ordered set of commuting independent variables and ${\alpha}$ is an integer sequence, we let $u_{{\alpha}} =
\prod_iu_{{\alpha}_i}$, with the understanding that $u_0=1$ and $u_r = 0$ if $r<0$. For any raising operator $R$, let $R\,u_{{\alpha}} = u_{R{\alpha}}$.
Let $c=(c_1,c_2,\ldots)$ and $d=(d_1,d_2,\ldots)$ be two families of commuting variables. Define elements $h_r$ for $r\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ by the identity of formal power series $$\sum_{r=-\infty}^{+\infty}h_rt^r =
\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty(-1)^ic_it^i\right)^{-1}
\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty(-1)^id_it^i\right).$$ Consider the raising operator expression $$R^{0}= \prod_{i<j}(1-R_{ij})$$ and for any partition ${\lambda}$, define the [*Schur polynomial*]{} $s_{\lambda}(c-d)$ by $$s_{\lambda}(c-d) = R^{0}\, h_{\lambda}= \det(h_{{\lambda}_i+j-i})_{i,j}.$$ Let $Y=(y_1,y_2,\ldots)$ and $Z=(z_1,z_2,\ldots)$ be two infinite sets of variables, and define the elementary symmetric functions $e_r(Y)$ by the generating function $$\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(1+y_it)=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}e_r(Y)t^r.$$ The [*supersymmetric Schur function*]{} $s_{\lambda}(Y/Z)$ is obtained from $s_{\lambda}(c-d)$ by setting $c_r = e_r(Y)$ and $d_r = e_r(Z)$ for all $r\geq 1$. The usual Schur $S$-functions satisfy the identities $s_{\lambda}(Y) = s_{\lambda}(Y/Z)\vert_{Z=0}$ and $s_{\lambda}(0/Z) =
s_{\lambda}(Y/Z)\vert_{Y=0} = (-1)^{|{\lambda}|}s_{{\lambda}'}(Z)$. In particular, for each integer $r$, the function $s_r(Y)$ is the complete symmetric function in the variables $Y$, also denoted $h_r(Y)$.
Fix an integer $k\geq 0$. A partition ${\lambda}$ is [*$k$-strict*]{} if all its parts ${\lambda}_i$ greater than $k$ are distinct; ${\lambda}$ is called [*strict*]{} if it is $0$-strict. Any such ${\lambda}$ determines a raising operator expression $R^{\lambda}$ by the prescription $$R^{\lambda}= \prod_{i<j}(1-R_{ij})\prod_{{i<j}\atop{{\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j > 2k+j-i}}
(1+R_{ij})^{-1}$$ where the second product is over all pairs $i<j$ such that ${\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j > 2k + j-i$. Define elements $g_r$ for $r\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ by the identity $$\sum_{r=-\infty}^{+\infty}g_rt^r =
\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty c_it^i\right)
\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty d_it^i\right)^{-1}$$ and the [*theta polynomial ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(c-d)$*]{} by $$\label{Tidef}
\Theta_{\lambda}(c-d) = R^{\lambda}\, g_{\lambda}.$$ If $X=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ is another infinite set of variables, the formal power series ${\vartheta}_r(X\,;Y)$ for $r\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ are defined by the equation $$\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{1+x_it}{1-x_it} \prod_{j=1}^k
(1+y_jt)= \sum_{r=0}^{\infty}{\vartheta}_r(X\,;Y)t^r.$$ Following [@BKT2], we then set ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(X\,;Y) = R^{\lambda}\,
{\vartheta}_{\lambda}$. The ${\Theta}_{\lambda}$ for ${\lambda}$ $k$-strict form a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis for the ring $\Gamma^{(k)} = {{\mathbb Z}}[{\vartheta}_1,{\vartheta}_2,\ldots]$. The ring $\Gamma=\Gamma^{(0)}$ is the ring of Schur $Q$-functions (see [@M2 III.8] and [@Sch]), and in this case ${\vartheta}_r(X)$ and ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(X)$ are denoted by $q_r(X)$ and $Q_{\lambda}(X)$, respectively.
The hyperoctahedral group {#hypgp}
-------------------------
Let $W_n$ denote the hyperoctahedral group of signed permutations on the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. We will adopt the notation where a bar is written over an entry with a negative sign. The group $W_n$ is the Weyl group for the root system $\text{B}_n$ or $\text{C}_n$, and is generated by the simple transpositions $s_i=(i,i+1)$ for $1\leq i \leq n-1$ and the sign change $s_0(1)={\overline}{1}$. There is a natural embedding $W_n\hookrightarrow
W_{n+1}$ defined by adjoining the fixed point $n+1$. The symmetric group $S_n$ is the subgroup of $W_n$ generated by the $s_i$ for $1\leq i \leq n-1$, and is the Weyl group for the root system $\text{A}_{n-1}$. We let $S_\infty = \cup_nS_n$ and $W_\infty=\cup_n W_n$.
A [*reduced word*]{} for $w\in W_n$ is a sequence $a_1\cdots a_r$ of elements in $\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ such that $w=s_{a_1}\cdots s_{a_r}$ and $r$ is minimal (so equal to the length $\ell(w)$ of $w$). Given any $u_1,\ldots,u_p,w\in W_\infty$, we write $u_1\cdots u_p=w$ if $\ell(u_1)+\cdots + \ell(u_p)=\ell(w)$ and the product of $u_1,\ldots,u_p$ is equal to $w$. In this case we say that $u_1\cdots
u_p$ is a [*reduced factorization*]{} of $w$. We say that $w$ has [*descent*]{} at position $r\geq 0$ if $w_r>w_{r+1}$, where by definition $w_0=0$. An element $w\in W_\infty$ is [*compatible*]{} with the sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\, a_1 < \cdots < a_p$ of nonnegative integers if all descent positions of $w$ are contained in ${{\mathfrak a}}$. A reduced factorization $u_1\cdots u_p=w$ is [*compatible with*]{} ${{\mathfrak a}}$ if $u_j(i)=i$ for all $j>1$ and $i \leq a_{j-1}$.
We say that a signed permutation $w\in W_\infty$ is [*increasing up to $k$*]{} if it has no descents less than $k$. This condition is vacuous if $k=0$, and for positive $k$ it means that $0 < w_1 < w_2 <
\cdots < w_k$. An important special case are the [*$k$-Grassmannian*]{} elements, which by definition satisfy $\ell(ws_i)=\ell(w)+1$ for all $i\neq k$. There is a natural bijection between $k$-Grassmannian elements of $W_\infty$ and $k$-strict partitions, obtained as follows. If $w\in W_n$ is $k$-Grassmannian, there exist unique strict partitions $u,\zeta,v$ of lengths $k$, $r$, and $n-k-r$, respectively, so that $$w=(u_k,\ldots,u_1,
{\overline}{\zeta}_1,\ldots,{\overline}{\zeta}_r,v_{n-k-r},\ldots,v_1).$$ Define $\mu_i$ for $1\leq i \leq k$ by $$\mu_i=u_i+i-k-1+\#\{j\ |\ \zeta_j > u_i\}.$$ Then $w$ corresponds to the $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$ such that the lengths of the first $k$ columns of ${\lambda}$ are given by $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k$, and the part of ${\lambda}$ in columns $k+1$ and higher is given by $\zeta$. Conversely, for any $k$-strict ${\lambda}$ the corresponding $k$-Grassmannian element is denoted by $w_{\lambda}$.
Schubert polynomials and Stanley symmetric functions {#sps}
----------------------------------------------------
Following [@FS] and [@FK1; @FK2], we will use the nilCoxeter algebra ${{\mathcal W}}_n$ of the hyperoctahedral group $W_n$ to define Schubert polynomials and Stanley symmetric functions in types A and C, respectively. ${{\mathcal W}}_n$ is the free associative algebra with unity generated by the elements $u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_{n-1}$ modulo the relations $$\begin{array}{rclr}
u_i^2 & = & 0 & i\geq 0\ ; \\
u_iu_j & = & u_ju_i & |i-j|\geq 2\ ; \\
u_iu_{i+1}u_i & = & u_{i+1}u_iu_{i+1} & i>0\ ; \\
u_0u_1u_0u_1 & = & u_1u_0u_1u_0.
\end{array}$$ For any $w\in W_n$, choose a reduced word $a_1\cdots a_\ell$ for $w$ and define $u_w = u_{a_1}\ldots u_{a_\ell}$. Since the last three relations listed are the Coxeter relations for $W_n$, it is clear that $u_w$ is well defined, and that the $u_w$ for $w\in W_n$ form a free ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of ${{\mathcal W}}_n$. We denote the coefficient of $u_w\in {{\mathcal W}}_n$ in the expansion of the element $f\in {{\mathcal W}}_n$ by $\langle f,w\rangle$; thus $f = \sum_{w\in W_n}\langle f,w\rangle\,u_w$ for all $f\in {{\mathcal W}}_n$.
Let $t$ be an indeterminate and define $$\begin{gathered}
A_i(t) = (1+t u_{n-1})(1+t u_{n-2})\cdots
(1+t u_i) \ ; \\
\tilde{A}_i(t) = (1-t u_i)(1-t u_{i+1})\cdots (1-t u_{n-1}) \ ; \\
C(t) = (1+t u_{n-1})\cdots(1+t u_1)
(1+2t u_0)(1+t u_1)\cdots (1+t u_{n-1}).\end{gathered}$$ According to [@FS Lemma 2.1] and [@FK2 Prop. 4.2], for all commuting variables $s$, $t$ and indices $i$, the relations $A_i(s)A_i(t) = A_i(t)A_i(s)$ and $C(s)C(t) = C(t)C(s)$ hold. If $C(X)=C(x_1)C(x_2)\cdots$ and $A(Y)=A_1(y_1)A_1(y_2)\cdots$, we deduce that the functions $F_w(X)$ and $G_{{\varpi}}(Y)$ defined for $w\in W_n$ and ${{\varpi}}\in S_n$ by $$F_w(X) = \langle C(X), w \rangle \ \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \ \
G_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \langle A(Y), {{\varpi}}\rangle$$ are symmetric functions in $X$ and $Y$, respectively. The $G_{{\varpi}}$ and $F_w$ are the type A and type C Stanley symmetric functions, introduced in [@Sta] and [@BH; @FK2; @L2]. We have that $F_w=F_{w^{-1}}$.
When $G_{{\varpi}}$ is expanded in the basis of Schur functions, one obtains a formula $$\label{Geq}
G_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \sum_{{\lambda}\, :\, |{\lambda}| = \ell({{\varpi}})}c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}s_{\lambda}(Y)$$ for some nonnegative integers $c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}$ (see [@LS2], [@EG]). According to [@LS2] (see also [@M1 (7.22)]), we have $c_{\lambda}^{{\varpi}}= c^{{{\varpi}}^{-1}}_{{\lambda}'}$. Lascoux and Schützenberger [@LS3] gave one of the first combinatorial interpretations for the coefficients $c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}$, as the number of leaves of shape ${\lambda}$ in the [*transition tree*]{} $T({{\varpi}})$ they associated to ${{\varpi}}$. Equation (\[Geq\]) may be used to define the double Stanley symmetric functions $G_{{\varpi}}(Y/Z)$.
For any ${{\varpi}}\in S_n$, the Schubert polynomial ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}$ of Lascoux and Schützenberger is given by $$\label{ASdef}
{{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \left\langle
A_1(y_1)A_2(y_2)\cdots A_{n-1}(y_{n-1}), {{\varpi}}\right\rangle.$$ The definition (\[ASdef\]) is equivalent to the one in [@LS1], as is shown in [@FS]. Now define $$\label{dbleC}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z) = \left\langle
\tilde{A}_{n-1}(z_{n-1})\cdots \tilde{A}_1(z_1)C(X) A_1(y_1)\cdots
A_{n-1}(y_{n-1}), w\right\rangle.$$ If ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y):={{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,0)$, then (\[dbleC\]) is equivalent to the equation $$\label{dbleC2}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z) = \sum_{uv=w}{{\mathfrak S}}_{u^{-1}}(-Z){{\mathfrak C}}_v(X\,;Y)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $uv=w$ with $u\in S_n$. The polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$ in (\[dbleC\]) were introduced by Ikeda, Mihalcea, and Naruse [@IMN]; they are double versions of the type C Billey-Haiman Schubert polynomials [@BH]. Their definition differs from (\[dbleC\]), but the equivalence of the two follows by combining (\[dbleC2\]) with [@FK2 §7] and [@IMN Cor.8.10]. One checks that ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}$ and ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$ are stable under the natural inclusion of $W_n$ in $W_{n+1}$, and hence well defined for ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$ and $w\in W_\infty$, respectively. The ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y)$ for ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$ form a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of the polynomial ring ${{\mathbb Z}}[Y]$, and the ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$ for $w\in W_\infty$ form a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of $\Gamma[Y]$.
If ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$ is a Grassmannian permutation with a unique descent at $r$, then the ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y)$ is a Schur polynomial in $(y_1,\ldots,y_r)$. In [@BKT2 §6], we obtained the analogue of this result for the ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$: if $w\in W_\infty$ is $k$-Grassmannian, then ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$ is a theta polynomial ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(X\,;Y)$, where ${\lambda}$ is the $k$-strict partition associated to $w$.
Splitting type A Schubert polynomials
-------------------------------------
If $r\leq s$ are any two integers, and $P(X,Y,Z)$ is any polynomial or formal power series in the variables $x_i$, $y_j$, and $z_j$, we let $P[r,s]$ denote the power series obtained from $P(X,Y,Z)$ by setting $x_i=0$ for all $i$ if $0\notin [r,s]$, $y_j=0$ if $j\notin [r,s]$, and $z_j = 0$ if $-j\notin [r,s]$. If $0\in [r,s]$ we set $P^{(r,s)}=P[r,s]$ and $P^{(s)}=P[0,s]$.
If $w\in W_n$ and $v\in
S_m$, we define $w\times v\in W_{m+n}$ to be the signed permutation $(w_1,\dots,w_n,v_1+n,\ldots, v_m+n)$. For ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$ and $1\leq r\leq s$, equation (\[ASdef\]) immediately gives $$\label{Astab}
{{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}[r,s] = \begin{cases} {{\mathfrak S}}_v(y_r,\ldots,y_s) & \text{if
${{\varpi}}=1_{r-1}\times v$}, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Given any sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\, a_1<\ldots <a_p$ of natural numbers, we furthermore obtain $${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}}{{\mathfrak S}}_{u_1}[1,a_1]
{{\mathfrak S}}_{u_2}[a_1+1,a_2]\cdots{{\mathfrak S}}_{u_p}[a_{p-1}+1,a_p]$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}$.
If ${{\varpi}}$ is increasing up to $r$, then ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}$ is symmetric in $y_1,\ldots , y_r$ and we have $$\label{AG}
{{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}^{(r)} = G_{{\varpi}}^{(r)} = \sum_{{\lambda}\, :\, |{\lambda}| =
\ell({{\varpi}})}c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}s_{\lambda}(y_1,\ldots,y_r)$$ with the coefficients $c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}$ as in (\[Geq\]). Suppose now that ${{\varpi}}$ is compatible with the sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}$, and set $Y_i =
\{y_{a_{i-1}+1},\ldots,y_{a_i}\}$ for each $i$. From the previous considerations, we deduce that ${{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}$ satisfies the formula $$\label{SGsplitting}
{{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}} G_{u_1}(Y_1)\cdots G_{u_p}(Y_p)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$. Using (\[Geq\]) to refine (\[SGsplitting\]) further gives $$\label{ASsplitting}
{{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(Y) = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}} c^{{\varpi}}_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
s_{{\lambda}^1}(Y_1)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^p}(Y_p)$$ summed over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$, where $$c^{{\varpi}}_{\underline{{\lambda}}} = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}}
c_{{\lambda}^1}^{u_1}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^p}^{u_p},$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = {{\varpi}}$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$. More general versions of (\[SGsplitting\]), (\[ASsplitting\]) for universal Schubert polynomials [@Fu4] and quiver polynomials [@BF] are established in [@BKTY; @KMS].
Following [@BKTY Cor. 3], a result of Fomin and Greene [@FG] for the coefficients $c^{{\varpi}}_{\lambda}$ in (\[Geq\]) implies an alternative formula for the $c^{{\varpi}}_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$. The [*column word*]{} ${\text{col}}(T)$ of a semistandard Young tableaux $T$ is obtained by reading the entries in the columns of $T$ from bottom to top and left to right. For any ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$, the coefficient $c^{{\varpi}}_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ equals the number of sequences of semistandard tableaux $(T_1,\ldots,T_p)$ such that ${\text{col}}(T_1)\cdots
{\text{col}}(T_p)$ is a reduced word for ${{\varpi}}$, the entries of $T_i$ are strictly greater than $a_{i-1}$ and the shape of $T_i$ is conjugate to ${\lambda}^i$ for each $i$.
Transition for mixed Stanley functions {#transition}
======================================
Mixed Stanley functions
-----------------------
\[Stdef\] Given $w\in W_\infty$, the (right) [*mixed Stanley function*]{} $J_w(X;Y)$ is defined by the equation $$J_w(X\,;Y) =
\langle C(X)A(Y),w\rangle =
\sum_{uv=w}F_u(X)G_v(Y)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $uv=w$ with $v\in S_\infty$.
Definition \[Stdef\] can be easily restated in terms of reduced decompositions and admissible sequences, along the lines of [@BH Eq.(3.2)]. One has a dual notion of a left mixed Stanley function $J'_w(X;Y) = \sum_{uv=w}G_{u^{-1}}(Y)F_v(X)$, summed over all reduced factorizations $uv=w$ with $u\in S_\infty$. This is equivalent to the right version since clearly $J'_w(X;Y) = J_{w^{-1}}(X,Y)$.
Recall that $J^{(k)}_w = J_w[0,k]$. If $w\in W_\infty$ is increasing up to $k$, we claim that ${{\mathfrak C}}_w^{(k)}= J_w^{(k)}$. Indeed, observe that if $w=uv$ is a reduced factorization, then $\ell(vs_i)=\ell(v)+1$ for all $i<k$, i.e., $v$ is also increasing up to $k$. It follows that $$\label{CSk}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w^{(k)} = \sum_{uv=w, \, v\in S_{\infty}} F_u(X){{\mathfrak S}}_v^{(k)} =
\sum_{uv=w, \, v\in S_{\infty}} F_u(X)G_v^{(k)} = J_w^{(k)},$$ as claimed. In particular, if $w=w_{\lambda}$ is $k$-Grassmannian, then $$\label{HeqT}
J_{w_{\lambda}}^{(k)}(X\,;Y) = {\Theta}_{\lambda}(X\,;Y).$$
If ${\lambda}$ is a $k$-strict partition, then $$\label{Jex}
J_{w_{\lambda}}(X\,;Y) = \sum_{\mu\subset{\lambda}} F_{{\lambda}/\mu}(X)s_{\mu'}(Y)$$ summed over all $k$-strict partitions $\mu\subset{\lambda}$. The function $F_{{\lambda}/\mu}(X)$ in (\[Jex\]) is the skew $F$-function from [@T2 §5], which, when non-zero, is equal to $F_{w_{\lambda}w_\mu^{-1}}(X)$.
Transition equations {#tes}
--------------------
For positive integers $i<j$ we define reflections $t_{ij}\in S_\infty$ and ${\overline}{t}_{ij},{\overline}{t}_{ii} \in W_\infty$ by their right actions $$\begin{aligned}
(\ldots,w_i,\ldots,w_j,\ldots)\,t_{ij} &=
(\ldots,w_j,\ldots,w_i,\ldots), \\
(\ldots,w_i,\ldots,w_j,\ldots)\,{\overline}{t}_{ij} &=
(\ldots,{\overline}{w}_j,\ldots,{\overline}{w}_i,\ldots), \ \ \mathrm{and} \\
(\ldots,w_i,\ldots)\,{\overline}{t}_{ii} &=
(\ldots,{\overline}{w}_i,\ldots).\end{aligned}$$ We let ${\overline}{t}_{ji} = {\overline}{t}_{ij}$. According to [@B Thms. 4, 5], the type C Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w={{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$ satisfy the recursion formula $$\label{recurse}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w = y_r{{\mathfrak C}}_{wt_{rs}} + \sum_{{1 \leq i < r} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}t_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} {{\mathfrak C}}_{wt_{rs}t_{ir}} +
\sum_{{i\geq 1} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} {{\mathfrak C}}_{wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}},$$ where $r$ is the last positive descent of $w$ and $s$ is maximal such that $w_s < w_r$. If the last descent $r$ of $w$ satisfies $r>k$, we deduce from (\[CSk\]) and (\[recurse\]) that $$\label{rec2}
J_w^{(k)} = \sum_{{1 \leq i < r} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}t_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} J_{wt_{rs}t_{ir}}^{(k)} +
\sum_{{i \geq 1} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} J_{wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}}^{(k)}.$$
For any $w\in W_\infty$ which is increasing up to $k$, we construct a rooted tree $T^k(w)$ with nodes given by elements of $W_\infty$ and root $w$ as follows. Let $r$ be the last descent of $w$. If $w=1$ or $r=k$, then set $T^k(w)=\{w\}$. Otherwise, let $s = \max(i>r\ |\ w_i <
w_r)$ and $\Phi(w)= \Phi_1(w)\cup \Phi_2(w)$, where $$\begin{gathered}
\Phi_1(w)= \{wt_{rs}t_{ir}\ |\ 1\leq i < r \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \
\ell(wt_{rs}t_{ir}) = \ell(w) \}, \\
\Phi_2(w)=
\{wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}\ |\ i\geq 1 \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \
\ell(wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}) = \ell(w) \}.\end{gathered}$$ To recursively define $T^k(w)$, we join $w$ by an edge to each $v\in
\Phi(w)$, and attach to each $v\in \Phi(w)$ its tree $T^k(v)$. We call $T^k(w)$ the [*$k$-transition tree*]{} of $w$.
\[Tlemma\] The $k$-transition tree $T^k(w)$ is finite. All the nodes of $T^k(w)$ are increasing up to $k$, and the leaves of $T^k(w)$ are $k$-Grassmannian elements.
If $w$ is $k$-Grassmannian then clearly $T^k(w)=w$. We will show that if $w$ is increasing up to $k$ and not $k$-Grassmannian, then $\Phi(w)\neq
\emptyset$ and all elements of $\Phi(w)$ are increasing up to $k$. Let $r>k$ be the last descent of $w$, $s$ be maximal such that $w_s <
w_r$, and $v=wt_{rs}$. If $\Phi_1(w)=\emptyset$, then according to Monk’s criterion [@Mo] (see also [@B Lemma 1]), we must have $w_i > w_s$ for all $i<r$. If $w_s>0$ then $v{\overline}{t}_{rr}\in
\Phi_2(w)$. If $w_s<0$, let $i>0$ be minimal such that $w_i>-w_s$. Then one can easily check using [@B Lemma 2] that $v{\overline}{t}_{ir}\in \Phi_2(w)$. This proves that $\Phi(w)$ is nonempty.
To show that all elements of $\Phi(w)$ are increasing up to $k$, we may assume that $k>0$. If there exists an $i\leq k$ such that $\ell(vt_{ir}) = \ell(w)$, then $w_s>w_i$ and for all $j\in (i,r)$, $w_j\notin (w_i,w_s)$. It follows that $vt_{ir}$ is increasing up to $k$. If $\ell(v{\overline}{t}_{ir}) = \ell(w)$ for some $i\leq k$, then we must have $w_s <0$. Moreover, by [@B Lemma 3], the descent set of $v{\overline}{t}_{ir}$ is contained in the descent set of $v$. We deduce that $v{\overline}{t}_{ir}$ is also increasing up to $k$.
Finally, it is shown in [@B Thm. 4] that the recursion defining $T^k(w)$ terminates after a finite number of steps, and hence $T^k(w)$ is a finite tree. Moreover, we deduce from loc. cit. that if $w\in
W_n$, then all of the nodes of $T^k(w)$ lie in $W_{n+r}$.
If $w\in W_\infty$ is increasing up to $k$ and $v$ is a leaf of $T^k(w)$, the [*shape*]{} of $v$ is the $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$ associated to $v$. For any $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$, the [*mixed Stanley coefficient*]{} $e^w_{{\lambda}}$ is equal to the number of leaves of $T^k(w)$ of shape ${\lambda}$.
The next result is a type C analogue of equation (\[AG\]).
\[mainthm\] If $w\in W_\infty$ is increasing up to $k$, then we have an expansion $$\label{CStan}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w^{(k)} = J_w^{(k)} = \sum_{{\lambda}\, :\, |{\lambda}| = \ell(w)}
e^w_{{\lambda}}\,{\Theta}_{{\lambda}}$$ where the sum is over $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$.
The equality ${{\mathfrak C}}_w^{(k)} = J_w^{(k)}$ is proved in (\[CSk\]). We deduce from (\[rec2\]) and the definition of $T^k(w)$ that if $w$ is not $k$-Grassmannian, then $$J_w^{(k)} = \sum_{v\in \Phi(w)} J_{v}^{(k)}.$$ On the other hand, for any $k$-Grassmannian element $w=w_{\lambda}$, we have $J^{(k)}_{w_{\lambda}} = {\Theta}_{\lambda}$, by (\[HeqT\]). This completes the proof of the theorem.
\[treeex\] The $1$-transition tree of $w=3{\overline}{1}254$ looks as follows. $$\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{tree}$$ By Theorem \[mainthm\] we therefore obtain $$J_{3{\overline}{1}254}^{(1)} = {\Theta}_{(2,1,1)} + 2\,{\Theta}_{(3,1)} + {\Theta}_4.$$
When $k=0$, Theorem \[mainthm\] states that for any $w\in W_\infty$, $$\label{CStan0}
F_w(X) = \sum_{{\lambda}\, :\, |{\lambda}| = \ell(w)} e^w_{{\lambda}}\,Q_{{\lambda}}(X)$$ summed over strict partitions ${\lambda}$. A transition based formula for the constants $e^w_{{\lambda}}$ in equation (\[CStan0\]) was proved by Billey [@B]. There are several alternative combinatorial descriptions of these numbers in this case, which include a formula in terms of [*Kraskiewicz tableaux*]{} [@Kr; @L2] of shape ${\lambda}$. It would be interesting to have an analogous tableau formula for the $e^w_{{\lambda}}$ in the general case where $k>0$. Another natural question is whether the mixed Stanley coefficients can be used to obtain a Littlewood-Richardson type rule for theta polynomials; some positive results in this direction are explained in §\[mrs\].
Consider the [*double mixed Stanley function*]{} $$J_w(X\,;Y/Z) = \sum_{{{\varpi}}uv=w}G_{{{\varpi}}^{-1}}(-Z)F_u(X)G_v(Y)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations ${{\varpi}}uv=w$ with ${{\varpi}},v\in
S_\infty$. Fix integers $j,k\geq 0$, and suppose that $w\in W_\infty$ is increasing up to $k$ and and $w^{-1}$ is increasing up to $j$. Then ${{\mathfrak C}}_w^{(-j,k)}(X\,;Y,Z) = J_w^{(-j,k)}(X\,;Y/Z)$. However, the analogue of Theorem \[mainthm\] fails, at least for fixed $k$. For an example with $j=k=1$, one checks that ${{\mathfrak C}}_{231}^{(-1,1)}$ cannot be written as an integral linear combination of ${{\mathfrak C}}_{2{\overline}{1}3}^{(-1,1)}$ and ${{\mathfrak C}}_{312}^{(-1,1)}$, while $2{\overline}{1}3$ and $312$ are the only $1$-Grassmannian elements of length two in $W_\infty$.
Reduced words and $k$-bitableaux {#redwds}
--------------------------------
The type A Stanley symmetric functions $G_{{\varpi}}$ were used in [@Sta] and to express the number of reduced words of a permutation ${{\varpi}}$ in terms of the numbers $f^{\lambda}$ of standard tableaux of shape ${\lambda}$, for the partitions ${\lambda}$ which appear in equation (\[Geq\]). Similarly, the type C Stanley symmetric functions $F_w$ can be used to compute the number of reduced words for an element $w\in W_\infty$, as shown in [@H; @Kr]. We proceed to give an analogue of these results for the mixed Stanley functions $J_w$.
We first recall some definitions from [@T2 §5]. Let [**P**]{} denote the ordered alphabet $\{1'<2'<\cdots<k'<1<2<\cdots\}$. The symbols $1',\ldots,k'$ are called [*marked*]{}, while the rest are [*unmarked*]{}. Let ${\lambda}$ be a $k$-strict partition. A [*$k$-bitableau*]{} $U$ of shape ${\lambda}$ is a filling of the boxes in ${\lambda}$ with elements of [**P**]{} which is weakly increasing along each row and down each column, such that (i) the marked entries are strictly increasing along rows and weakly increasing down columns, and (ii) the unmarked entries form a $k$-tableau $T$. Each $k$-bitableau $U$ has an associated multiplicity $r(U)$; see loc. cit. for definitions and more details. Let $(xy)^U=\prod_ix_i^{m_i}\prod_jy_j^{n_j}$, where $m_i$ (respectively $n_j$) denotes the number of times that $i$ (respectively $j'$) appears in $U$. According to [@T2 Thm. 5], we have $$\label{thtab}
{\Theta}_{\lambda}(X\,;Y) = \sum_U 2^{r(U)}(xy)^U$$ summed over all $k$-bitableaux $U$ of shape ${\lambda}$.
If a $k$-bitableau $U$ contains exactly $m$ marked entries, we say that $U$ is of [*type $m$*]{}. $U$ is called [*standard*]{} if the entries $1',\ldots,m',1,\ldots,n$ each appear once in $U$ for some $n$; in this case we have $r(U)=n$.
Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer with $m\leq k$. For any $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$, define $h^{\lambda}_m$ to be the number of standard $k$-bitableaux of shape ${\lambda}$ and type $m$. We say that a reduced word for $w\in W_\infty$ has [*type $m$*]{} if the last $m$ letters of the word are positive.
Following [@T2 Thm. 6 and Ex. 9], for any two $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$, $\mu$ with $\mu\subset{\lambda}$ and $\mu_1\leq k$, the number $g^{{\lambda}/\mu}$ of standard $k$-tableaux of shape ${\lambda}/\mu$ is equal to the number of reduced words for $w_{\lambda}w_\mu^{-1}$. Furthermore, using e.g. [@T2 Prop. 5], one can construct a bijection between the set of reduced words of type $m$ for $w_{\lambda}$ and the set of $k$-bitableaux of shape ${\lambda}$ and type $m$, for any $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$. It follows that for any $m\leq k$, we have $$h^{\lambda}_m = \sum_{\mu\subset{\lambda},\, |\mu|=m}
f^\mu g^{{\lambda}/\mu}$$ summed over all partitions $\mu\subset{\lambda}$ with $|\mu|=m$. The $k=0$ case of the next result is due to Haiman [@H] and Kraśkiewicz [@Kr].
\[hkgeneral\] Let $w\in W_\infty$ be increasing up to $k$ and let $m$ be an integer with $0\leq m \leq \min(k,\ell(w))$. Then the number of reduced words of type $m$ for $w$ is equal to $\sum_{\lambda}e_{\lambda}^w
h^{\lambda}_m$, where the sum is over all $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$.
It is clear that the number of reduced words of type $m$ for $w$ equals $2^{-n}$ times the coefficient of $x_1\cdots x_n y_1\cdots y_m$ in $J_w$, where $n=\ell(w)-m$. On the other hand, this coefficient is also equal to $2^n\sum_{\lambda}e_{\lambda}^w h^{\lambda}_m$, by (\[CStan\]) and (\[thtab\]).
It would be interesting to find a bijective proof of Proposition \[hkgeneral\].
Multiplication rules {#mrs}
--------------------
We show here how Theorem \[mainthm\] and Lemma \[multlem\] lead to Littlewood-Richardson type rules for the product of two theta polynomials. In the case of $k=0$, we observe that the transition equations in [@B] give a combinatorial rule for the structure constants in the product of [*any*]{} two Schur $Q$-functions. This answers a question of Manivel in the affirmative (compare with [@BL §4]).
We will actually work with the Schur $P$-functions, which are defined by the equation $P_{\lambda}= 2^{-\ell({\lambda})} Q_{\lambda}$, for any strict partition ${\lambda}$. Given two strict partitions $\mu$ and $\nu$, there are nonnegative integers $f^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ such that $$P_{\mu}P_{\nu} = \sum_{{\lambda}}f^{{\lambda}}_{\mu\nu}P_{{\lambda}}.$$ The $f_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}$ agree with the Schubert structure constants on maximal orthogonal Grassmannians $\operatorname{OG}(n,2n+1)$, when $n$ is sufficiently large. The same numbers also appear in the expansion of skew Schur $Q$-functions $$\label{skeweq}
Q_{{\lambda}/\mu} = \sum_{\nu} f^{{\lambda}}_{\mu\nu}Q_{\nu}$$ in the $Q$-basis. Combinatorial rules for the $f^{{\lambda}}_{\mu\nu}$ may be found in [@Sa; @W; @St1; @Sh].
The skew Schur $Q$-functions are known to be equal to certain type C Stanley symmetric functions (see [@FK2 Thm. 8.2] and [@St2 Cor. 6.6]). In fact, we have $Q_{{\lambda}/\mu}= F_{w_{\lambda}w_\mu^{-1}}$, where $w_{\lambda}$ and $w_\mu$ are the $0$-Grassmannian elements associated to ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ (this is a special case of [@T2 Thm. 6]). We therefore deduce the following result from (\[CStan0\]) and (\[skeweq\]).
The coefficient $f^{{\lambda}}_{\mu\nu}$ is equal to the number of leaves of $T^0(w_{\lambda}w_\mu^{-1})$ of shape $\nu$, if $\mu\subset {\lambda}$, and is equal to zero, otherwise.
Now let $k$ be any nonnegative integer. The following result is an analogue of [@BL Lemma 16] for the functions $J_w$.
\[multlem\] For $w\in W_n$ and $v\in S_\infty$, we have $$J_wJ_v = J_{w\times v}.$$
Since $a_1\cdots a_\ell$ is a reduced word for $v\in S_m$ if and only if $(a_1+n)\cdots(a_\ell+n)$ is a reduced word for $1_n\times v$, we see that $G_{1_n\times v} = G_v$, $F_{1_n\times v} = F_v$, and $J_v =
J_{1_n\times v}$ for each $n\geq 1$. The reduced words for $w\times
v$ are all obtained by intertwining a reduced word for $w$ with a reduced word for $1_n\times v$. Moreover, given any reduced factorization $ab=w\times v$, with $b\in S_\infty$, we have $a=a_1\times a_2$ and $b=b_1 \times b_2$ where $a_1,b_1\in W_n$ and $a_2,b_1, b_2\in S_\infty$. We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{w\times v}(X\,;Y) &= \sum_{(a_1\times a_2)(b_1\times b_2) = w\times v}
F_{a_1\times a_2}(X) G_{b_1\times b_2}(Y) \\
&= \sum_{(a_1\times a_2)(b_1\times b_2) = w\times v}
F_{a_1}(X)F_{1_n\times a_2}(X) G_{b_1}(Y)G_{1_n\times b_2}(Y) \\
&= \sum_{a_1b_1 = w, \ a_2 b_2 = v}
F_{a_1}(X)G_{b_1}(Y) F_{a_2}(X) G_{b_2}(Y) \\
&= J_w(X\,;Y) J_v(X\,;Y). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
We obtain a combinatorial rule for multiplying two theta polynomials, when one of the factors is indexed by a ‘small’ partition (compare with [@BL Cor. 17]).
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be $k$-strict partitions with $\nu_i\leq k$ for all $i$, and consider the product expansion $${\Theta}_\mu{\Theta}_\nu = \sum_{\lambda}\varphi_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}{\Theta}_{\lambda}$$ summed over $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$. Then $\varphi_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}$ is equal to the number of leaves of $T^k(w_\mu\times w_\nu)$ of shape ${\lambda}$.
Observe that $w_\nu\in S_\infty$ if and only if $\nu_i\leq k$ for all $i$. Lemma \[multlem\] therefore applies and gives the equation $${\Theta}_\mu{\Theta}_\nu = J^{(k)}_{w_\mu} J^{(k)}_{w_\nu} =
J^{(k)}_{w_{\mu}\times w_{\nu}}.$$ The result now follows from Theorem \[mainthm\]. Recall from [@BKT2 §5.4] that in this situation we have ${\Theta}_\nu = R^0\, {\vartheta}_\nu = \det({\vartheta}_{\nu_i+j-i})_{i,j}$.
For the $1$-strict partitions $\mu=(2,1)$ and $\nu=1$ we have $w_{\mu}\times w_\nu = 3{\overline}{1}254\in W_5$. Example \[treeex\] therefore gives ${\Theta}_{(2,1)}{\Theta}_1 = {\Theta}_{(2,1,1)} + 2\,{\Theta}_{(3,1)} +
{\Theta}_4$.
Splitting type C Schubert polynomials {#splitC}
=====================================
In this section we give splitting theorems for the single and double type C Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$. For any $k\geq 0$, let $Y_{>k}=(y_{k+1},y_{k+2},\ldots)$. The following proposition generalizes the $k=0$ case from [@BH Thm. 3].
\[basis\] If $w\in W_\infty$ is increasing up to $k$, then $$\label{basic}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{u(1_k\times v) = w}
J^{(k)}_u(X\, ; Y){{\mathfrak S}}_v(Y_{>k})$$ where the sum is over all reduced factorizations $u(1_k\times v) = w$ with $v\in S_\infty$. The Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$ for $w\in
W_\infty$ increasing up to $k$ form a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis for the ring $\Gamma^{(k)}[Y_{>k}]=\Gamma^{(k)}[y_{k+1},y_{k+2},\ldots]$.
From the definition (\[dbleC\]) we deduce that for any $w\in W_n$, $${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{uv=w,\, v\in S_{\infty}}{{\mathfrak C}}_u[0,k]{{\mathfrak S}}_v[k+1,n].$$ According to (\[Astab\]), the polynomial ${{\mathfrak S}}_v[k+1,n]$ is non-zero only if $v=1_k\times {{\varpi}}$ for some ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$, in which case ${{\mathfrak S}}_v[k+1,n] = {{\mathfrak S}}_{{\varpi}}(y_{k+1},\ldots,y_n)$. For all such $v$, we furthermore note that the element $u=wv^{-1}$ is increasing up to $k$, and hence ${{\mathfrak C}}_u[0,k]=J_u[0,k]$ by Theorem \[mainthm\]. This proves equation (\[basic\]).
Set ${{\mathfrak C}}_w={{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y)$ and for each $i\geq 0$, let $\partial_i$ denote the divided difference operator from [@BH §2]. Recall that $\partial_i{{\mathfrak C}}_w = {{\mathfrak C}}_{ws_i}$, if $w_i>w_{i+1}$, and $\partial_i{{\mathfrak C}}_w = 0$, otherwise. Since the ${\Theta}_{\lambda}={{\mathfrak C}}_{w_{\lambda}}$ for $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$ form a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of $\Gamma^{(k)}$, we deduce that $\partial_i f=0$ for all $i<k$ and $f$ in the ring $\Gamma^{(k)}[Y_{>k}]$.
Equations (\[CStan\]) and (\[basic\]) imply that the ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$ for $w$ increasing up to $k$ are contained in $\Gamma^{(k)}[Y_{>k}]$. Moreover, the ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$ for $w\in W_\infty$ are known to be a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of $\Gamma[Y]$ from [@BH Thm. 3]. Given any $f\in
\Gamma^{(k)}[Y_{>k}]$, we therefore have $f = \sum_{w\in
W_\infty}a_w\,{{\mathfrak C}}_w$ for some $a_w\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. Since $\partial_if=0$ for all $i<k$, we deduce that only terms ${{\mathfrak C}}_w$ with $w$ increasing up to $k$ appear in the sum, completing the proof.
Fix a sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\, a_1 < \cdots < a_p$ of nonnegative integers and define $Y_i = \{y_{a_{i-1}+1},\ldots,y_{a_i}\}$ for each $i$; in particular $Y_1=\emptyset$ if $a_1=0$. Given any sequence of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$ with ${\lambda}^1$ $a_1$-strict, we define the nonnegative integer $$\label{fdef0}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}} = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = w}
e_{{\lambda}^1}^{u_1}c_{{\lambda}^2}^{u_2}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^p}^{u_p},$$ where the sum is over reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$ such that $u_2,\ldots,u_p\in S_\infty$, and the integers $c_{{\lambda}^i}^{u_i}$ and $e^{u_1}_{{\lambda}^1}$ are as in (\[Geq\]) and (\[CStan\]), respectively.
The number $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ can be described in a more picturesque way as follows. Given a permutation ${{\varpi}}\in S_\infty$, let $T({{\varpi}})$ denote the Lascoux-Schützenberger transition tree associated to ${{\varpi}}$ in [@LS3 §4]. For any reduced factorization $u_1\cdots u_p = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$ such that $u_2,\ldots,u_p\in S_\infty$, the $p$-tuple of trees $(T^{a_1}(u_1),T(u_2),\ldots,T(u_p))$ is called a [*grove*]{}. The collection of all such groves forms the [*${{\mathfrak a}}$-transition forest*]{} associated to $w$. The integer $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ is then equal to the number of $p$-tuples of leaves of shape $\underline{{\lambda}}$ in the groves of the ${{\mathfrak a}}$-transition forest associated to $w$.
\[CSHG\] Suppose that $w\in W_\infty$ is compatible with the sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}$. Then we have $$\label{CSHGsplitting}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = w} J_{u_1}(X\,;Y_1)G_{u_2}(Y_2)
\cdots G_{u_p}(Y_p)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$ such that $u_2,\ldots,u_p\in S_\infty$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{CSsplitting}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^1}(X\,;Y_1)s_{{\lambda}^2}(Y_2)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^p}(Y_p)$$ summed over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$ with ${\lambda}^1$ $a_1$-strict.
Equation (\[CSHGsplitting\]) follows from (\[basic\]) and the type A Schubert splitting formula (\[SGsplitting\]). Moreover, (\[CSsplitting\]) is obtained from (\[CSHGsplitting\]) by using equations (\[Astab\]), (\[AG\]), and (\[CStan\]).
Let $\underline{{\lambda}}^- = ({\lambda}^2,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$. An equivalent expression for the coefficients $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ is $$\label{fdef}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}} = \sum_{uv=w}
e^u_{{\lambda}^1} c^v_{\underline{{\lambda}}^-}$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $uv=w$ with $v\in S_\infty$, where $c^v_{\underline{{\lambda}}^-}$ equals the number of sequences of tableaux $(T_2,\ldots,T_p)$ such that ${\text{col}}(T_2)\cdots {\text{col}}(T_p)$ is a reduced word for $v$, the entries of $T_i$ are strictly greater than $a_{i-1}$ and the shape of $T_i$ is conjugate to ${\lambda}^i$ for each $i\geq 2$. With this interpretation of the numbers $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$, the $k=0$ case of formula (\[CSsplitting\]) is contained in [@Yo §5].
Fix a second sequence ${{\mathfrak b}}\, :\, 0=b_1 < \cdots <b_q$ of nonnegative integers and set $Z_j= \{z_{b_{j-1}+1},\ldots,z_{b_j}\}$ for each $j$. A reduced factorization $u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w$ is [*compatible with*]{} ${{\mathfrak a}}$, ${{\mathfrak b}}$ if $u_j(i)=i$ whenever $j<q$ and $i\leq b_{q-j}$ or whenever $j>q$ and $i \leq a_{j-q}$. Given any sequence of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^{p+q-1})$ with ${\lambda}^q$ $a_1$-strict, we define $$\label{dbfdef0}
f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}} = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = {{\varpi}}}
c_{{\lambda}^1}^{u_1}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^{q-1}}^{u_{q-1}}
e_{{\lambda}^q}^{u_q}c_{{\lambda}^{q+1}}^{u_{q+1}}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}^{u_{p+q-1}},$$ where the sum is over reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$, ${{\mathfrak b}}$ such that $u_i\in S_\infty$ for all $i\neq q$. Using (\[dbleC2\]) and (\[ASsplitting\]), one can easily obtain an equivalent formula for the $f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ along the lines of (\[fdef\]).
\[dbleCSHG\] Suppose that $w$ and $w^{-1}$ are compatible with the sequences ${{\mathfrak a}}$ and ${{\mathfrak b}}$, respectively. Then ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z)$ is equal to $$\sum_{u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w} G_{u_1}(0/Z_q)\cdots
G_{u_{q-1}}(0/Z_2) J_{u_q}(X\,;Y_1) G_{u_{q+1}}(Y_2) \cdots
G_{u_{p+q-1}}(Y_p)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$, ${{\mathfrak b}}$ such that $u_i\in S_\infty$ for all $i\neq q$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{dbCSsplitting}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z) = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
s_{{\lambda}^1}(0/Z_q)\cdots
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^q}(X\,;Y_1)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}(Y_p)$$ summed over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^{p+q-1})$ with ${\lambda}^q$ $a_1$-strict.
The result follows immediately from equations (\[dbleC2\]), (\[SGsplitting\]), and Theorem \[CSHG\].
According to [@IMN Thm. 8.1], the Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z)$ enjoy the following symmetry property: $$\label{sym}
{{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,; Y,Z) = {{\mathfrak C}}_{w^{-1}}(X\,; -Z,-Y).$$ This also follows immediately from equation (\[dbleC\]). By applying Corollary \[dbleCSHG\] to the right hand side of (\[sym\]), we obtain dual versions of these splitting equations.
Symplectic degeneracy loci {#sdl}
==========================
Isotropic partial flag bundles
------------------------------
Let $E\to B$ be a vector bundle of rank $2n$ on an algebraic variety $B$. Assume that $E$ is a [*symplectic*]{} bundle, i.e. $E$ is equipped with an everywhere nondegenerate skew-symmetric form $E\otimes E\to {{\mathbb C}}$. A subbundle $V$ of $E$ is [*isotropic*]{} if the form vanishes when restricted to $V$; the ranks of isotropic subbundles of $E$ range from $0$ to $n$. Fix a sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\,
a_1 < \cdots < a_p$ of nonnegative integers with $a_p <n$, and set $a_{p+1}=n$ for convenience. We introduce the [*isotropic partial flag bundle*]{} ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ with its projection map $\rho:{{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)
\to {{\mathfrak X}}$. The variety ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ parametrizes partial flags $$\label{Edot}
E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}\ :\ 0= E_0 \subset E_1 \subset \cdots \subset E_p \subset E$$ with $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}E_i = n-a_{p+1-i}$ and $E_p$ isotropic. Here we have identified $E$ with its pullback under the map $\rho$, and also let (\[Edot\]) denote the tautological partial flag of vector bundles over ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$.
There is a group monomorphism $\phi:W_n{\hookrightarrow}S_{2n}$ with image $$\phi(W_n)=\{\,{{\varpi}}\in S_{2n} \ |\ {{\varpi}}(i)+{{\varpi}}(2n+1-i) = 2n+1,
\ \ \text{for all} \ i\,\}.$$ The map $\phi$ is determined by setting, for each $w=(w_1,\ldots,w_n)\in W_n$ and $1\leq i \leq n$, $$\phi(w)(i)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
n+1-w_{n+1-i} & \mathrm{ if } \ w_{n+1-i} \ \mathrm{is} \
\mathrm{unbarred}, \\
n+{\overline}{w}_{n+1-i} & \mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{array} \right.$$ Let $W^{{\mathfrak a}}$ be the set of signed permutations $w\in W_n$ whose descent positions are listed among the integers $a_1,\ldots,
a_p$. These elements are the minimal length coset representatives in $W_n/W_{{\mathfrak a}}$, where $W_{{\mathfrak a}}$ denotes the subgroup of $W_n$ generated by the simple reflections $s_i$ for $i\notin \{a_1,\ldots,
a_p\}$.
Fix a flag $0=F_0\subset F_1\subset \cdots \subset F_n \subset E$ of subbundles of $E$ with $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}F_i = i$ for each $i$ and $F_n$ isotropic. We extend any such flag to a complete flag $F_{{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}}$ in $E$ by letting $F_{n+i}=F_{n-i}^{\perp}$ for $1\leq i\leq n$; we call the completed flag a [*complete isotropic flag*]{}. For every $w\in
W^{{{\mathfrak a}}}$ and complete isotropic flag $F_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ of subbundles of $E$, we define the [*universal Schubert variety*]{} ${{\mathfrak X}}_w\subset
{{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ as the locus of $a \in {{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ such that $$\label{schdef}
\dim(E_r(a)\cap F_s(a))\geq \#\,\{\,i \leq r \ |\ \phi(w)(i)> 2n-s\,\}
\ \, \forall \ r,s.$$ The variety ${{\mathfrak X}}_w$ is an irreducible subvariety of ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ of codimension $\ell(w)$, and may be regarded as a universal degeneracy locus. Formulas for the classes $[{{\mathfrak X}}_w]$ in the cohomology or Chow ring of ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ pull back to identities for corresponding loci whenever one has a symplectic vector bundle $V$ and two flags of isotropic subbundles of $V$, following [@Fu3]. Moreover, they are equivalent to formulas which represent the Schubert classes in the $T$-equivariant cohomology ring of isotropic partial flag varieties, as observed e.g. in [@Gra].
Full flag bundles and the geometrization map
--------------------------------------------
Consider the full flag bundle ${{\mathrm F}}(E)={{\mathrm F}}^{(0,1,2,\ldots,n-1)}(E)$ parametrizing complete isotropic flags of subbundles $E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ in $E$. Let ${{\mathrm X}}= ({{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,{{\mathrm{x}}}_n)$ and ${{\mathrm Y}}= ({{\mathrm{y}}}_1,\ldots,{{\mathrm{y}}}_n)$. According to [@Fu2 §3], the cohomology (or Chow) ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathrm F}}(E),{{\mathbb Z}})$ is presented as a quotient $$\label{presentation}
\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathrm F}}(E)) \cong \operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(B)[{{\mathrm X}},{{\mathrm Y}}]/{{\mathrm J}}_n,$$ where ${{\mathrm J}}_n$ denotes the ideal generated by the differences $e_i({{\mathrm{x}}}_1^2,\ldots,{{\mathrm{x}}}_n^2)- e_i({{\mathrm{y}}}_1^2,\ldots,{{\mathrm{y}}}_n^2)$ for $1\leq i
\leq n$. The inverse of the isomorphism (\[presentation\]) sends the class of ${{\mathrm{x}}}_i$ to $-c_1(E_{n+1-i}/E_{n-i})$ and of ${{\mathrm{y}}}_i$ to $-c_1(F_{n+1-i}/F_{n-i})$ for each $i$ with $1\leq i \leq n$.
The ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathrm F}}(E))$ may be used to study the cohomology of any isotropic partial flag bundle ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$, because the natural surjection ${{\mathrm F}}(E)\to {{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ induces an injective ring homomorphism $\iota :\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E))\to\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathrm F}}(E))$. The tautological vector bundles $E_i$, $F_j$, the universal Schubert varieties, and their cohomology classes on ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$ pull back under $\iota$ to the homonymous objects over ${{\mathrm F}}(E)$.
The Schubert varieties ${{\mathfrak X}}_w$ on ${{\mathrm F}}(E)$ are indexed by $w$ in the full Weyl group $W_n$. Furthermore, the type C double Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X;Y,Z)$ represent their cohomology classes $[{{\mathfrak X}}_w]$ in the presentation (\[presentation\]), but only after a certain change of variables. Ikeda, Mihalcea, and Naruse [@IMN §10] provide a different way to connect these Schubert polynomials to geometry, which we will adapt to our current setup. For a closely related but distinct approach in the case of single Schubert polynomials, see [@T1].
The key tool is the following ring homomorphism from [@IMN], which we call the [*geometrization map*]{}: $$\pi_n : \Gamma[Y,Z] \to \operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(B)[{{\mathrm X}},{{\mathrm Y}}]/{{\mathrm J}}_n.$$ The homomorphism $\pi_n$ is determined by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\pi_n(q_r(X))=\sum_{i=0}^r e_i({{\mathrm X}})h_{r-i}({{\mathrm Y}}) \ \ \text{for all} \
r, \\ \pi_n(y_i)=-{{\mathrm{x}}}_i \ \ \text{for} \ \, 1\leq i\leq n, \ \
\pi_n(y_i)=0 \ \ \text{for} \ \, i>n, \ \ \pi_n(z_j)= {{\mathrm{y}}}_j \ \
\text{for each} \ j.\end{gathered}$$ It follows from [@IMN Prop. 7.7] that for $w\in W_n$, the geometrization map $\pi_n$ maps ${{\mathfrak C}}_w(X\,;Y,Z)$ to a polynomial which represents the universal Schubert class $[{{\mathfrak X}}_w]$ in the presentation (\[presentation\]). Furthermore, we have $\pi_n({{\mathfrak C}}_w)\in {{\mathrm J}}_n$ for $w\in
W_\infty{\smallsetminus}W_n$.
If $V$ and $V'$ are two vector bundles with total Chern classes $c(V)$ and $c(V')$, respectively, we denote $s_{\lambda}(c(V)-c(V'))$ by $s_{\lambda}(V-V')$. We similarly denote the class ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(c(V)-c(V'))$ by ${\Theta}_{\lambda}(V-V')$. To state our main geometric result, let $Q_1 =
E/E_p, Q_2= E_p/E_{p-1},\ldots, Q_p =E_2/E_1$. Consider a sequence ${{\mathfrak b}}\, :\, 0=b_1 < \cdots <b_q$ with $b_q <n$, and set ${\widehat}{Q}_2 = F_n/F_{n-b_2}, \ldots, {\widehat}{Q}_q=
F_{n-b_{q-1}}/F_{n-b_q}$.
\[dbleCloci\] Suppose that $w\in W^{{{\mathfrak a}}}$ and that $w^{-1}$ is compatible with ${{\mathfrak b}}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
[{{\mathfrak X}}_w] &= \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}} f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
s_{({\lambda}^1)'}({\widehat}{Q}_q)\cdots s_{({\lambda}^{q-1})'}({\widehat}{Q}_2)
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^q}(Q_1-F_n) s_{{\lambda}^{q+1}}(Q_2)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}(Q_p) \\
&= \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}} f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
s_{{\lambda}^1}(F_{n+b_{q-1}} - F_{n+b_q})\cdots
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^q}(E-E_p-F_n)
\cdots s_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}(E_2-E_1),\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^{p+q-1})$ with ${\lambda}^q$ $a_1$-strict, and the coefficients $f^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ are given by (\[dbfdef0\]).
The variables ${{\mathrm{x}}}_i$ for $1\leq i \leq n$ give the Chern roots of the various vector bundles over ${{\mathrm F}}^{{\mathfrak a}}(E)$. In particular the Chern roots of $Q_1$ are ${{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,{{\mathrm{x}}}_n,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_1}$, while those of $Q_r$ for $r\geq 2$ are $-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_{r-1}+1},\ldots,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_r}$. Similarly the Chern roots of $F_{n+1-r}$ are represented by $-{{\mathrm{y}}}_r,\ldots,-{{\mathrm{y}}}_n$ for each $r$. When $k=a_1$ we have ${\vartheta}_r(X\,;Y_1) = \sum_{i=0}^r
q_{r-i}(X)e_i(y_1,\ldots,y_{a_1})$ for any $r\geq 0$. Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_n({\vartheta}_r(X\,;Y_1)) &= \sum_{i,j\geq 0} e_{r-i-j}({{\mathrm X}})
h_j({{\mathrm Y}}) e_i(-{{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_1}) \\
&= \sum_{j\geq 0} e_{r-j}({{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,{{\mathrm{x}}}_n, -{{\mathrm{x}}}_1,\ldots,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_1})
h_j({{\mathrm Y}})= c_r(Q_1-F_n)\end{aligned}$$ and hence $\pi_n({\Theta}_{\lambda}(X\,;Y_1)) = {\Theta}_{\lambda}(Q_1-F_n)$, for any $a_1$-strict partition ${\lambda}$. Moreover, for any partition $\mu$ and $r\geq 2$, we have $$\pi_n(s_\mu(Y_r)) = s_\mu(-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_{r-1}+1},\ldots,-{{\mathrm{x}}}_{a_r}) = s_\mu(Q_r),$$ while $$\pi_n(s_\mu(0/Z_r)) = s_{\mu'}(-{{\mathrm{y}}}_{b_{r-1}+1},\ldots,-{{\mathrm{y}}}_{b_r}) =
s_{\mu'}({\widehat}{Q}_r) = s_\mu(F_{n+b_{r-1}}-F_{n+b_r}).$$ We deduce that $\pi_n$ maps formula (\[CSsplitting\]) onto the desired equality.
Giambelli formulas for symplectic flag varieties {#flags}
================================================
Partial isotropic flag varieties
--------------------------------
Equip the vector space $E={{\mathbb C}}^{2n}$ with a nondegenerate skew-symmetric bilinear form. Fix a sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\, a_1 < \cdots < a_p$ of nonnegative integers with $a_p <n$, and set $a_{p+1}=n$. Let ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$ be the variety parametrizing partial flags of subspaces $$0= E_0 \subset E_1 \subset \cdots \subset E_p \subset E$$ with $\dim E_i = n-a_{p+1-i}$ and $E_p$ isotropic. The same notation will be used to denote the tautological partial flag $E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ of vector bundles over ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$.
A presentation of the cohomology ring of ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$ as a quotient of the symmetric algebra on the characters of a maximal torus in $\operatorname{Sp}_{2n}$ is well known [@Bo]. We will give here an alternative presentation using the Chern classes of the tautological vector bundles over ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$. Let $Q_1 = E/E_p, Q_2= E_p/E_{p-1},\ldots,
Q_{p+1} =E_1$ and set $\sigma_i = c_i(Q_1)$ for $1\leq i \leq n+a_1$ and $c_j^r =c_j(Q_r)$ for $2\leq r\leq p+1$ and $1\leq j\leq
a_r-a_{r-1}$. We then have the following result
\[pres\] The cohomology ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}}),{{\mathbb Z}})$ is presented as a quotient of the polynomial ring ${{\mathbb Z}}[{{\sigma}}_1,\ldots,{{\sigma}}_{n+a_1},c_1^2,\ldots,c_{a_2-a_1}^2,
\ldots,c_1^{p+1},\ldots,c_{n-a_p}^{p+1}]$ modulo the relations $$\det(\sigma_{1+j-i})_{1\leq i,j \leq r} =
(-1)^r\sum_{i_2+\cdots+i_{p+1}=r} c_{i_2}^2\cdots c_{i_{p+1}}^{p+1}\,,
\ \ \ \ 1\leq r \leq n+a_1$$ and $$\label{R2}
\sigma_r^2 + 2\sum_{i=1}^{n+a_1-r}(-1)^i \sigma_{r+i}\sigma_{r-i}= 0\,,
\ \ \ \ a_1+1\leq r \leq n.$$
Let $\operatorname{IG}=\operatorname{IG}(n-a_1,2n)$ be the Grassmannian parametrizing isotropic subspaces of $E$ of dimension $n-a_1$. According to [@BKT1 Thm.1.2], the cohomology ring of $\operatorname{IG}$ is isomorphic to the polynomial ring generated by the Chern classes $\sigma_i=c_i(Q_1)$ and the Chern classes of $E_p$, modulo the relations $$\det(\sigma_{1+j-i})_{1\leq i,j \leq r} = (-1)^r c_r(E_p)\,, \ \ \ \
1\leq r \leq n+a_1$$ coming from the Whitney sum formula $c(E_p)c(Q_1)=1$, as well as the relations (\[R2\]). The map ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})\to \operatorname{IG}$ sending $E_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ to $E_p$ realizes ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$ as a fiber bundle over $\operatorname{IG}$ with fiber a partial $\operatorname{SL}_{n-a_1}$ flag variety. We deduce using e.g.[@Gr Thm. 1] that $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}}))$ is isomorphic to the polynomial ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*(\operatorname{IG})[c_1^2,\ldots,c_{a_2-a_1}^2,\ldots,c_1^{p+1},
\ldots,c_{n-a_p}^{p+1}]$ modulo the relations $$\sum_{i_2+\cdots+i_{p+1}=r} c_{i_2}^2\cdots c_{i_{p+1}}^{p+1} =
c_r(E_p) \,, \ \ \ \ 1\leq r \leq n-a_1.$$ The proposition follows by combining these two facts.
Giambelli formulas
------------------
Our choice of the special Schubert classes on isotropic Grassmannians agrees with the conventions in [@BKT1]. Let $F_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}}$ be a fixed complete isotropic flag of subspaces in ${{\mathbb C}}^{2n}$. For each $w\in
W^{{\mathfrak a}}$, the Schubert variety ${{\mathfrak X}}_w(F_{{\scriptscriptstyle \bullet}})$ in ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$ is defined by the same equation (\[schdef\]) as before. Let $E'_j =
E/E_{p+1-j}$ for $1\leq j\leq p$. The Chern classes $c_i(E'_j)$ for all $i, j$ are the Schubert classes on ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$ which are pullbacks of special Schubert classes on symplectic Grassmannians. By definition, they are the [*special Schubert classes*]{} on ${{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}})$, and they generate the cohomology ring $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}}))$ by Proposition \[pres\]. Specializing Theorem \[dbleCloci\] to the case when the base $B$ is a point gives the next result.
For every $w\in W^{{{\mathfrak a}}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{giambelli1}
[{{\mathfrak X}}_w] & = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^1}(Q_1)s_{{\lambda}^2}(Q_2)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^p}(Q_p) \\
&= \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
{\Theta}_{{\lambda}^1}(E'_1)s_{{\lambda}^2}(E'_2-E'_1)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^p}(E'_p-E'_{p-1})\end{aligned}$$ in $\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}^*({{\mathfrak X}}({{\mathfrak a}}))$, where the sums are over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^p)$ with ${\lambda}^1$ $a_1$-strict, and the coefficients $e^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}$ are given by (\[fdef0\]).
Splitting orthogonal Schubert polynomials {#ogps}
=========================================
In this final section we discuss the form of our splitting results for the orthogonal groups; we will work throughout with coefficients in the ring ${{\mathbb Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]$. For $w\in W_\infty$, let $s(w)$ denote the number of $i$ such that $w(i)<0$. It follows e.g. from [@BH; @IMN] that the polynomials ${{\mathfrak B}}_w=2^{-s(w)}{{\mathfrak C}}_w$ represent the Schubert classes in the (equivariant) cohomology ring of odd orthogonal flag varieties. Therefore the solutions to the Schubert polynomial splitting and Giambelli problems for types B and C are essentially the same. We will describe the splitting theorems for the even orthogonal groups below; the story is entirely analogous to the symplectic case.
The elements of the Weyl group ${\widetilde}{W}_n$ for the root system $\text{D}_n$ may be represented by signed permutations, as in e.g.[@B; @KT]. The group ${\widetilde}{W}_n$ is an extension of $S_n$ by an element $s_0$ which acts on the right by $$(u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n)s_0=({\overline}{u}_2,{\overline}{u}_1,u_3,\ldots,u_n).$$ Let ${\widetilde}{W}_\infty = \cup_n {\widetilde}{W}_n$ and ${{\mathbb N}}=\{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$. A [*reduced word*]{} of $w\in{\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ is a sequence $a_1\cdots
a_\ell$ of elements in ${{\mathbb N}}$ such that $w=s_{a_1}\cdots s_{a_\ell}$ and $\ell=\ell(w)$. We say that $w$ has [*descent*]{} at position $r\geq
0$ if $\ell(ws_r)<\ell(w)$, where $s_r$ is the simple reflection indexed by $r$. If $k\geq 2$, we say that an element $w\in
{\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ is [*increasing up to $k$*]{} if it has no descents less than $k$; this means that $|w_1|< w_2<\cdots < w_k$. We agree that all elements of ${\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ are increasing up to $0$ and increasing up to $1$.
For $k\in {{\mathbb N}}{\smallsetminus}\{1\}$, an element $w\in{\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ is $k$-Grassmannian if $\ell(ws_i)=\ell(w)+1$ for all $i\neq k$. We say that $w$ is $1$-Grassmannian if $\ell(ws_i)=\ell(w)+1$ for all $i\geq
2$. Following [@BKT1 §4], to any $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$ we associate a number in $\{0,1,2\}$ called the [*type*]{} of ${\lambda}$, and denoted $\operatorname{\mathrm{type}}({\lambda})$. Here ‘type’ is a multi-valued function such that $\operatorname{\mathrm{type}}({\lambda})=0$ if ${\lambda}$ has no part equal to $k$, and $\operatorname{\mathrm{type}}({\lambda})\in\{1,2\}$, otherwise. The geometric significance of the type of ${\lambda}$ is explained in [@BKT1 §4.5].
Given a $k$-Grassmannian element $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_n$, there exist unique strict partitions $u,\zeta,v$ of lengths $k$, $r$, and $n-k-r$, respectively, so that $$w=({\widehat}{u}_k,\ldots,u_1,
{\overline}{\zeta}_1,\ldots,{\overline}{\zeta}_r,v_{n-k-r},\ldots,v_1)$$ where ${\widehat}{u}_k$ is equal to $u_k$ or ${\overline}{u}_k$, according to the parity of $r$. If $\mu_i=u_i+i-k-1+\#\{j\ |\ \zeta_j > u_i\}$, then $w$ corresponds to a typed $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$ such that the lengths of the first $k$ columns of ${\lambda}$ are given by $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k$. The part of ${\lambda}$ in columns $k+1$ and higher is given by $(\zeta_1-1,\ldots,\zeta_r-1)$; here it is possible that $\zeta_r=1$, so that the sequence ends with a zero. Finally, if $\operatorname{\mathrm{type}}({\lambda})>0$, then ${\widehat}{u}_k$ is unbarred if and only if $\operatorname{\mathrm{type}}({\lambda})=1$. This defines a bijection between the $k$-Grassmannian elements of ${\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ and the $k$-strict partitions of all three possible types; we let $w_{\lambda}$ denote the element of ${\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ associated to the typed $k$-strict partition ${\lambda}$.
Following [@L1], we will use the nilCoxeter algebra ${\widetilde}{{{\mathcal W}}}_n$ of ${\widetilde}{W}_n$ to define type D Stanley symmetric functions. ${\widetilde}{{{\mathcal W}}}_n$ is the free associative algebra with unity generated by the elements $u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_{n-1}$ modulo the relations $$\begin{array}{rclr}
u_i^2 & = & 0 & i\geq 0\ ; \\
u_0 u_1 & = & u_1 u_0 \\
u_0 u_2 u_0 & = & u_2 u_0 u_2 \\
u_iu_{i+1}u_i & = & u_{i+1}u_iu_{i+1} & i>0\ ; \\
u_iu_j & = & u_ju_i & j> i+1, \ \text{and} \ (i,j) \neq (0,2).
\end{array}$$ For any $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_n$, choose a reduced word $a_1\cdots a_\ell$ for $w$ and define $u_w = u_{a_1}\ldots u_{a_\ell}$. We denote the coefficient of $u_w\in {\widetilde}{{{\mathcal W}}}_n$ in the expansion of the element $f\in {\widetilde}{{{\mathcal W}}}_n$ by $\langle f,w\rangle$. Let $t$ be an indeterminate and, following [@L1 4.4], define $$\begin{gathered}
D(t) = (1+t u_{n-1})\cdots (1+t u_2)(1+t u_1)(1+t u_0)
(1+t u_2)\cdots (1+t u_{n-1}).\end{gathered}$$ According to [@L1 Lemma 4.24], we have $D(s)D(t) = D(t)D(s)$ for any commuting variables $s$, $t$. If $D(X)=D(x_1)D(x_2)\cdots$, then the functions $E_w(X)$ defined by $$E_w(X) = \langle D(X), w \rangle$$ are the type D Stanley symmetric functions, in agreement with [@BH §3].
Next, define $${{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y,Z) = \left\langle
\tilde{A}_{n-1}(z_{n-1})\cdots \tilde{A}_1(z_1) D(X) A_1(y_1)\cdots
A_{n-1}(y_{n-1}), w\right\rangle.$$ The polynomials ${{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y):={{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y,0)$ are the type D Billey-Haiman Schubert polynomials, and the ${{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y,Z)$ are their double versions studied in [@IMN]. If $w=w_{\lambda}$ is $k$-Grassmannian, then ${{\mathfrak D}}_{w_{\lambda}}(X\,;Y)$ is an [*eta polynomial*]{} $H_{\lambda}(X\,;Y)$; the $H_{\lambda}$ are defined using raising operator expansions analogous to (\[Tidef\]) in [@BKT4]. When $k=0$, we have that ${\lambda}$ is a strict partition and $H_{\lambda}(X\,;Y)=E_{w_{\lambda}}(X)=P_{\lambda}(X)$ is a Schur $P$-function.
Given $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_\infty$, the [*type D mixed Stanley function*]{} $I_w(X;Y)$ is defined by the equation $$I_w(X\,;Y) =
\langle D(X)A(Y),w\rangle =
\sum_{uv=w}E_u(X)G_v(Y)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $uv=w$ with $v\in S_\infty$.
One checks that if $w$ is increasing up to $k$, then $I^{(k)}_w={{\mathfrak D}}_w^{(k)}(X\,;Y)$; in particular, if $w=w_{\lambda}$ is $k$-Grassmannian, then $I^{(k)}_{w_{\lambda}} = H_{\lambda}$. Furthermore, it follows from [@B Thms. 4, 5] that the $I_w$ satisfy the type D transition equations $$I_w^{(k)} = \sum_{{1 \leq i < r} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}t_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} I_{wt_{rs}t_{ir}}^{(k)} +
\sum_{{i \neq r} \atop {\ell(wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}) =
\ell(w)}} I_{wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}}^{(k)}$$ where $r$ is the last positive descent of $w$ and $s$ is maximal such that $w_s < w_r$.
For any $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ which is increasing up to $k$, we construct the $k$-transition tree ${\widetilde}{T}^k(w)$ with nodes given by elements of ${\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ and root $w$ as in §\[tes\]. Let $r$ be the last descent of $w$. If $w=1$, or $k\neq 1$ and $r=k$, or $k=1$ and $r\in \{0,1\}$, then set ${\widetilde}{T}^k(w)=\{w\}$. Otherwise, let $s
= \max(i>r\ |\ w_i < w_r)$ and ${\widetilde}{\Phi}(w)= {\widetilde}{\Phi}_1(w)\cup
{\widetilde}{\Phi}_2(w)$, where $$\begin{gathered}
{\widetilde}{\Phi}_1(w)= \{wt_{rs}t_{ir}\ |\ 1\leq i < r \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \
\ell(wt_{rs}t_{ir}) = \ell(w) \}, \\
{\widetilde}{\Phi}_2(w)=
\{wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}\ |\ i\neq r \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \
\ell(wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{ir}) = \ell(w) \}.\end{gathered}$$ To define ${\widetilde}{T}^k(w)$, we join $w$ by an edge to each $v\in
{\widetilde}{\Phi}(w)$, and attach to each $v\in {\widetilde}{\Phi}(w)$ its tree ${\widetilde}{T}^k(v)$.
The assertions of Lemma \[Tlemma\] remain true for ${\widetilde}{T}^k(w)$, with similar proof. When $k=0$, this is contained in [@B Thm.4]. For the case when $r>k>1$, ${\widetilde}{\Phi}_1(w)=\emptyset$, and $w_s>0$, one observes that $wt_{rs}{\overline}{t}_{1r}\in {\widetilde}{\Phi}_2(w)$. We deduce that for any $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ which is increasing up to $k$,
$$\label{DStan}
{{\mathfrak D}}_w^{(k)} = I_w^{(k)} = \sum_{{\lambda}\, :\, |{\lambda}| = \ell(w)}
d^w_{{\lambda}}\,H_{{\lambda}}$$
where the sum is over typed $k$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$ and $d^w_{\lambda}$ denotes the number of leaves of ${\widetilde}{T}^k(w)$ of shape ${\lambda}$. Moreover, for any such $w$, we have $$\label{basicD}
{{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{u(1_k\times v) = w}
I^{(k)}_u(X\, ; Y){{\mathfrak S}}_v(Y_{>k})$$ where the sum is over all reduced factorizations $u(1_k\times v) = w$ with $v\in S_\infty$.
Using equations (\[DStan\]) and (\[basicD\]), we obtain splitting theorems for the single and double type D Schubert polynomials ${{\mathfrak D}}_w$, as in §\[splitC\]. Fix two sequences ${{\mathfrak a}}\, :\, a_1 <
\cdots < a_p$ and ${{\mathfrak b}}\, :\, 0=b_1 < \cdots <b_q$ of nonnegative integers and set $Y_i = \{y_{a_{i-1}+1},\ldots,y_{a_i}\}$ and $Z_j=
\{z_{b_{j-1}+1},\ldots,z_{b_j}\}$ for each $i,j$.
\[DSHG\] Suppose that $w\in {\widetilde}{W}_\infty$ is compatible with the sequence ${{\mathfrak a}}$. Then we have $${{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y) = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_p = w} I_{u_1}(X\,;Y_1)G_{u_2}(Y_2)
\cdots G_{u_p}(Y_p)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_p = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$ such that $u_2,\ldots,u_p\in S_\infty$.
Given any sequence of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^{p+q-1})$ with ${\lambda}^q$ $a_1$-strict and typed, we define $$g^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}} = \sum_{u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = {{\varpi}}}
c_{{\lambda}^1}^{u_1}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^{q-1}}^{u_{q-1}}
d_{{\lambda}^q}^{u_q}c_{{\lambda}^{q+1}}^{u_{q+1}}\cdots c_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}^{u_{p+q-1}},$$ where the sum is over reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$, ${{\mathfrak b}}$ such that $u_i\in S_\infty$ for all $i\neq q$, and the integers $c_{{\lambda}^i}^{u_i}$ and $d^{u_q}_{{\lambda}^q}$ are as in (\[Geq\]) and (\[DStan\]), respectively.
\[dbleDSHG\] Suppose that $w$ and $w^{-1}$ are compatible with the sequences ${{\mathfrak a}}$ and ${{\mathfrak b}}$, respectively. Then ${{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y,Z)$ is equal to $$\sum_{u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w} G_{u_1}(0/Z_q)\cdots
G_{u_{q-1}}(0/Z_2) I_{u_q}(X\,;Y_1) G_{u_{q+1}}(Y_2) \cdots
G_{u_{p+q-1}}(Y_p)$$ summed over all reduced factorizations $u_1\cdots u_{p+q-1} = w$ compatible with ${{\mathfrak a}}$, ${{\mathfrak b}}$ such that $u_i\in S_\infty$ for all $i\neq q$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{dbDSsplitting}
{{\mathfrak D}}_w(X\,;Y,Z) = \sum_{\underline{{\lambda}}}
g^w_{\underline{{\lambda}}}\,
s_{{\lambda}^1}(0/Z_q)\cdots
H_{{\lambda}^q}(X\,;Y_1)\cdots s_{{\lambda}^{p+q-1}}(Y_p)$$ summed over all sequences of partitions $\underline{{\lambda}}=({\lambda}^1,\ldots,{\lambda}^{p+q-1})$ with ${\lambda}^q$ $a_1$-strict and typed.
In the same manner as for the symplectic groups, the above splitting results imply Giambelli and degeneracy locus formulas for the orthogonal groups. We use the Giambelli formula for even orthogonal Grassmannians from [@BKT4] in (\[dbDSsplitting\]).
Table \[schubtable\] lists the Billey-Haiman Schubert polynomials for the root systems of type $\text{C}_3$ and $\text{D}_3$ indexed by the elements $w$ in the respective Weyl groups which are increasing up to $1$. In each case, the polynomial is written as a positive sum of $k=1$ theta and eta polynomials in the variables $(X, y_1)$ times $s_j(y_2)$ for $j\in\{0,1\}$. The primed eta polynomials $H'_{{\lambda}}$ are indexed by $1$-strict partitions ${\lambda}$ of type $2$.
[BKTY]{}
I. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gelfand and S. I. Gelfand : [*Schubert cells and cohomology of the spaces $G/P$*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys [**28**]{} (1973), 1–26.
A. Bertram : [*Quantum Schubert calculus*]{}, Adv. Math. [**128**]{} (1997), 289–305.
S. Billey : [*Transition equations for isotropic flag manifolds*]{}, Discrete Math. [**193**]{} (1998), 69–84.
S. Billey, W. Jockusch and R. P. Stanley : [*Some combinatorial properties of Schubert polynomials*]{}, J. Algebraic Combin. [**2**]{} (1993), 345–374.
S. Billey and M. Haiman : [*Schubert polynomials for the classical groups*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**8**]{} (1995), 443–482.
S. Billey and T. K. Lam : [*Vexillary elements in the hyperoctahedral group*]{}, J. Algebraic Combin. [**8**]{} (1998), 139–152.
A. Borel : [*Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibrés principaux et des espaces homogènes de groupes de Lie compacts*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**57**]{} (1953), 115–207.
A. S. Buch, A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*Quantum Pieri rules for isotropic Grassmannians*]{}, Invent. Math., to appear.
A. S. Buch, A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*A Giambelli formula for isotropic Grassmannians*]{}, Preprint (2008), available at arXiv:0811.2781.
A. S. Buch, A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*Quantum Giambelli formulas for isotropic Grassmannians*]{}, Preprint (2008), available at arXiv:0812.0970.
A. S. Buch, A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*A Giambelli formula for even orthogonal Grassmannians*]{}, in preparation.
A. S. Buch, A. Kresch, H. Tamvakis, and A. Yong : [*Schubert polynomials and quiver formulas*]{}, Duke Math. J. **122** (2004), 125–143.
A. S. Buch and W. Fulton : [*Chern class formulas for quiver varieties*]{}, Invent. Math. [**135**]{} (1999), 665–687.
I. Ciocan-Fontanine : [*On quantum cohomology rings of partial flag varieties*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**98**]{} (1999), 485–524.
M. Demazure : [*Invariants symétriques des groupes de Weyl et torsion*]{}, Invent. Math. [**21**]{} (1973), 287–301.
M. Demazure : [*Désingularisation des variétés de Schubert généralisées*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) [**7**]{} (1974), 53–88.
M. Edelman and C. Greene : [*Balanced tableaux*]{}, Adv. Math. [**63**]{} (1987), 42-99.
S. Fomin, S. Gelfand and A. Postnikov : [*Quantum Schubert polynomials*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**10**]{} (1997), 565–596.
S. Fomin and C. Greene : [*Noncommutative Schur functions and their applications*]{}, Discrete Math. [**193**]{} (1998), 179–200.
S. Fomin and A. N. Kirillov : [*The Yang-Baxter equation, symmetric functions, and Schubert polynomials*]{}, Discrete Math. [**153**]{} (1996), 123–143.
S. Fomin and A. N. Kirillov : [*Combinatorial $B_n$-analogs of Schubert polynomials*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**348**]{} (1996), 3591–3620.
S. Fomin and R. P. Stanley : [*Schubert polynomials and the nil-Coxeter algebra*]{}, Adv. in Math. [**103**]{} (1994), 196–207.
W. Fulton : [*Flags, Schubert polynomials, degeneracy loci, and determinantal formulas*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**65**]{} (1992), 381–420.
W. Fulton : [*Schubert varieties in flag bundles for the classical groups*]{}, Proceedings of the Hirzebruch 65 Conference on Algebraic Geometry (Ramat Gan, 1993), 241–262, Israel Math. Conf. Proc. [**9**]{}, Ramat Gan, 1996.
W. Fulton : [*Determinantal formulas for orthogonal and symplectic degeneracy loci*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**43**]{} (1996), 276–290.
W. Fulton : [*Universal Schubert polynomials*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**96**]{} (1999), 575–594.
W. Fulton and P. Pragacz : [*Schubert varieties and degeneracy loci*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. [**1689**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
G. Z. Giambelli : [*Risoluzione del problema degli spazi secanti*]{}, Mem. R. Accad. Sci. Torino (2) [**52**]{} (1902), 171–211.
W. Graham : [*The class of the diagonal in flag bundles*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**45**]{} (1997), 471–487.
A. Grothendieck : [*Quelques propriétés fondamentales en théorie des intersections*]{}, Séminaire C. Chevalley [**3**]{} (1958), exp. no. 4, 1–36.
M. D. Haiman : [*Dual equivalence with applications, including a conjecture of Proctor*]{}, Discrete Math. [**99**]{} (1992), 79–113.
T. Ikeda, L. Mihalcea, and H. Naruse : [*Double Schubert polynomials for the classical groups*]{}, Preprint (2008), arXiv:0810.1348.
A. Knutson, E. Miller, and M. Shimozono : [*Four positive formulae for type [$A$]{} quiver polynomials*]{}, Invent. Math. **166** (2006), 229–325.
G. Kempf and D. Laksov : [*The determinantal formula of Schubert calculus*]{}, Acta Math. [**132**]{} (1974), 153–162.
W. Kraśkiewicz : [*Reduced decompositions in hyperoctahedral groups*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. [**309**]{} (1989), 903–907.
A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*Double Schubert polynomials and degeneracy loci for the classical groups*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier [**52**]{} (2002), 1681–1727.
A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*Quantum cohomology of the Lagrangian Grassmannian*]{}, J. Algebraic Geom. [**12**]{} (2003), 777–810.
A. Kresch and H. Tamvakis : [*Quantum cohomology of orthogonal Grassmannians*]{}, Compos. Math. [**140**]{} (2004), 482–500.
T. K. Lam : [*B and D analogues of stable Schubert polynomials and related insertion algorithms*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T., 1994.
T. K. Lam : [*$B\sb n$ Stanley symmetric functions*]{}, Discrete Math. [**157**]{} (1996), 241–270.
A. Lascoux and P. Pragacz : [*Operator calculus for ${\widetilde}{Q}$-polynomials and Schubert polynomials*]{}, Adv. Math. [**140**]{} (1998), 1–43.
A. Lascoux and P. Pragacz : [*Orthogonal divided differences and Schubert polynomials, ${\widetilde}{P}$-functions, and vertex operators*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**48**]{} (2000), 417–441.
A. Lascoux and M.-P. Schützenberger : [*Polynômes de Schubert*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. [**294**]{} (1982), 447–450.
A. Lascoux and M.-P. Schützenberger : [*Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une variété de drapeaux*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. [**295**]{} (1982), 629–633.
A. Lascoux and M.-P. Schützenberger : [*Schubert polynomials and the Littlewood-Richardson rule*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**10**]{} (1985), 111–124.
I. G. Macdonald : [*Notes on Schubert polynomials*]{}, Publ. LACIM [**6**]{}, Univ. de Québec à Montréal, Montréal, 1991.
I. Macdonald : [*Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials*]{}, Second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
L. Manivel : [*Fonctions symétriques, polynômes de Schubert et lieux de dégénérescence*]{}, Cours Spécialisés, 3, Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1998.
D. Monk : [*The geometry of flag manifolds*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**3**]{} (1959), 253–286.
P. Pragacz : [*Algebro-geometric applications of Schur $S$- and $Q$-polynomials*]{}, Séminare d’Algèbre Dubreil-Malliavin 1989-1990, Lecture Notes in Math. [**1478**]{} (1991), 130–191, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
P. Pragacz and J. Ratajski : [*Formulas for Lagrangian and orthogonal degeneracy loci; ${\widetilde}{Q}$-polynomial approach*]{}, Compositio Math. [**107**]{} (1997), 11–87.
B. Sagan : [*Shifted tableaux, Schur $Q$-functions, and a conjecture of R. Stanley*]{}, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**45**]{} (1987), 62–103.
I. Schur : [*Über die Darstellung der symmetrischen und der alternierenden Gruppe durch gebrochene lineare Substitutionen*]{}, J. reine angew. Math. [**139**]{} (1911), 155–250.
M. Shimozono : [*Multiplying Schur $Q$-functions*]{}, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**87**]{} (1999), 198–232.
R. P. Stanley : [*On the number of reduced decompositions of elements of Coxeter groups*]{}, European J. Combin. [**5**]{} (1984), 359–372.
J. R. Stembridge : [*Shifted tableaux and the projective representations of symmetric groups*]{}, Adv. Math. [**74**]{} (1989), 87–134.
J. R. Stembridge : [*Some combinatorial aspects of reduced words in finite Coxeter groups*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**349**]{} (1997), 1285–1332.
H. Tamvakis : [*Schubert polynomials and Arakelov theory of symplectic flag varieties*]{}, Preprint (2008), arXiv:0808.1329.
H. Tamvakis : [*Giambelli, Pieri, and tableau formulas via raising operators*]{}, Preprint (2008), arXiv:0812.0639.
H. Tamvakis : [*Schubert polynomials and Arakelov theory of orthogonal flag varieties*]{}, Preprint (2009), arXiv:0907.3308.
L. W. Tu : [*Degeneracy loci*]{}, Proc. conf. algebraic geom. (Berlin, 1985), 296–305, Teubner-Texte Math. [**92**]{}, Teubner, Leipzig, 1986.
D. R. Worley : [*A theory of shifted Young tableaux*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 1984.
A. Yong : [*On combinatorics of quiver component formulas*]{}, J. Algebraic Combin. [**21**]{} (2005), 351–371.
A. Young : [*On quantitative substitutional analysis VI*]{}, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) [**34**]{} (1932), 196–230.
[^1]: The author was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-0901341.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Based on $5.8 \times 10^7 {J/\psi}$ events collected with BESII at the Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC), the decay branching fractions of ${J/\psi}\to\omega{\pi^0}$, $\omega\eta$, and $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$ are measured using different $\eta$ and ${\eta^{\prime}}$ decay modes. The results are higher than previous measurements. The $\omega{\pi^0}$ electromagnetic form factor is also obtained.'
author:
- |
M. Ablikim$^{1}$, J. Z. Bai$^{1}$, Y. Ban$^{11}$, J. G. Bian$^{1}$, X. Cai$^{1}$, H. F. Chen$^{16}$, H. S. Chen$^{1}$, H. X. Chen$^{1}$, J. C. Chen$^{1}$, Jin Chen$^{1}$, Y. B. Chen$^{1}$, S. P. Chi$^{2}$, Y. P. Chu$^{1}$, X. Z. Cui$^{1}$, Y. S. Dai$^{18}$, Z. Y. Deng$^{1}$, L. Y. Dong$^{1}$$^{a}$, Q. F. Dong$^{14}$, S. X. Du$^{1}$, Z. Z. Du$^{1}$, J. Fang$^{1}$, S. S. Fang$^{2}$, C. D. Fu$^{1}$, C. S. Gao$^{1}$, Y. N. Gao$^{14}$, S. D. Gu$^{1}$, Y. T. Gu$^{4}$, Y. N. Guo$^{1}$, Y. Q. Guo$^{1}$, Z. J. Guo$^{15}$, F. A. Harris$^{15}$, K. L. He$^{1}$, M. He$^{12}$, Y. K. Heng$^{1}$, H. M. Hu$^{1}$, T. Hu$^{1}$, G. S. Huang$^{1}$$^{b}$, X. P. Huang$^{1}$, X. T. Huang$^{12}$, X. B. Ji$^{1}$, X. S. Jiang$^{1}$, J. B. Jiao$^{12}$, D. P. Jin$^{1}$, S. Jin$^{1}$, Yi Jin$^{1}$, Y. F. Lai$^{1}$, G. Li$^{2}$, H. B. Li$^{1}$, H. H. Li$^{1}$, J. Li$^{1}$, R. Y. Li$^{1}$, S. M. Li$^{1}$, W. D. Li$^{1}$, W. G. Li$^{1}$, X. L. Li$^{8}$, X. Q. Li$^{10}$, Y. L. Li$^{4}$, Y. F. Liang$^{13}$, H. B. Liao$^{6}$, C. X. Liu$^{1}$, F. Liu$^{6}$, Fang Liu$^{16}$, H. H. Liu$^{1}$, H. M. Liu$^{1}$, J. Liu$^{11}$, J. B. Liu$^{1}$, J. P. Liu$^{17}$, R. G. Liu$^{1}$, Z. A. Liu$^{1}$, F. Lu$^{1}$, G. R. Lu$^{5}$, H. J. Lu$^{16}$, J. G. Lu$^{1}$, C. L. Luo$^{9}$, F. C. Ma$^{8}$, H. L. Ma$^{1}$, L. L. Ma$^{1}$, Q. M. Ma$^{1}$, X. B. Ma$^{5}$, Z. P. Mao$^{1}$, X. H. Mo$^{1}$, J. Nie$^{1}$, S. L. Olsen$^{15}$, H. P. Peng$^{16}$, N. D. Qi$^{1}$, H. Qin$^{9}$, J. F. Qiu$^{1}$, Z. Y. Ren$^{1}$, G. Rong$^{1}$, L. Y. Shan$^{1}$, L. Shang$^{1}$, D. L. Shen$^{1}$, X. Y. Shen$^{1}$, H. Y. Sheng$^{1}$, F. Shi$^{1}$, X. Shi$^{11}$$^{c}$, H. S. Sun$^{1}$, J. F. Sun$^{1}$, S. S. Sun$^{1}$, Y. Z. Sun$^{1}$, Z. J. Sun$^{1}$, Z. Q. Tan$^{4}$, X. Tang$^{1}$, Y. R. Tian$^{14}$, G. L. Tong$^{1}$, G. S. Varner$^{15}$, D. Y. Wang$^{1}$, L. Wang$^{1}$, L. S. Wang$^{1}$, M. Wang$^{1}$, P. Wang$^{1}$, P. L. Wang$^{1}$, W. F. Wang$^{1}$$^{d}$, Y. F. Wang$^{1}$, Z. Wang$^{1}$, Z. Y. Wang$^{1}$, Zhe Wang$^{1}$, Zheng Wang$^{2}$, C. L. Wei$^{1}$, D. H. Wei$^{1}$, N. Wu$^{1}$, X. M. Xia$^{1}$, X. X. Xie$^{1}$, B. Xin$^{8}$$^{b}$, G. F. Xu$^{1}$, Y. Xu$^{10}$, M. L. Yan$^{16}$, F. Yang$^{10}$, H. X. Yang$^{1}$, J. Yang$^{16}$, Y. X. Yang$^{3}$, M. H. Ye$^{2}$, Y. X. Ye$^{16}$, Z. Y. Yi$^{1}$, G. W. Yu$^{1}$, C. Z. Yuan$^{1}$, J. M. Yuan$^{1}$, Y. Yuan$^{1}$, S. L. Zang$^{1}$, Y. Zeng$^{7}$, Yu Zeng$^{1}$, B. X. Zhang$^{1}$, B. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, C. C. Zhang$^{1}$, D. H. Zhang$^{1}$, H. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, J. W. Zhang$^{1}$, J. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, Q. J. Zhang$^{1}$, X. M. Zhang$^{1}$, X. Y. Zhang$^{12}$, Yiyun Zhang$^{13}$, Z. P. Zhang$^{16}$, Z. Q. Zhang$^{5}$, D. X. Zhao$^{1}$, J. W. Zhao$^{1}$, M. G. Zhao$^{10}$, P. P. Zhao$^{1}$, W. R. Zhao$^{1}$, Z. G. Zhao$^{1}$$^{e}$, H. Q. Zheng$^{11}$, J. P. Zheng$^{1}$, Z. P. Zheng$^{1}$, L. Zhou$^{1}$, N. F. Zhou$^{1}$, K. J. Zhu$^{1}$, Q. M. Zhu$^{1}$, Y. C. Zhu$^{1}$, Y. S. Zhu$^{1}$, Yingchun Zhu$^{1}$$^{f}$, Z. A. Zhu$^{1}$, B. A. Zhuang$^{1}$, X. A. Zhuang$^{1}$, B. S. Zou$^{1}$\
(BES Collaboration)\
$^{1}$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100049, People’s Republic of China\
$^{2}$ China Center for Advanced Science and Technology(CCAST), Beijing 100080, People’s Republic of China\
$^{3}$ Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, People’s Republic of China\
$^{4}$ Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, People’s Republic of China\
$^{5}$ Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453002, People’s Republic of China\
$^{6}$ Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, People’s Republic of China\
$^{7}$ Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People’s Republic of China\
$^{8}$ Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, People’s Republic of China\
$^{9}$ Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, People’s Republic of China\
$^{10}$ Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, People’s Republic of China\
$^{11}$ Peking University, Beijing 100871, People’s Republic of China\
$^{12}$ Shandong University, Jinan 250100, People’s Republic of China\
$^{13}$ Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, People’s Republic of China\
$^{14}$ Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China\
$^{15}$ University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\
$^{16}$ University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China\
$^{17}$ Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People’s Republic of China\
$^{18}$ Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, People’s Republic of China\
$^{a}$ Current address: Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3160, USA\
$^{b}$ Current address: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA\
$^{c}$ Current address: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA\
$^{d}$ Current address: Laboratoire de l’Acc[é]{}l[é]{}rateur Lin[é]{}aire, Orsay, F-91898, France\
$^{e}$ Current address: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\
$^{f}$ Current address: DESY, D-22607, Hamburg, Germany\
title: ' **Measurements of ${J/\psi}$ decays into $\omega{\pi^0}$, $\omega\eta$, and $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$** '
---
0.2cm
Introduction {#introd}
============
The decay of the $J/\psi$ into a vector and pseudoscalar (VP) meson pair proceeds via $c \bar{c}$ annihilation to three gluons in strong decays and to one virtual photon in electromagnetic decays. A full set of $J/\psi \to V P$ measurements allows one to systematically study the quark-gluon content of pseudoscalar mesons and SU(3) breaking, as well as determine the contribution of different amplitudes to the decay rates in two-body $J/\psi$ decays [@theory]. Measurements of purely electromagnetic ${J/\psi}$ decays can be used to calculate the electromagnetic form factors involved; those form factors are used to test QCD inspired models of the mesonic wave function. MARKIII [@mark2; @mark3] and DM2 [@dm2] measured many $J/\psi \to V P$ branching fractions and obtained the $\eta-\eta'$ mixing angle, the quark content of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$, and much more.
Recently, a sample of $5.8 \times 10^7 {J/\psi}$ events, which offers a unique opportunity to measure the full set of $J/\psi \to V P$ decays precisely, was accumulated with the upgraded Beijing Spectrometer (BESII) [@besii]. In an earlier analysis based on this data set and using a GEANT3 based Monte-Carlo with a careful simulation of detector response, the branching fraction of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ was measured to be $(2.10\pm0.12)\%$ [@rhopi2], which is higher than the PDG [@pdg2004] value by about 30%. This indicates a higher branching fraction for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\rho\pi$ than those from older experiments [@pdg2004]. Furthermore, the branching ratios of $J/\psi \to \phi P({\pi^0},\eta,{\eta^{\prime}})$ [@phip] are also higher than old experimental results. Therefore, remeasuring the branching fractions of all ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}VP$ decay modes becomes very important. In this paper, $J/\psi \to \omega \pi^0$, $\omega \eta$, and $\omega
{\eta^{\prime}}$ are studied using different $\eta$ and ${\eta^{\prime}}$ decay modes.
The BES Detector {#BESD}
================
The upgraded Beijing Spectrometer detector (BESII) is located at the Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC). BESII is a large solid-angle magnetic spectrometer which is described in detail in Ref. [@besii]. The momentum of charged particles is determined by a 40-layer cylindrical main drift chamber (MDC) which has a momentum resolution of $\sigma_{p}$/p=$1.78\%\sqrt{1+p^2}$ ($p$ in GeV/c). Particle identification is accomplished using specific ionization ($dE/dx$) measurements in the drift chamber and time-of-flight (TOF) information in a barrel-like array of 48 scintillation counters. The $dE/dx$ resolution is $\sigma_{dE/dx}\simeq8.0\%$; the TOF resolution for Bhabha events is $\sigma_{TOF}= 180$ ps. Radially outside of the time-of-flight counters is a 12-radiation-length barrel shower counter (BSC) comprised of gas tubes interleaved with lead sheets. The BSC measures the energy and direction of photons with resolutions of $\sigma_{E}/E\simeq21\%\sqrt{E}$ ($E$ in GeV), $\sigma_{\phi}=7.9$ mrad, and $\sigma_{z}=2.3$ cm. The iron flux return of the magnet is instrumented with three double layers of proportional counters that are used to identify muons.
A GEANT3 based Monte Carlo (MC) package (SIMBES) [@pid] with detailed consideration of the detector performance is used. The consistency between data and MC has been carefully checked in many high purity physics channels, and the agreement is reasonable. More details on this comparison can be found in Ref. [@pid]. In this analysis, the detection efficiency and mass resolution for each decay mode are obtained from a MC simulation, which takes into account the angular distributions appropriate for the different final states [@rhopi].
analysis
========
In this analysis, the $\omega$ meson is observed in its ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ decay mode, and the pseudoscalar mesons are detected in the modes: ${\pi^0}{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\gamma}$; $\eta{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\gamma}$, ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$, and ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$; and ${\eta^{\prime}}{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}({\gamma}\rho)$ and ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}\eta~(\eta{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\gamma})$. Using the different $\eta$ and ${\eta^{\prime}}$ decay modes allows us to cross check our measurements, as well as obtain higher precision. Possible final states of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0},~\omega\eta$, and $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$ are then ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$, ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$, and ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$.
Candidate events are required to satisfy the following common selection criteria:
1. Events must have two or four good charged tracks with zero net charge. A good charged track is a track that is well fitted to a helix, originates from the interaction region of R$_{xy}< $0.02 m and $|z| <$ 0.2 m, and has a polar angle, $\theta$, in the range $|\cos \theta| <$ 0.8. R$_{xy}$ is the distance from the beamline to the point of closest approach of the track to the beamline, and $|z| $ is the distance along the beamline to this point from the interaction point.
2. Candidate events should have at least the minimum number of isolated photons associated with the different final states, unless otherwise specified. Isolated photons are those that have energy deposited in the BSC greater than 60 MeV, the angle between the photon entering the BSC and the shower development direction in the BSC less than 30$^\circ$, and the angle between the photon and any charged track larger than 10$^\circ$.
3. For each charged track in an event, $\chi^{2}_{PID}(i)$ is determined using both $dE/dx$ and TOF information:
$\chi^{2}_{PID}(i)$=$\chi^{2}_{dE/dx}(i)$+$\chi^{2}_{TOF}(i),$
where $i$ corresponds to the particle hypothesis. A charged track is identified as a $\pi$ if $\chi^{2}_{PID}$ for the $\pi$ hypothesis is less than those for the $K$ or $p$ hypotheses. For the channels studied, at least one charged track must be identified as a pion.
4. The selected events are subjected to four constraint (4-C) kinematic fits, unless otherwise specified. When there are more than the minimum number of photons in an event, all combinations are tried, and the combination with the smallest $\chi^{2}$ is retained. The $\chi^2$ values required in the selection of events below are based on the optimization of $S/\sqrt{S+B}$, where the $S$ and $B$ are the expected signal and background, respectively.
The branching fraction is calculated using
$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega P) = } \\
&&\frac{N_{obs}}{N_{{J/\psi}}\cdot
{\varepsilon}\cdot B(\omega{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0})\cdot B(P{\rightarrow}X)\cdot B({\pi^0}{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\gamma})}
\label{forbr}\end{aligned}$$
where $N_{obs}$ is the number of events observed, $N_{{J/\psi}}$ is the total number of ${J/\psi}$ events, $(5.77\pm 0.27)\times
10^7$ [@fangss], ${\varepsilon}$ is the detection efficiency obtained from MC simulation which takes into account the angular distributions [@rhopi], and $B(\omega{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0})$ and $B(P{\rightarrow}X)$ are the branching fractions, taken from the Particle Data Group (PDG) [@pdg2004], of $\omega{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ and the pseudoscalar $P$ to $X$ final states, respectively.
${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\gamma}{\gamma}$
---------------------------------------------
Events with two oppositely charged tracks and at least four isolated photons are selected. A 4C-fit is performed to the ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}\gamma
\gamma \gamma \gamma$ hypothesis, and $\chi^2 < 15$ is required. There are six $\gamma \gamma$ combinations to test for consistency with the $\pi^0$ mass. Looping over all combinations, we calculate $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}_1{\gamma}_2}$ for combinations satisfying $|m_{{\gamma}_1{\gamma}_2}-0.135|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$, denoted as $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$, and plot $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ versus $m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}$ in Fig. \[domegapi0\], where clear ${\pi^0}$ and $\eta$ signals are seen.
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}$
The $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}$ distribution for events with the recoil ${\gamma}{\gamma}$ invariant mass (${\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4$) being in the ${\pi^0}$ mass region, $|m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}-0.135|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$, is shown as crosses in Fig. \[omegapi0\]. The $\omega$ signal, clearly seen in Fig. \[omegapi0\], is fitted to obtain the branching fraction of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}$. Backgrounds for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}$ which contribute to the peak in the $\omega$ signal region mainly come from non-$\pi^0$ events and events from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta(\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}{\pi^0})$ and $\omega{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$ that survive selection criteria. Non-$\pi^0$ events can be measured using $\pi^0$ sideband events (0.25 $<m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}<$ 0.40 GeV/c$^2$). These backgrounds will be subtracted after the fit.
[wpi01.eps]{} (55,56)[ ![The $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ invariant mass distribution for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}$ candidate events. The curves are the results of the fit described in the text. The inset is the fit using a different background shape (second order polynomial).[]{data-label="omegapi0"}](wpi02.eps "fig:")]{}
A fit to the $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}$ distribution is performed using the expected $\omega$ shape obtained from MC simulation and a first order polynomial background, shown as the curve in Fig. \[omegapi0\], and $2595\pm59$ $\omega$ events are obtained. The inset in Fig. \[omegapi0\] shows the fit with a second order polynomial background. The $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}$ distribution for events which recoil against the ${\pi^0}$ sideband region (0.25 $<m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}<$ 0.40 GeV/c$^2$), shown in Fig. \[pi0sideband\], is fitted to determine the non-$\pi^0$ background; after normalization, $242\pm10$ non-$\omega$ background events are obtained and subtracted. We also subtract $142\pm 18$ background events from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta(\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}{\pi^0})$ and $121\pm25$ from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$, which are estimated from Monte Carlo simulation.
Since $J/\psi \to \omega \pi^0$ is an isospin violation process, the continuum contribution might be sizable in this channel, while it can be neglected in $J/\psi \to \omega \eta$ and $\omega \eta'$ decays. To determine background contamination from continuum production, the $L=2347.3$ nb$^{-1}$ data sample taken at $\sqrt{s} =$ 3.07 GeV is analyzed using the same event selection, and after normalization $53\pm22$ continuum background events are estimated. The continuum contribution is subtracted without considering possible interference. Backgrounds from other channels are negligible. The detection efficiency for the signal is $7.55\%$, which is determined by MC simulation, and the branching ratio for this channel is
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0})=(5.38\pm0.12)\times 10^{-4}.$
Here, the error is statistical only.
This decay is an isospin-violating, electromagnetic process, and we calculate the electromagnetic form factor using the above branching ratio, according to the formula
${\frac{|f(m^2_{{J/\psi}})|^2}{|f(0)|^2}}={\frac{\alpha}{3}}\cdot[\frac{p_{\gamma}}{p_\omega}]^3
\cdot\frac{m_{{J/\psi}}\Gamma({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0})}{\Gamma({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\pi^0})\cdot\Gamma({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\mu^+\mu^-)}$.
It gives ${|f(m^2_{{J/\psi}})|}/{|f(0)|}=0.0411\pm0.0009$, which is consistent with that of MarkIII [@mark3] but is three times smaller than that of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}p \bar{p}$ [@factor].
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$
The $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ distribution for events where the ${\gamma}{\gamma}$ invariant mass is required to be in the $\eta$ mass region, $|m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}-0.547|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$, is shown in Fig. \[omegaeta1fit\]. A clear $\omega$ signal can be seen. The main background events for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$ come from non-$\eta$ events and the events from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$, $\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$ and ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$. Fitting the $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ distribution in Fig. \[omegaeta1fit\] with the $\omega$ shape from Monte Carlo simulation plus a first order polynomial background gives $3790\pm 72 $ candidate $\omega$ events. Using the same procedure to fit the $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ distribution recoiling against the $\eta$ sideband (0.65 $<m_{{\gamma}{\gamma}}<0.80$ GeV/c$^2$) and normalizing, $188\pm
18$ non-$\eta$ background events are estimated. We also subtract the $161\pm 17$ and $30\pm 4$ background events from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$, $\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$ and ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$, respectively, which are estimated by MC simulation. The detection efficiency for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$, $\eta{\rightarrow}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ determined from MC simulation is $7.45$%; thus the ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$ branching fraction is
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta)=(22.86\pm 0.43)\times 10^{-4}$,
where the error is statistical only.
Fig. \[chisq2\] shows the $\chi^2$ distributions for the 4C fits to the $J/\psi \to \pi^+ \pi^- \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma$ hypothesis for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$ candidate events ($|m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}-0.547|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$ and $|m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}-0.782|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$), where the crosses are data and the histogram is the sum of MC simulation of the signal channel ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$ and the backgrounds from non-$\eta$ events, measured using $\eta$ sidebands, as well as from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta(\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^0}{\pi^0}{\pi^0})$ and ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}{\pi^0}$. They agree with each other reasonably well.
${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ {#phietag2pi}
---------------------------------------------------
For $J/\psi \to \omega \eta$, $\eta \to \gamma \pi^+ \pi^-$, events with four well-reconstructed charged tracks and at least three isolated photons are required. A 4C-fit is performed to the $J/\psi
\to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^- \gamma \gamma \gamma$ hypothesis, and $\chi^2 < 20$ is required. There are 12 possible ways to combine the charged pions and gammas in forming the $\omega$ and $\eta$ or ${\eta^{\prime}}$.
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$
Figure \[mgpipi\] shows the ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ invariant mass recoiling against the $\omega$ mass region, defined by $|m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}-0.782|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$. A clear $\eta$ signal is observed. The enhancement on the left side of the $\eta$ in Figure \[mgpipi\] comes from ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta~(\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0})$ with one photon missing. This interpretation as well as the asymmetric shape are confirmed by MC simulation.
The ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ mass distribution is then fitted by this enhancement with the shape determined from MC simulation, a Breit-Wigner to describe the $\eta$ signal, and a first order polynomial background. The fit, shown in Figure \[mgpipi\], yields $284 \pm 24$ $\eta$ candidate events. The contribution of the enhancement is consistent with the branching ratio for ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta~(\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0})$. Fitting the ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ mass distribution of events recoiling against the $\omega$ sideband region (0.85 $<m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}<1.0$ GeV/c$^2$) and normalizing, $17\pm 6$ non-$\omega$ background events are estimated and are subtracted. The detection efficiency obtained from MC simulation is $4.59\%$, and the corresponding branching fraction is
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta)=(24.47\pm 2.07)\times 10^{-4},$
where the error is statistical.
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$
After requiring $|m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}-0.782|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$ using one pair of charged pions and the other pair of charged pions to be in the $\rho$ mass region (0.45 $<m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}}<0.92$ GeV/c$^2$), the distribution of ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ invariant mass recoiling against the $\omega$ mass region is shown in Figure \[fitomegaetapg2pi\], where a clear ${\eta^{\prime}}$ peak is seen. A fit with the ${\eta^{\prime}}$ shape determined from MC simulation and a first order polynomial gives $197\pm 27 $ ${\eta^{\prime}}$ candidate events. Fitting the ${\gamma}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}$ invariant mass distribution of events recoiling from the $\omega$ sideband region (0.9 $<m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}<1.0$ GeV/c$^2$) and normalizing, yields $44\pm11$ non-${\eta^{\prime}}$ background events, which are subtracted. The detection efficiency obtained from MC simulation is $4.24$%, and the branching fraction is
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\eta^{\prime}})=(2.41\pm0.33)\times 10^{-4},$
where the error is statistical.
${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}$
-----------------------------------------------------------
For $\eta{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ and ${\eta^{\prime}}{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\eta$, events with four well reconstructed charged tracks and at least three isolated photons are selected. If there are four or more isolated photons, 4C kinematic fits to the ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ hypothesis are made. If there are only three isolated photons, a 1C kinematic fit with a missing photon is made, and the fit result is used to determine the momentum and energy of the missing photon. Because there are four pions and four photons, there are 24 possible ways to combine the charged pions and gammas in forming the $\omega$ and $\eta$ or ${\eta^{\prime}}$.
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$
Figures \[gamma1\] and \[gamma2\] show the $m_{{\gamma}_1{\gamma}_2}$ and $m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}$ distributions after the above selection and the additional requirements $|m_{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma_1\gamma_2} - m_{\omega}|
< 0.04$ GeV/c$^2$ and $|m_{\pi^+ \pi^- \gamma_3\gamma_4} - m_{\eta}| <
0.04$ GeV/c$^2$. Clear $\pi^0$ signals are observed, and the data and MC agree well.
The 4C and 1C $\chi^2$ distributions for the fit to the $J/\psi \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^- \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma$ hypothesis with the requirements that $m_{{\gamma}_1{\gamma}_2}$ and $m_{{\gamma}_3{\gamma}_4}$ are consistent with the mass of the ${\pi^0}$, ($|m_{\gamma \gamma}-0.135|< 0.04$ GeV/c$^2$), and $m_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0}$ is in the $\eta$ mass region ($|m_{\pi^+ \pi^-
\pi^0}-0.547|< 0.04$ GeV/c$^2$), are shown in Fig. \[chisq3\]. The ratio of the numbers of events in the two plots for data is consistent with that from MC simulation. After the requirements $\chi^2 <20$ for the 4C case and $\chi^2 < 5$ for the 1C case, the $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}$ invariant mass spectrum recoiling against the $\eta$ mass region ($|m_{\pi^+ \pi^-
\pi^0}-0.547|< 0.04$ GeV/c$^2$), shown in Figure \[weta3\], is obtained. The $\omega$ shape obtained from MC simulation plus a second order polynomial are used to fit the $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}$ mass distribution. A total of $1249\pm$43 $\omega$ candidate events is obtained in the fit. The background determined using the $\eta$ sideband region (0.65 $<m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}}<$ 0.80 GeV/c$^2$) is only $0\pm2$ events and thus can be ignored. Using the detection efficiency of $4.45$%, the branching fraction of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta$ is
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega\eta)=(24.74\pm0.84)\times 10^{-4}$,
where the error is statistical.
### ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$
After requiring two photons in the $\pi^0$ mass region and other two photons in the $\eta$ mass region, [*i.e.*]{}, $|m_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}-0.135| <0.04$ GeV/c$^2$ and $|m_{\gamma_3\gamma_4}-0.547| <0.04$ GeV/c$^2$, as well as $\chi^2<15$ (5) for the 4C (1C) kinematic fit, the ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0$ mass recoiling against the ${\eta^{\prime}}$ mass region ($|m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\eta}-0.958|<0.04$ GeV/c$^2$), shows a clear $\omega$ peak, as seen in Figure \[fitomegaetap2pieta\]. The fit of $m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\pi^0}$ yields $65\pm 15$ $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$ events. No events ($0\pm1$) are observed in the distribution of events recoiling against the ${\eta^{\prime}}$ sidebands (1.10 GeV/c$^2<m_{{\pi^+}{\pi^-}\eta}<1.15$ GeV/c$^2$) and are therefore ignored. Other backgrounds are also negligible. With the detection efficiency for this channel being $3.56$%, we obtain
$B({J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\eta^{\prime}})=(2.06 \pm0.48)\times 10^{-4},$
where the error is statistical.
Systematic Errors {#J-sys}
-----------------
In this analysis, the systematic errors on the branching fractions mainly come from the following sources:
### MDC tracking and kinematic fit
In order to study the systematic errors from the MDC tracking and kinematic fit, clean samples, such as $J/\psi \to \rho \pi$, $\Lambda
\bar \Lambda$, $p \bar p$, $K^* K$, and $\psi(2S) \to \pi \pi J/\psi
(J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$, are chosen, and many distributions from data, including the wire efficiency and resolution of charged tracks, are compared with those from MC simulations, using two different treatments of the wire resolution simulation. It is found that in most cases, the data distributions lie between the two MC simulations with the different treatments of the wire resolution. The simulation which agrees better with data is taken as the official MC simulation, and the difference between the two simulations is taken as the systematic error for the tracking.
### Particle Identification
In Refs. [@rhopi2] and [@pid], the particle identification efficiency of pions is analyzed in detail. Here, only one charged track is required to be identified as a pion, and the systematic error from particle identification is less than 1% and is negligible.
### Photon detection efficiency
The photon detection efficiency is studied using ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\rho^0{\pi^0}$ in Ref. [@rhopi2]. The results indicate that the systematic error is less than 2% for each photon. There are slight differences in the $\pi^0$, $\eta$, and $\omega$ mass resolutions between MC and data. The effect of these differences on the branching ratios are very small and are ignored.
### Uncertainty of background
The background uncertainties come from the uncertainties associated with the estimation of the sideband backgrounds, the continuum events, and the events from other background channels, as well as the uncertainties of the background shape, different fit ranges, [ *etc*]{}. Therefore, the statistical errors in the estimated background events, the largest difference in changing the background shape and the difference of changing the fit range are taken as the systematic errors from the background uncertainty.
### Intermediate decay branching fractions
The branching fractions of $\omega{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ and the pseudoscalar decays are taken from the PDG [@pdg2004]. The errors of these branching fractions are systematic errors in our measurements and are listed in Table \[toterr\].
The above systematic errors together with the error due to the uncertainty in the number of ${J/\psi}$ events are all listed in Table \[toterr\]. The total systematic error is determined by adding all terms in quadrature.
Results
=======
Table \[brpv\] lists the branching fractions of ${J/\psi}$ decaying into $\omega{\pi^0}$, $\omega\eta$, and $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$. The average value is the weighted mean of the results from the different decay modes after taking out the common systematic errors, and the PDG value is the world average taken from Ref. [@pdg2004]. The results are higher than those in the PDG as are our measurements of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^0}$ [@rhopi2] and ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\phi
P(\pi^0,\eta,{\eta^{\prime}})$ [@phip]. It emphasizes the importance of measuring the other decay modes of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}VP$, such as ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\rho\eta$, $\rho{\eta^{\prime}}$, and $K^*K$ based on the BESII $5.8 \times
10^7 {J/\psi}$ events.
${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}$ $\omega{\pi^0}$
------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Final state ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$
Error sources
Wire resolution 6.9 9.1 11.6 11.3 13.3 10.3
Particle ID $<$1 $<$1 $<$1 $<$1 $<$1 $<$1
Photon efficiency $\sim$8 $\sim 8 $ $\sim$ 6 $\sim 8$ $\sim 6$ $\sim 8$
Back. uncertainty 3.3 1.0 2.42 1.0 6.6 9.7
Intermediate decays 0.79 1.05 2.48 1.95 3.48 3.48
Total ${J/\psi}$ events 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72
Total systematic error 12.1 13.1 14.3 14.8 17.1 17.3
\[toterr\]
${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}$ Final states Branching Fraction ($\times 10^{-4}$)
------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\omega{\pi^0}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ 5.38$\pm$0.12$\pm$0.65
PDG $4.2\pm0.6$
${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ 22.86$\pm$0.43$\pm$2.99
${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ $24.47\pm$2.07$\pm$3.50
$\omega\eta$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ 24.74$\pm$0.85$\pm$3.66
Average 23.52$\pm$2.73
PDG 15.8$\pm$1.6
${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ 2.41$\pm$0.33$\pm$0.41
$\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$ ${\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\pi^+}{\pi^-}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}{\gamma}$ 2.06$\pm$0.48$\pm$0.36
Average 2.26$\pm$0.43
PDG 1.67$\pm$0.25
: Branching fractions of ${J/\psi}{\rightarrow}\omega{\pi^0}$, $\omega\eta$, and $\omega{\eta^{\prime}}$.
\[brpv\]
The BES collaboration thanks the staff of BEPC and computing center for their hard efforts. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 10491300, 10225524, 10225525, 10425523, the Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. KJ 95T-03, the 100 Talents Program of CAS under Contract Nos. U-11, U-24, U-25, and the Knowledge Innovation Project of CAS under Contract Nos. U-602, U-34 (IHEP), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 10225522 (Tsinghua University), and the Department of Energy under Contract No.DE-FG02-04ER41291 (U Hawaii).
[120]{} H. E. Haber, J. Perrier, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 2961 (1985). R. M. Baltrusaitis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 2883 (1985). D. Coffman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 2695 (1988). J. Jousset [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 1389 (1990). J. Z. Bai [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A [**458**]{}, 627 (2001). J.Z.Bai et al., Phys. Rev. D70, 012005 (2004). S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004), and references therein. M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 032003 (2005). M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. [**A552**]{}, 344 (2005). The angular distribution is described by
${\frac{d^3\sigma}{d\cos\theta_V d\cos\theta_1 d\phi_1}}
={\sin^2\theta_1[1+\cos^2\theta_V+\sin^2\theta_V\cos(2\phi_1)]}$
where $\theta_V$ is the angle between the vector meson and the positron direction. $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ describe the decay products of the vector meson in its helicity frame. S. S. Fang [*et al.*]{}, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. [**27**]{}, 277 (2003) (in Chinese). R.M. Baltrusaitis et al., Phsy. Rev. D32, 566 (1985).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this work we present a novel item recommendation approach that aims at improving Collaborative Filtering (CF) in social tagging systems using the information about tags and time. Our algorithm follows a two-step approach, where in the first step a potentially interesting candidate item-set is found using user-based CF and in the second step this candidate item-set is ranked using item-based CF. Within this ranking step we integrate the information of tag usage and time using the Base-Level Learning (BLL) equation coming from human memory theory that is used to determine the reuse-probability of words and tags using a power-law forgetting function.
As the results of our extensive evaluation conducted on data-sets gathered from three social tagging systems (BibSonomy, CiteULike and MovieLens) show, the usage of tag-based and time information via the BLL equation also helps to improve the ranking and recommendation process of items and thus, can be used to realize an effective item recommender that outperforms two alternative algorithms which also exploit time and tag-based information.
author:
- |
Emanuel Lacic\
\
\
\
Dominik Kowald\
\
\
\
- |
Paul Seitlinger\
\
\
\
Christoph Trattner\
\
\
\
Denis Parra\
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'rsweb2014.bib'
title: Recommending Items in Social Tagging Systems Using Tag and Time Information
---
\[Data mining\] \[Information filtering\]
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Over the past few years social tagging gained tremendously in popularity, helping people for instance to categorize or describe resources on the Web for better information retrieval (e.g., BibSonomy or CiteULike) [@korner2010stop; @Trattner2012]. Although the process of tagging has been well explored in the past and in particular the task of predicting the right tags to the user in a personalized manner [@jaschke2008tag; @Seitlinger2013], studies on predictive models to recommend items to users based on social tags are still rare. To contribute to this sparse field of research, in this paper we present preliminary results of a study that aims at addressing this issue. In particular, we provide first results of a novel attempt to improve item recommendations by taking into account peoples’ social tags and the information of the time the tags have been applied by the users. As shown in related work, recommending items to users in a collaborative manner relying on social tagging information is not an easy task in general (e.g., [@tso2008tag] or [@parra2010improving]). However, other related work has also proofed that the information of time is an important factor to make the models more accurate in the end (e.g., [@Zheng2011] or [@Huang2014]).
Contrary to the previous work mentioned above, we suggest a less data-driven approach that is inspired by principles of human memory theory about remembering things over time. As shown in our previous work on tag recommender systems [@domi2014], the base-level learning (BLL) equation introduced by Anderson and Schooler [@Schooler1991] (see also Anderson et al. [@Anderson2004]), which integrates tag frequency and recency (i.e., the time since the last tag usage), can be used to implement an effective tag recommendation and ranking algorithm. In particular, the BLL equation models the time-depended drift of forgetting of words and tags using a power-law distribution in order to determine a probability value that a specific tag will be reused by a target user.
In this work, we apply this equation for ranking and recommending items to users. To this end, we present a novel recommender approach called *Collaborative Item Ranking Using Tag and Time Information (CIRTT)* that firstly identifies a potentially interesting candidate item set and secondly, ranks this candidate set in a personalized manner (similar to [@Huang2014]). In this second step of personalization, we integrate the BLL equation to include this information about tags and time. To investigate the question as to whether tag and time information can improve the ranking and recommendation process, we conducted an extensive evaluation using folksonomy datasets gathered from three social tagging systems (BibSonomy, CiteULike and MovieLens). Within this study we compared our approach to two alternative tag and time based recommender algorithms [@Zheng2011; @Huang2014] amongst others. The results show that integrating tag and time information using the BLL equation helps to improve item recommendations and to outperform state-of-the-art baselines in terms of recommender accuracy.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We begin with explaining our tag and time based approach CIRTT in Section \[sec:approach\]. Then we describe the experimental setup of our evaluation in Section \[sec:expset\] and summarize the results of this study in Section \[sec:results\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:con\], we close the paper with a short conclusion and an outlook into the future.
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
In this section we provide a detailed description of our item recommendation approach called *Collaborative Item Ranking Using Tag and Time Information (CIRTT)*. In general, our CIRTT algorithm uses a similar strategy as the approach proposed by Huang et al. [@Huang2014] and thus, consists of two steps relying on a combination of user- and item-based CF: in the first step, a potentially interesting candidate item set for the target user *u* is determined and in the second step, this candidate item set gets ranked using item similarities and tag and time information.
Step one (i.e., determining candidate items) is conducted using a simple user-based CF approach. Hence, we first find the most similar users for the target user *u* (i.e., the neighborhood) based on the binary user-item matrix $B_{u,i}$ (see also [@Zheng2011]) and then, use the bookmarked items of these neighbours as our candidate item set. We use a neighbourhood of *k* = 20 users and the Cosine similarity measure [@gemmell2009improving] (see also Section \[sec:baselines\]).
In the second step (i.e., ranking candidate items) we use an item-based CF approach in order to determine the relevance of each candidate item for the target user based on the items she has bookmarked in the past. Hence, for each candidate item *i* in the candidate item set we calculate this combined similarity value $sim(u, i)$ by the item-based CF formula: $$\begin{aligned}
sim(u, i) = \sum\limits_{j \in items(u)}{sim(i, j)}\end{aligned}$$ , where $items(u)$ is the set of items the target user $u$ has bookmarked in the past. This item-based CF step helps us to give a higher ranking to candidate items that are more similar to the items the target user has bookmarked in the past (see also [@Huang2014]).
To finally realize CIRTT in order to integrate tag and time information we make use of the base-level learning (BLL) equation proposed by Anderson et al. [@Anderson2004]. As described in our previous work [@domi2014], the BLL equation can be used to determine a relevance value for a tag $t$ in the tag assignments of a target user $u$ based on tag frequency and recency: $$\begin{aligned}
BLL(u, t) = ln(\sum\limits_{i = 1}\limits^n{t_{i}^{-d})}
\end{aligned}$$ , where $n$ is the number of times $t$ has been used by $u$ and $t_{i}$ is the recency, i.e., the time since the $i^{th}$ occurrence of $t$ in the tag assignments of $u$. The exponent $d$ is used to model the power law of forgetting memory items and is usually set to $.5$ (see [@Anderson2004]). In order to map these BLL values on a range of 0 - 1, we used the same normalization method as used in our previous work [@domi2014].
[l|lllll]{} Dataset & $|B|$ & $|U|$ & $|R|$ & $|T|$ & $|TAS|$\
BibSonomy & 82,539 & 2,437 & 28,000 & 30,919 & 339,337\
CiteULike & 36,471 & 3,202 & 15,400 & 20,937 & 99,635\
MovieLens & 53,607 & 3,983 & 5,724 & 14,883 & 92,387\
We adopt this equation for the ranking of items in social tagging systems using a similar method as proposed in [@Zheng2011] and [@Huang2014]. Thus, a user is assumed to prefer an item if it has been tagged with tags of high relevance for the user, that is, with tags exhibiting a high BLL value. Given this assumption, the BLL value of a given item $i$ for the target user $u$ is determined using the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
BLL(u, i) = \sum\limits_{t \cup tags(u, i)}{BLL(u, t)}
\end{aligned}$$ , where $tags(u, i)$ is the set of tags $u$ has used to tag $i$.
Taken together, the prediction value $pred(u, i)$ of a candidate item $i$ using our CIRTT approach is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
pred(u, i) = \underbrace{\sum\limits_{j \in items(u)}{sim(i, j)}}_{sim(u, i)} \times BLL(u, i)\end{aligned}$$ This approach enables us to weight higher the items within the candidate set that are more important to the target user (i.e., items associated with tags exhibiting a high BLL value that integrates tag frequency and recency). CIRTT and the baseline algorithms presented in this work are implemented in the Java programming language, are open-source software and can be downloaded online from our Github Repository[^1] [@Kowald2014a].
Experimental Setup {#sec:expset}
==================
In this section we describe in detail the datasets, the evaluation methodology and metrics as well as the baseline algorithms used for our experiments.
Datasets {#sec:datasets}
--------
In order to evaluate our approach and for reasons of reproducibility we used freely-available folksonomies gathered from three well-known social-tagging systems. We used data-sets of the social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy[^2], the reference management system CiteULike[^3] and the movie recommendation site MovieLens[^4]. As suggested by related work in the field (e.g. [@jaschke2007tag; @hotho2006information]), we excluded all automatically imported and generated tags (e.g., bibtex-import). In the case of CiteULike we randomly selected 10% of the user profiles for reasons of computational effort (see also [@gemmell2009improving]).
We did not use a full *p*-core pruning technique, since this would negatively influence the recommender evaluation results in social tagging system as shown by Doerfel and J[ä]{}schke [@doerfel2013analysis], but excluded all unique resources (i.e., resources that have been bookmarked only by a single user). The final dataset statistics can be found in Table \[tab:dataset\_stats\].
Evaluation Methodology {#sec:evalmethod}
----------------------
To evaluate our item recommender approach we used a training and test-set split method as proposed by popular and related work in this area [@Huang2014; @Zheng2011]. Hence, for each user we sorted her bookmarks in chronological order and used the 20% most recent bookmarks for testing and the rest for training. With the training set we examined then whether a recommender approach could predict the bookmarked resources of a target user in the test set. This procedure also simulates well a real environment where the bookmarking behavior of a user in the future is tried to be predicted based on the bookmarking behavior in the past [@campos2013time].
To finally quantify the recommendation accuracy of our approaches, we used a set of well-known information retrieval metrics. In particular, we report Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG@20), Mean Average Precision (MAP @20), Recall (R@20), Diversity (D) and User Coverage (UC) [@SmythMcClave01; @herlocker2004evaluating]. All performance metrics are calculated and reported based on the top-20 recommended items. Moreover we also show the performance of the algorithms in the plots of all three accuracy metrics (nDCG, MAP and Recall) for 1 - 20 recommended items (see also [@cremonesi2011top]).
Baseline Algorithms {#sec:baselines}
-------------------
In order to evaluate our tag and time based CIRTT approach, we compared it to several baseline algorithms in terms of recommender accuracy. The algorithms have been selected with respect to their popularity, performance and novelty.
**MostPopular (MP):** The most basic approach we utilized is the simple *Most Popular (MP)* approach that recommends for any user the same set of items. These items are weighted by their frequency in all bookmarks, meaning that the most frequently bookmarked items are recommended.
**User-based Collaborative Filtering (CF):** Another approach we benchmarked against is the well-known *User-based Collaborative Filtering (CF)* recommendation algorithm [@schafer2007collaborative]. The main idea of CF is that users that are more similar to each other (i.e., have similar taste), will probably also like the same items. Thus, the CF approach first finds the $k$ most similar users for the target user and afterwards recommends their items that are new to her (i.e., have not been bookmarked before). We calculated the user-similarities based on both, the binary user-item matrix as proposed in [@Zheng2011] (hereinafter referred to as *CF$_B$*) and the tag-based user profiles as proposed in [@Huang2014] (hereinafter referred to as *CF$_T$*). Although we also considered using *Item-based CF* [@Sarwar2001], we dismissed it based on the tag-based recommender experiments of Bogers et al. [@Bogers2008] showing that user-based CF always beat item-based CF. They explain the result given that the number of items in the dataset is larger than the number of users, and this is also the case in our three datasets (Table \[tab:dataset\_stats\]).
[l|llllll|l]{} Dataset & Metric & $MP$ & $CF_{T}$ & $CF_{B}$ & $Z$ & $H$ & $CIRTT$\
& nDCG@20 & $.0143$ & $.0448$ & $.0610$ & $.0621$ & $.0564$ & $.\textbf{0638}$\
& MAP@20 & $.0057$ & $.0319$ & $.0440$ & $.0447$ & $.0394$ & $.\textbf{0464}$\
& R@20 & $.0204$ & $.0618$ & $.0820$ & $.0834$ & $.0816$ & $.\textbf{0907}$\
& D & $.8307$ & $.8275$ & $.8852$ & $.8528$ & $.6209$ & $.8811$\
& UC & $100\%$ & $99.76\%$ & $99.52\%$ & $99.52\%$ & $99.76\%$ & $99.76\%$\
& nDCG@20 & $.0062$ & $.0407$ & $.0717$ & $.0762$ & $.0706$ & $.\textbf{0912}$\
& MAP@20 & $.0036$ & $.0241$ & $.0453$ & $.0484$ & $.0459$ & $.\textbf{0629}$\
& R@20 & $.0077$ & $.0630$ & $.1033$ & $.1077$ & $.0928$ & $.\textbf{1225}$\
& D & $.8936$ & $.7969$ & $.8642$ & $.8145$ & $.6318$ & $.8640$\
& UC & $100\%$ & $98.38\%$ & $96.44\%$ & $97.32\%$ & $98.38\%$ & $97.61\%$\
& nDCG@20 & $.0198$ & $.0361$ & $.0602$ & $.0614$ & $.0484$ & $.\textbf{0650}$\
& MAP@20 & $.0075$ & $.0201$ & $.0347$ & $.0367$ & $.0263$ & $.\textbf{0413}$\
& R@20 & $.0366$ & $.0561$ & $.1031$ & $.1013$ & $.0763$ & $.\textbf{1058}$\
& D & $.9326$ & $.8861$ & $.9267$ & $.9119$ & $.7789$ & $.9176$\
& UC & $100\%$ & $97.82\%$ & $95.90\%$ & $98.43\%$ & $97.82\%$ & $95.90\%$\
**Collaborative Filtering Using Tag and Time Information (Z / H):** We also compared our approach to two alternative algorithms that focus on improving Collaborative Filtering for social tagging systems using tag and time information. The first one has been proposed by Zheng et al. [@Zheng2011] (hereinafter referred to as *Z*) and improves the traditional CF approach based on the binary user-resource matrix using tag and time information. As in our CIRTT approach this is done using information about tag frequency and recency but in contrast to our solution the authors model the forgetting process using an exponential distribution rather than a power-law distribution. Moreover, this information is already used in the user similarity calculation step and not in the item ranking step as it is done in our approach.
The second tag and time-based approach we tried to benchmark against was proposed by Huang et al. [@Huang2014] (hereinafter referred to as *H*). As in our approach, this algorithm uses a 2-step recommendation process, where in the first step a potentially interesting candidate item-set for the target user is determined using user-based CF and in the second step this candidate item-set is ranked using item-based CF. In contrast to our approach, the authors calculate the user and item similarities based on user tag-profiles rather than based on the binary user-item matrix. Furthermore, in this approach the forgetting process is modeled using a simple linear function rather than a power-law distribution.
All CF-based approaches mentioned in this section use a neighborhood of 20 users and make use of the Cosine similarity measure as it is also done in CIRTT (see also [@gemmell2009improving]).
\
\
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section, we present the results of the evaluation comparing our CIRTT approach to the baseline algorithms described in Section \[sec:baselines\] with respect to recommender accuracy on three different folksonomy datasets (BibSonomy, CiteULike and MovieLens).
In an extensive empirical study, Cremonesi et al. [@Cremonesi2010] have shown that standard Information Retrieval accuracy metrics (e.g., Recall or nDCG) are well suited to evaluate recommender systems, at least in case of top-$N$ recommendation tasks. Therefore, Table \[tab:full\_norm\] provides measures of accuracy (nDCG@20, MAP@20, R@20) and - additionally - measures of Diversity (D) and User Coverage (UC) for each approach and for each of the three datasets.
As expected, the MP baseline approach, which is not personalized at all, resulted in the lowest accuracy estimates. Regarding the two traditional CF approaches, the $CF_{B}$ approach, which constructs a binary user-item matrix based on bookmarks, performs better than $CF_{T}$, which is based solely on the user tag-profiles. Regarding the two alternative tag- and time-based approaches, a same phenomenon can be observed as the algorithm of Zheng et al. (Z) [@Zheng2011], that is also based on the binary user-item matrix, performs better than the approach of Huang et al. (H) [@Huang2014], that is based on the user tag-profiles.
With respect to all accuracy metrics (nDCG@20, MAP@20, R@20), our CIRTT approach, that integrates tag and time information using the BLL-equation, performs best in all three datasets (BibSonomy, CiteULike and MovieLens). This may suggest that applying a power-law function as it is done via the BLL-equation is more appropriate to account for effects of recency than an exponential function (Zheng et al. [@Zheng2011]) or a linear function (Huang et al. [@Huang2014]). A same pattern of results can be observed when looking at Figure \[fig:ratk\] that reveals estimates of the nDCG, MAP and Recall measures for different sizes of the recommended item set. We have also tried to integrate the exponential recency function of Zheng et al. in our approach which resulted in lower accuracy estimates than the BLL power law forgetting function. When looking at the other two not accuracy-based metrics, interestingly, the approach of Huang et al. (H) always results in the lowest Diversity (D) of recommended items. This result might appear because this approach is based on the user tag-profiles and the Diversity metric is calculated based on tags. Finally, as all personalized approaches utilize a user-based CF approach for finding similar users, the measure of User Coverage (UC) does not appear to deviate between the different algorithms. We observed the maximum deviation of 2.53% within the MovieLens dataset.
Conclusions & Future Work {#sec:con}
=========================
In this work we have presented preliminary results of a novel recommendation approach called *Collaborative Item Ranking Using Tag and Time Information (CIRTT)* that aims at improving Collaborative Filtering in social tagging systems. Our algorithm follows a two-step approach as also done in [@Huang2014], where in the first step a potentially interesting candidate item set is found performing user-based CF and in the second step this candidate item set is ranked performing item-based CF. Within this ranking step we integrate the information of frequency and recency of tag use applying the Base-Level Learning (BLL) equation [@Anderson2004]. Thus, in contrast to existing approaches that also consider information about tags and time (e.g., [@Zheng2011; @Huang2014]), CIRTT draws on an empirically well established formalism modeling the reuse probability of memory items (tags) in form of a power-law forgetting function. In recent work, the same formalism has turned out to substantially improve the ranking and recommendation of tags ([@domi2014]).
The current evaluation conducted on datasets gathered from three social tagging systems (BibSonomy, CiteULike and MovieLens) reveals that applying the BLL equation also helps to improve the ranking and recommendation process of items. Most important, the results speak in favor of an integrative research endeavor that places a data-driven approach on a theoretical foundation provided by research on human cognition and semiotics.
Our future work will aim at improving the approach presented in this paper. For example, we will examine as to whether the BLL equation can also help to improve the calculation of user similarities and thus, to find more suitable user neighborhoods and candidate items. Additionally, we will put more emphasis on semiotic dynamics that have been found to play out in tagging systems (e.g., [@steels2006semiotic]) and how individual learning and forgetting processes are influenced by other individuals’ behavior in the system. Moreover, we also plan to further improve the item ranking process using insights of relevant research dealing with recommender novelty and diversity (e.g., [@vargas2011rank] in order to increase the user acceptance.
**Acknowledgments:** This work is supported by the Know-Center, the EU funded project Learning Layers (Grant Nr. 318209) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P 25593-G22. The Know-Center is funded within the Austrian COMET Program - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies - under the auspices of the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Ministry of Economics and Labor and by the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG).
[^1]: https://github.com/learning-layers/TagRec/
[^2]: <http://www.kde.cs.uni-kassel.de/bibsonomy/dumps>
[^3]: <http://www.citeulike.org/faq/data.adp>
[^4]: <http://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The complementarity of the liquid and plasma descriptions of the classical one-component plasma (OCP) is explored by studying wavevector and frequency dependent dynamical quantities: the dynamical structure factor (DSF), and the dynamic local field correction (LFC). Accurate Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations are used to validate/test models of the DSF and LFC. Our simulations, which span the entire fluid regime ($\Gamma = 0.1 - 175$), show that the DSF is very well represented by a simple and well known memory function model of generalized hydrodynamics. On the other hand, the LFC, which we have computed using MD for the first time, is not well described by existing models.'
author:
- 'James P.'
- Jérôme
- Gianluca Gregori
title: |
Comparative merits of the memory function and dynamic local field correction\
of the classical one-component plasma
---
Introduction
============
The classical one-component plasma (OCP) is a standard model in the study of strongly coupled plasmas, playing a conceptual role similar to that of the hard-sphere model in the theory of simple liquids. It is often used as a model of matter under extreme conditions, e.g. compact astrophysical objects. The OCP consists of a system of identical point charges $Ze$ with mass $m$, interacting through the Coulomb potential, and immersed in a uniform background of opposite charge. In equilibrium, the system is characterised by the dimensionless coupling parameter $\Gamma=(Ze)^{2}/ak_{B}T$, where $a=\left(4\pi\/n/3\right)^{-1/3}$ is the mean interparticle distance with $n$ the particle density and $T$ the temperature.
As $\Gamma$ increases, the OCP changes from a nearly collisionless, gaseous regime for $\Gamma \ll 1$ through an increasingly correlated, dense fluid regime in which the system shares certain properties with ordinary liquids. In particular, for $\Gamma > 50$ it has been found that the transport coefficients (diffusion, viscosity) of the OCP obey universal laws satisfied by dense ordinary liquids [@Daligault]. Other features of the OCP dynamics are not shared by ordinary liquids. Most notably, because of the long range Coulomb interactions, the system exhibits the characteristic behavior of plasmas: density imbalances lead to high frequency plasma oscillations, rather than low frequency sound waves. These high frequency plasma oscillations, not encountered in ordinary liquids, led Baus and Hansen to question the validity of the hydrodynamic limit of the OCP [@BausHansen]. In fact, it was recently shown that the hydrodynamic limit of the OCP is not applicable, even at large $\Gamma$ values where high collisionality due to caging leads to liquidlike properties [@Mithen]. It is the fact that the OCP shares some, but not all, properties with ordinary liquids that makes it a challenging yet fascinating system to study.
In this paper we will explore the complementarity of the liquid and plasma descriptions of the OCP by studying the wavevector and frequency dependent dynamical structure factor (DSF), $S(k,\omega)$. The DSF contains complete information of the system dynamics at and near thermal equilibrium and is an important quantity because of its connection to inelastic light and neutron scattering experiments [@HansenMcdonald; @BalucaniZoppi]. Two main approaches have been proposed for modeling the DSF in the fluid regime $\Gamma < 175$: the memory function approach and the dynamic local field correction (LFC) approach. Largely due to the lack of ‘exact’ results (from numerical simulations) to compare to theoretical models of the memory function and LFC, it is not clear which of these approaches is more suitable for providing a description that is simple and effective for a wide range of conditions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify this problem.
The memory function approach - widely used for normal liquids - represents a generalized hydrodynamics in which both equilibrium properties and transport coefficients that appear in the conventional hydrodynamic (Navier-Stokes) description are replaced by suitably defined wavevector and frequency dependent quantities. In this approach, the DSF is written in the form [@BalucaniZoppi] $$\frac{S(k,\omega)}{S(k)} = \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{<\omega_k^2>k^2\phi^{'}(k,\omega)}{[\omega^2 - <\omega_k^2> - \omega k^2 \phi^{''}(k,\omega)]^2 + [\omega k^2\phi^{'}(k,\omega)]^2}\,,
\label{skwequation}$$ where $S(k)$ is the static structure factor and $<\omega_k^2> = \frac{k_B T}{m}\frac{k^2}{S(k)}$. The quantities $\phi^{'}(k,\omega)$ and $\phi^{''}(k,\omega)$ are respectively the real and imaginary parts of the Laplace transform of the memory function $\phi(k,t)$. In order to fully specify the DSF a model for the memory function is required. Of particular note is the Gaussian memory function model first applied to the OCP by Hansen et al. [@Hansen], which looked promising at the time of their study.
The dynamics of the OCP can instead can be described in terms of the so-called dynamic local field correction (LFC), $G(k,\omega)$. This approach is more common to Coulomb systems e.g. the quantum electron gas [@Kugler]. The LFC is defined by its relation to the density response function of the system, $\chi(k,\omega)$ [@Ichimarurev; @Ichimarubook], $$\chi(k,\omega) = \frac{\chi_0(k,\omega)}{1 - v(k)[1 - G(k,\omega)]\chi_0(k,\omega)}\,.
\label{lfcdef}$$ Here $v(k) = 4\pi (Ze)^2 / k^2$ is the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential and $\chi_0(k,\omega)$ is the density response function of an ideal gas, defined in Sec. \[dynamiclfc\]. While the memory function is designed to extend the conventional hydrodynamic equations to finite wavevectors, the LFC is designed to correct the deficiencies of the mean field approximation (i.e. the Vlasov equation for the single particle distribution function, which describes the plasma oscillations but neglects any non-ideal or ‘collisional’ effects). That is, setting $G(k,\omega) = 0$ gives the mean field approximation for the density response function; this gives a good description of the OCP dynamics in the weak coupling regime, $\Gamma \ll 1$, only. A non-zero $G(k,\omega)$ represents correlation effects beyond the mean field approximation. Models for the LFC have been proposed by Tanaka and Ichimaru [@Ichimaru] and by Hong and Kim [@Hong], but these models have barely been tested other than for a very few conditions in the original studies (and even for these conditions it was not clear how well the models agreed with the MD data).
Since the density response function and DSF are related through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, $$S(k,\omega) = -\frac{k_BT}{\pi n \omega}\Im m\{\chi(k,\omega)\}\,,
\label{flucdiss}$$ the LFC $G(k,\omega)$ is clearly related to the memory function $\phi(k,\omega)$, albeit in a non-trivial way. In this paper we show that the memory function is a simpler quantity to model than the LFC. That is, a basic model for the memory function can describe both mean field and collisional effects that are characteristic of the DSF of the OCP, wheras an LFC that achieves this is much more complicated. Specifically, as shown in Sec. \[memoryfunction\], the Gaussian memory function model initially proposed by Hansen et al. reproduces the MD data for the DSF to remarkable accuracy across the entire fluid regime, and for all wavevectors $k$. In fact, the properties of the OCP mean that the model works even better than would be expected in the case of normal fluids. On the other hand, as shown in Sec. \[dynamiclfc\], the LFC has a more complex structure - for this reason it is not well described by the models mentioned previously. In order to reach these conclusions, we have performed highly accurate, large scale, state of the art molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for the intermediate scattering function $F(k,t)$, and from this the dynamical structure factor, $S(k,\omega)$ [@HansenMcdonald], for a large number of $\Gamma$ values spanning the entire fluid regime ($0.1$,$0.3$,$1$,$5$,$8$,$9$,$9.5$,$10$,$11$,$50$,$120$,$160$,$175$). We have used this new data to compute the LFC of the OCP with MD for the first time: calculation of $G(k,\omega)$ requires very accurate MD data which was not available before now. To conclude our study of OCP dynamics (Sec. \[negdispersion\]), we have extracted from our MD data the value of $\Gamma$ at which ‘negative dispersion’ of the OCP plasmon mode sets in; very recently there has been renewed interest in this particular aspect of OCP dynamics [@Arkhipov].
Memory Function Model {#memoryfunction}
=====================
The memory function expression in Eq. (\[skwequation\]), which can be used to represent the DSF of any single component fluid, can be shown to be an exact result [@BalucaniZoppi]. In the case of the OCP, the ubiquitous plasmon peak in the DSF is ensured by the long wavelength (small $k$) behaviour of the $<\omega_k^2>$ term in the denominator of Eq. (\[skwequation\]); as $k \rightarrow 0$, $S(k) \rightarrow k^2/k_D^2$ [@BausHansen], where $k_D^2 = 3\Gamma / a^2$, and hence $<\omega_k^2> \rightarrow \omega_p$. This small $k$ behaviour of $S(k)$ is an essential distinction between OCP statics and those of an ordinary fluid - in the latter case, $S(k)$ approaches the isothermal compressibility of the fluid in the limit $k \rightarrow 0$, which gives rise to a sound wave (rather than a plasma wave) at long wavelengths [@BausHansen].
The memory function model first applied to the OCP by Hansen et al. [@Hansen] consists of using the following Gaussian ansatz for the memory function, $$\begin{aligned}
k^2\phi(k,t) &= k^2\phi(k,0)\exp(-\pi t^2/4\tau_k) \nonumber \\
&= [\omega_L^2(k) - <\omega_k^2>]\exp(-\pi t^2/4\tau_k)\,,
\label{Gaussianansatz}\end{aligned}$$ where the initial value of the memory function is known exactly [@BalucaniZoppi] and $\omega_L^2(k) = <\omega^4>/<\omega^2>$ is given in terms of the frequency moments of $S(k,\omega)$ $$<\omega^n> = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^nS(k,\omega)d\omega\,.$$ Expressions for $<\omega^0>$, $<\omega^2>$ and $<\omega^4>$ in terms of the static structure factor $S(k)$ and the radial distribution function $g(r)$ for the OCP are given in the Appendix. Here $\tau_k$, appearing in Eq. (\[Gaussianansatz\]), is a wavevector dependent relaxation time. According to Eq. (\[Gaussianansatz\]), the real and imaginary parts of the Laplace transform of the memory function are given by, respectively [@Ailawadi; @Hansen], $$k^2\phi^{'}(k,\omega) = [\omega_L^2(k) - <\omega_k^2>]\tau_ke^{-\tau_k^2\omega^2/\pi}
\label{realphi}$$ and $$k^2\phi^{''}(k,\omega) = \frac{2\tau_k}{\sqrt{\pi}}[\omega_L^2(k) - <\omega_k^2>]D(\tau_k\omega/\sqrt{\pi})\,,
\label{imagphi}$$ where the Dawson function $D(x) = \exp(-x^2)\int_0^x\exp(y^2)dy$ [@Dawson].
Comparison between model and MD data {#skwcomp}
------------------------------------
The parameters $<\omega_k^2>$ and $\omega_L^2(k)$ that appear in the model can be obtained by computing $S(k)$ (or equivalently $g(r)$) with MD and using the formulae given in the Appendix for the frequency moments. The model then reduces to the determination of a single $k$ dependent parameter $\tau_k$. The approach taken by Hansen et al. was to treat $\tau_k$ as a parameter to be fitted to the MD spectrum of $S(k,\omega)$.
![(color online) MD results at selected $\Gamma$ and $ka$ values (dots) and the result of the Gaussian model when the parameter $\tau_k$ is fitted to the MD spectrum (dashed line).[]{data-label="1param"}](1param.eps)
![(color online) MD results at selected $\Gamma$ and $ka$ values (dots) along with the result of the Gaussian model when only the parameter $\tau_k$ is fitted to the MD spectrum (dashed line), and the result when $<\omega_k^2>$, $<\omega_L^2(k)>$ and $\tau_k$ are all fitted (solid line).[]{data-label="1param2"}](1param2.eps)
When we do this, we find in general that the model matches the MD data remarkably well for all $\Gamma$ and $k$ values (see Fig. \[1param\]). In some cases, however, there are small discrepancies between the model and MD data, despite the fact that the model recreates the shape of the MD data very well (see Fig. \[1param2\]). Therefore, in order to determine whether these discrepancies are due to deficiencies in the model or inaccuracies in the parameters $<\omega_k^2>$ and $<\omega_L^2(k)>$ when computed with MD, we have separately fitted the model to the MD spectrum using all three parameters $<\omega_k^2>$, $<\omega_L^2(k)>$ and $\tau_k$. As shown in Fig. \[1param2\], this three parameter fit is an even better match to the MD data. Since the values of the parameters $<\omega_k^2>$ and $<\omega_L^2(k)>$ from the three parameter fit agree very closely (within $10\%$) with those computed with MD, we conclude that the improvement in the agreement between the model when all three parameters are fitted versus when only one is fitted is due to small inaccuracies when $<\omega_k^2>$ and $\omega_L^2(k)$ are taken from the MD $g(r)$ and $S(k)$; the model is rather sensitive to the precise values of the frequency moments. That is, the one parameter fits are irrelevant as their comparison with the MD data is not indicative of the quality of the model. In Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\], we show only the model results for when all three of the moments are used as fitting parameters.
As shown in Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\], at sufficiently small $k$, the MD data for $S(k,\omega)$ exhibits a sharp plasmon peak at $\omega \approx \omega_p$ for all coupling strengths $\Gamma$. As $k$ increases, the plasmon peak broadens until, at high $k$, $S(k,\omega)$ reduces to a single central peak at $\omega = 0$. The model accounts remarkably well for this entire evolution, particularly for $\Gamma \leq 50$ (Fig \[fig1\]). At higher values of $\Gamma$, the MD data does show some additional structure at intermediate $k$ values ($ka = 2.32 \mbox{ and } 3.09$) that the model cannot reproduce. For $\Gamma \geq 120$, a two peak structure is visible for $ka = 2.32$ and a three peak structure for $ka = 3.09$ (Fig. \[fig2\]). The small high frequency peak for $ka = 3.09$ is of particular interest - it does not appear to have been seen or commented upon in previous MD calculations. We believe that this peak is due to microscopic ‘caging’ effects. That is, at these lengthscales, the relatively high frequency oscillations of individual particles in the cages produced by their neighbors are imprinted on $S(k,\omega)$. This deduction is supported by previous work showing that for $\Gamma \geq 100$, a high frequency peak appears in the velocity autocorrelation function at $\simeq 0.9\omega_p$ [@Daligault]; this is exactly the position of the additional peak in $S(k,\omega)$. We note that although the model does not fully capture the additional structure in the MD data for these conditions, on average it does give a good account of the overall shape of the spectrum.
As $k$ increases further, $S(k,\omega)$ begins to reduce to its ideal gas limit $S^{0}(k,\omega)$ [@Hansen; @HansenMcdonald], given by $$S^{0}(k,\omega) = \left(\frac{m}{2\pi k_B T k^2}\right)^{1/2}\exp\left(-\frac{m\omega^2}{2k_BTk^2}\right)\,.
\label{idealgas}$$ As shown in Fig. \[idealfig\], for $\Gamma \leq 10$, $S(k,\omega)$ is already close to $S^{0}(k,\omega)$ for our highest $k$ value ($ka = 6.19$). For $\Gamma > 10$, significant differences appear - these differences become greater as the coupling strength increases. This is to be expected, as at these higher coupling strengths oscillations the static structure factor $S(k)$ persist well beyond $ka = 6.19$ (Fig. \[static\]).
![(color online) MD data for $ka = 6.19$ (dots) and the ideal gas limit given by Eq. (\[idealgas\]) (solid line).[]{data-label="idealfig"}](idealgas.eps)
![(color online) The static structure factor $S(k)$ for a range of $\Gamma$ values. Clearly for $\Gamma > 10$ $S(k)$ is still oscillating at our highest $ka$ value. []{data-label="static"}](sk.eps)
In any case, as shown in Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\], the Gaussian model works well at our highest $k$ value of $ka = 6.19$, regardless of whether or not this $k$ value is sufficiently large for $S(k,\omega)$ to be close to its ideal gas limit.
Dynamic Local field Correction {#dynamiclfc}
==============================
In the dynamic local field correction (LFC) approach, as given in Eq. (\[lfcdef\]), the dynamics are described with reference to the density response function of an ideal gas, $$\chi^{(0)}(k,\omega) = -\frac{n}{k_BT}Z\left(\sqrt{ \frac{m}{2 k_BT} } \frac{\omega}{k}\right)\,,$$ where $Z(x) = (1 - 2xD(x)) + i\sqrt{\pi}x \exp(-x^2)$ and $D(x)$ is the Dawson function introduced in Sec. \[memoryfunction\].
As mentioned previously, setting $G(k,\omega) = 0$ gives the mean field approximation for the density response function; this only gives a good description of the OCP dynamics in the weak coupling regime $\Gamma \ll 1$. A non-zero $G(k,\omega)$ represents correlation effects beyond the mean field approximation. One commonly used approximation is to replace the LFC by its $\omega = 0$ value $G(k,0) \equiv G(k)$. The static local field correction $G(k)$ is related to the static structure factor $S(k)$ by $$G(k) = 1 + \left[1- \frac{1}{S(k)}\right]\frac{n }{k_BT}\frac{1}{v(k)}\,.
\label{gkeq}$$ An alternative scheme is to replace the dynamic local field correction by its high frequency limit $$G(k,\infty) \equiv G(k,\omega \rightarrow \infty) = 2I(k)\,,
\label{gkwinfeq}$$ where $I(k)$, which depends on the radial distribution function $g(r)$ of the OCP, is given in the Appendix. Replacing $G(k,\omega)$ by either $G(k)$ or $G(k, \infty)$ results in a mean field approximation with an effective potential; it is well known that this type of scheme gives only a marginal improvement over the conventional mean field approximation [@Hansen]. Thus, in order to describe well the dynamics of the OCP for $\Gamma \geq 1$, it is necessary to take collisions into account by having a frequency dependent dynamic local field correction.
For the classical one-component plasma, two main formulations of the frequency dependent local field correction have been given. The expression given by Tanaka and Ichimaru [@Ichimaru], based on their viscoelastic formalism, interpolates between the known zero frequency and high frequency limits given in Eqs. (\[gkeq\]) and (\[gkwinfeq\]), $$G(k,\omega) = \frac{G(k) - i \omega \tau_M(k)G(k,\infty)}{1 - i\omega\tau_M(k)}\,.
\label{ichimarueq}$$ In their prescription for computing the relaxation time $\tau_M(k)$, Tanaka and Ichimaru considered either a Gaussian or Lorentzian ansatz [@Ichimaru]. In both of these cases, they used a kinetic equation to relate the shear viscosity to the local field correction; the unknown parameter appearing in $\tau_M(k)$ was then chosen such that the estimates of the shear viscosity available from MD at the time were matched as closely as possible (see [@Ichimaru] for further details).
The other formulation, given by Hong and Kim [@Hong], generates successive approximations for the LFC. The first order approximation is simply to replace $G(k,\omega)$ by $G(k)$. The second order approximation is $$G(k,\omega) = G(k) - \frac{1}{2}[G(k) - G(k,\infty)]Q\left(\sqrt{ \frac{m}{2 k_BT} } \frac{\omega}{k}\right)\,,
\label{hongkim}$$ where $Q(x) = 1/Z(x) + 2x^2 - 1$. Because $Q(0) = 0$ and $Q(x \rightarrow \infty) = 2$, like the model of Tanaka and Ichimaru the Hong Kim model gives the correct zero and high frequency limits for the LFC. The third order approximation involves the sixth moment of the dynamical structure factor, $<\omega^6>$; since this is difficult to compute theoretically, in the cases where the third order approximation was considered by Hong and Kim, $<\omega^6>$ was treated as an adjustable parameter [@Hong].
Computing the Dynamic Local Field Correction
--------------------------------------------
In our MD simulations, we compute directly the intermediate scattering function $F(k,t)$. The response function is then given as $$\chi(k,t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
0 &\mbox{ if $t<0$} \\
-\frac{n}{2 k_BT}\frac{dF(k,t)}{dt} &\mbox{ if $t\geq 0$}
\end{array} \right.
\,,
\label{chikt}$$ which is simply the fluctuation dissipation theorem in the temporal domain (cf. Eq. (\[flucdiss\])).Numerically, we obtain the response function in the frequency domain, $\chi(k,\omega)$, by taking the discrete Fourier transform of $\chi(k,t)$. Finally, we use the definition given in Eq. (\[lfcdef\]) the compute the LFC.
We find that the LFC is in general rather more difficult to compute with MD than the DSF; this is reflected in the less accurate and more noisy MD data we have obtained for $G(k,\omega)$. This is despite the fact that both $S(k,\omega)$ and $G(k,\omega)$ are derived from the same MD data for the intermediate scattering function $F(k,t)$. In particular, it is difficult to obtain accurately the precise way in which the imaginary part of $G(k,\omega)$ decays to zero and the real part decays to its high frequency limit $G(k,\infty)$. This is because of the way in which $G(k,\omega)$ is defined (Eq. \[lfcdef\]): as $\omega$ increases, both $\chi_0(k,\omega)$ and $\chi(k,\omega)$ are small quantities. Despite these difficulties, our data is sufficiently good to allow for a comparison with the models of Tanaka and Ichimaru and Hong and Kim outlined above.
MD results and comparison to models
-----------------------------------
![Real and imaginary parts of dynamic local field correction $G(k,\omega)$ as computed from MD at $ka = 1.02$ (dots). Also shown is the model of Hong and Kim as given in Eq. (\[hongkim\]) (dotted line). For $\Gamma = 160$, the model of Tanaka and Ichimaru is shown with both the Gaussian approximation (light grey line) and the Lorentzian approximation (dark grey line) for the relaxation time $\tau_M(k)$. The dashed lines ($\Re e\{G(k,\omega)\}$ only) show $G(k,\infty)$.[]{data-label="gkwsmall"}](largegkw1.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[gkwsmall\] but for $ka = 3.09$.[]{data-label="gkwmid"}](largegkw2.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[gkwsmall\] but for $ka = 6.19$.[]{data-label="gkwlarge"}](largegkw3.eps)
In Figs. \[gkwsmall\], \[gkwmid\] and \[gkwlarge\], we have shown our MD results for the LFC at $\Gamma = 10,50,120 \mbox{ and } 160$ for small, intermediate and large $k$ respectively ($ka = 1.02, 3.09 \mbox{ and } 6.19$). In each of these figures we also show the model of Hong and Kim (Eq. (\[hongkim\])). Since the relaxation time $\tau_M(k)$ appearing in the model of Tanaka and Ichimaru (Eq. (\[ichimarueq\])) was only given explicitly for $\Gamma = 160$ (see [@Ichimaru]), we have shown their model - with both the Gaussian and the Lorentzian approximation for the relaxation time - for this coupling strength only [^1] .
At our small $k$ value ($ka = 1.02$ - Fig. \[gkwsmall\]), for all coupling strengths the model of Hong and Kim departs from $G(k)$ and decays to its high frequency limit $G(k,\infty)$ much faster than the MD data. At these long wavelengths (small $k$), the OCP dynamics occur close to $\omega = \omega_p$ ; the local field correction describes the “collisional broadening” of the plasmon peak neglected in the mean field approximation (c.f. Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\]) . Therefore, the value of $G(k,\omega)$ should only be important for $\omega$ close to $\omega_p$. At our highest coupling strength of $\Gamma = 160$, the model of Tanaka and Ichimaru works reasonably well for either a Gaussian or Lorentzian relaxation time. A reasonable estimate of the width of the plasmon peak is obtained, as noted previously [@Ichimaru].
At our intermediate $k$ value ($ka = 3.09$ - Fig. \[gkwmid\]), $G(k,\omega)$ shows rather more structure than at $ka = 1.02$, particularly at our largest coupling strengths of $\Gamma = 120$ and $160$. At these coupling strengths, the sharp variation of both the real and imaginary parts of $G(k,\omega)$ around $\omega = \omega_p$ accounts for the high frequency peak in the dynamical structure factor $S(k,\omega)$ discussed in Sec \[skwcomp\]. Again, for all $\Gamma$, the model of Hong and Kim departs from $G(k)$ and decays to its high frequency limit $G(k,\infty)$ much faster than does the MD data. Furthermore, at $\Gamma = 160$, the model of Tanaka and Ichimaru cannot capture the considerable structure in $G(k,\omega)$.
At our large $k$ value ($ka = 6.19$ - Fig. \[gkwlarge\]), again none of the models seem to give a good description of $G(k,\omega)$.
Onset of negative dispersion {#negdispersion}
============================
Very recently, there has been renewed interest in the value of $\Gamma$ at which ‘negative dispersion’ of the OCP plasmon mode sets in [@Arkhipov]. Negative dispersion, refering to $d\omega(k)/dk < 0$, where $\omega$ is the frequency and $k$ the wavenumber of the plasmon mode, is a feature not predicted by mean-field theory (i.e. the Vlasov equation for the single particle distribution function). This anomalous effect, that represents an effect of the ‘strong coupling’ ($\Gamma > 1$) on the collective dynamics of the OCP, was first discovered in early computer simulations of the OCP [@Hansen].
MD results for plasmon peak position
------------------------------------
![(color online) Position of plasmon peak as obtained from MD simulations (open symbols) along with the least squares fits to the functional form in Eq. (\[fiteq2\]) with the parameters shown in Table \[fittable\] (solid lines).[]{data-label="neg1"}](neg1new){width="\columnwidth"}
$\Gamma=8$ $\Gamma=9$ $\Gamma=9.5$ $\Gamma=10$ $\Gamma=11$
----- ------------ ------------ -------------- ------------- -------------
$b$ 0.01948 0.00887 0.00221 -0.00304 -0.00523
$c$ -0.06467 -0.06113 -0.03124 -0.02160 -0.07313
$d$ -0.52751 -0.44733 -0.59515 -0.61923 -0.27276
: Parameters obtained from the fit for the plasmon peak position given in Eq. (\[fiteq2\])[]{data-label="fittable"}
Figure \[neg1\] shows the plasmon peak position determined from the MD simulations against $ka$ for coupling strengths $\Gamma = 8,9,9.5,10,11$. As illustrated in Fig. \[neg1\], we obtained a good (least squares) fit of the MD results for $w(k)/\omega_p$ to the polynomial $$\omega(k)/\omega_p = 1 + \frac{b}{2!}(ka)^2 + \frac{c}{4!}(ka)^4 + \frac{d}{6!}(ka)^6\,,\label{fiteq2}$$ where higher order terms in $ka$ were found to contribute negligibly to the quality of the fit. The values obtained for $b$,$c$, and $d$ at each coupling strength are given in Table [\[fittable\]]{}. From the $b$ coefficient, we deduce that negative dispersion at long wavelengths sets in between $\Gamma = 9.5$ and $\Gamma = 10$. Finally, in Fig. \[neg2\], we show the position of the plasmon peak for a larger range of $\Gamma$ values.
![Position of plasmon peak as obtained from MD simulations.[]{data-label="neg2"}](neg2){width="\columnwidth"}
Concluding Comments
===================
In this paper, we investigated two different approaches to describing the near equilibrium dynamical properties of the classical one-component plasma (OCP): the memory function, which is a standard approach for normal liquids, and the dynamic local field correction (LFC), which is more familiar to plasma physics. Our study was centered around our highly accurate, state of the art Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations for the intermediate scattering function $F(k,t)$. The accuracy of our MD data allowed us to compute not only the dynamical structure factor (DSF), $S(k,\omega)$, but also the dynamic local field correction (LFC), $G(k,\omega)$, the latter of which has to our knowledge never been computed before. We found that the memory function is rather more simple to model than the LFC: while the memory function is very well reproduced by a Gaussian for all coupling strengths $\Gamma$ and wavevectors $k$, the LFC has considerably more structure. The more complex structure of the LFC is reflected in the fact that current models - those of Tanaka and Ichimaru [@Ichimaru] and Hong and Kim [@Hong] - do not offer a good description for a wide range of conditions. As well as examining these two approaches, we used our MD data to accurately determine the coupling strength $\Gamma$ at which the transition from positive to negative dispersion of the plasmon mode at long wavelengths takes place, as requested by a recently published study [@Arkhipov]. Aside from elucidating certain features of OCP dynamics, our MD results should find future application among practitioners in the field of strongly coupled Coulomb systems.
Frequency moments of $S(k,\omega)$ {#appendix2}
==================================
The wavevector dependent quantities, $$<\omega_k^2> = \frac{<\omega^2>}{<\omega^0>}\,,$$ and $$\omega_L^2(k) = \frac{<\omega^4>}{<\omega^2>}\,,$$ are given in terms of the frequency moments of $S(k,\omega)$, defined as $$<\omega^n> = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^nS(k,\omega)d\omega\,.$$ The zeroth moment of $S(k,\omega)$ gives the static structure factor $S(k)$ $$<\omega^{0}> = S(k)\,.$$ The second moment is $$\frac{<\omega^{2}>}{\omega_p^2} = \frac{q^2}{3\Gamma}\,,$$ where $q = ka$ with $a = (3/(4\pi n))^{1/3}$ the average interparticle spacing and $\omega_p = \sqrt{4\pi (Ze)^2n/m}$ is the plasma frequency. The fourth moment is [@Hansen] $$\frac{<\omega^4>}{\omega_p^4} = \frac{1}{3\Gamma}\left[\frac{q^4}{\Gamma} + q^2 - 2q^2I(q)\right]\,,
\label{4thmoment}$$ with [^2] $$I(q) = \int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\bar{r}}[g(\bar{r}) - 1]\times\left(\frac{\sin q\bar{r}}{q\bar{r}} + \frac{3\cos q\bar{r}}{(q\bar{r})^2} - \frac{3\sin q\bar{r}}{(q\bar{r})^3}\right)d\bar{r}\,,$$ where $\bar{r} = r/a$.
M. Baus and J.P. Hansen, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**59**]{}, 1 (1980), in particular section 4.4. J.P. Mithen, J. Daligault and G. Gregori, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**83**]{}, 015401(R) (2011). J. Daligault, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{}, 065003 (2006). J.P. Hansen, I.R. McDonald and E.L. Pollock, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**11**]{}, 1025 (1975). J.P. Hansen and I.R. McDonald, [*Theory of Simple Liquids (third edition)*]{} (Academic Press, 2006). U. Balucani and M. Zoppi, [*Dynamics of the Liquid State*]{} (OUP, 2002). A.A. Kugler, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**12**]{}, 35 (1975). S. Ichimaru, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{}, 1017 (1982). S. Ichimaru, [*Statistical Plasma Physics: Volume I*]{} (Westview Press, 2004); S. Ichimaru, [*Statistical Plasma Physics: Volume II*]{} (Westview Press, 2004). S. Ichimaru and S. Tanaka, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**56**]{} 2815 (1986); S. Tanaka andS. Ichimaru, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**18**]{} 2337 (1987). J. Hong and C. Kim, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**43**]{} 1965 (1991).
Yu.V. Arkhipov, A. Askaruly, D. Ballester, A.E. Davletov, I.M. Tkachenko and G. Zwicknagel [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**81**]{}, 2 (2010). N.K. Ailawadi, A. Rahman and R. Zwanzig, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**4**]{}, 1616 (1971). A method for implementing the Dawson function can be found in W.H. Press et al., [*Numerical Recipes in C (second edition)*]{} (Cambridge, 1992).
[^1]: In [@Ichimaru], the Gaussian approximation is referred to as “scheme I”, and the Lorentzian as “scheme II”.
[^2]: Note that we define $I(q)$ as in [@Hansen]. This quantity has a numerical value of exactly half that defined in e.g. [@Ichimarurev], Eq. (3.37).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose and develop a formalism to describe and constrain statistically anisotropic primordial perturbations. Starting from a decomposition of the primordial power spectrum in spherical harmonics, we find how the temperature fluctuations observed in the CMB sky are directly related to the coefficients in this harmonic expansion. Although the angular power spectrum does not discriminate between statistically isotropic and anisotropic perturbations, it is possible to define analogous quadratic estimators that are direct measures of statistical anisotropy. As a simple illustration of our formalism we test for the existence of a preferred direction in the primordial perturbations using full-sky CMB maps. We do not find significant evidence supporting the existence of a dipole component in the primordial spectrum.'
author:
- 'C. Armendariz-Picon'
title: Footprints of Statistical Anisotropies
---
Introduction
============
At the time Einstein decided to apply his equations to the universe, observational data in cosmology was rather scarce, if not inexistent. Hence, instead of relying on observations to constrain the spacetime metric, he postulated the “cosmological principle," the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe. Similarly, guided by theoretical prejudice, Einstein assumed that the universe was static, which, incidentally, is what forced him to introduce a cosmological constant in his equations. It turns out that the universe is actually homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, as confirmed, for example, by the homogeneity of the distribution of luminous red galaxies [@homogeneity] and the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background [@WMAP]. However, the universe is not static, and Einstein’s staticity assumption prevented him from predicting the expansion of the universe later discovered by Hubble.
The cosmological principle has a similar, but formally independent counterpart for cosmological perturbations. It states that perturbations are statistically homogeneous and isotropic, that is, that their correlation functions are invariant under translations and rotations. These assumptions are so ingrained and integrated into our treatment of cosmological perturbations, that often we are unaware of them. As a consequence, the statistical homogeneity and isotropy of cosmological perturbations has received little attention in the literature, and only recently the large scale anomalies observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) have led to a spurt of interest in statistical anisotropy.
In fact, the data provided by the WMAP cosmic microwave background experiment [@WMAP], shows hints of violations of statistical isotropy. These hints include the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole [@OTZH], unlikely correlations between “multipole vectors” [@multipole-vectors], a north-south asymmetry in the CMB sky [@asymmetry] and evidence for the existence of a symmetry plane [@LandMagueijo; @inversions]. On the other hand, a measure of statistical anisotropy proposed in [@HajianSouradeep] shows no evidence for statistical anisotropy, and it has been also suggested that the previous hints are artifacts of the heavily processed maps used to analyze the data [@BEBGL].
In any case, regardless of whether the CMB sky is truly statistically anisotropic or not, the statistical isotropy of cosmological perturbations should be subject to empirical test, rather than taken on faith. Whereas most studies have focused on the statistical isotropy of the CMB sky, in this work we analyze the isotropy of the primordial perturbations themselves. Verifying whether cosmological perturbations are statistically anisotropic is a way to confirm whether our basic assumptions about structure formation, and ultimately our universe, are correct. It provides a novel way to test our current understanding of the origin of structure, embodied in inflationary models, and it might provide information about the universe at high energies and long wavelengths.
In this work we are not concerned with the mechanism responsible for the generation of statistically anisotropic primordial perturbations, although if it were impossible to seed them our analysis would be perhaps an academic exercise. The most straightforward mechanism to explain statistical anisotropies involves isotropy violations in the background spacetime itself. These departures from isotropy can arise from non-trivial spatial topologies [@topology] or departures from the *background* Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric [@Bianchi]. However, these explanations require the breaking of isotropy from the onset, and they also clash with our understanding of the origin of structure. Alternatively, statistical anisotropies might arise from coherent magnetic fields in the universe [@magnetic]. If these magnetic fields can be regarded as perturbations in an isotropic spacetime, their contribution to the metric perturbations is quadratic in the fields, and hence presumably highly suppressed. On the other hand, if they significantly contribute to the energy density of the universe, one expects deviations from isotropy at the level of the background spacetime itself, violating again isotropy from the onset. In this paper we assume that the universe is homogeneous, isotropic, spatially flat and practically infinite. But even homogeneous and isotropic universes can be dominated by sets of non-vanishing non-scalar background fields if the latter appear in special configurations, like for example, vector field triads. In these universes, perturbations are expected to be statistically anisotropic [@triad]. In general the existence of these non-vanishing fields signals the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz-invariance [@Lorentz] (rotational invariance to be more precise), so the study of statistical anisotropies in the primordial perturbations opens a new window to test the basic symmetries of nature.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:formalism\] we precisely define what we mean by statistically isotropic or anisotropic primordial perturbations. It is in this section where we introduce a quantitative characterization of primordial statistical anisotropies. In Section \[sec:temperature\] we connect statistical anisotropies in the primordial perturbations to statistical anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background temperature fluctuations. We define statistics that capture the amount of statistical anisotropy in the CMB and at the same time mirror the amount of anisotropy in the primordial density ripples, and we also discuss the relation between our statistics and the bipolar spectrum of Hajian and Souradeep [@HajianSouradeep]. Section \[sec:looking\] contains a description of strategies to test and constrain the statistical isotropy of the primordial perturbations. This task is simplified if there is a cut-off in the anisotropies at a particular arbitrary multipole, which is the case we mainly consider. As an illustration of the formalism, we look for the simplest departure from statistical isotropy: a preferred direction in the primordial perturbations. We apply our statistics to the full sky CMB maps and do not find evidence of statistical anisotropy. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusions\] we draw our conclusions. We have also included an Appendix where we summarize most of the formulae that we need in our derivations.
Statistically Anisotropic Random Fields {#sec:formalism}
=======================================
Random Fields on Euclidean space
--------------------------------
Consider a real Gaussian random field in Euclidean (flat) three-dimensional space, $\Phi(\vec{x})$. At this point it is not important to know what $\Phi$ actually is, although the reader can think of $\Phi$ as the Newtonian potential (in longitudinal gauge [@MuFeBr; @MaBertschinger]). The isometries of Euclidean space consist of translations, rotations and reflections [@Coxeter]. It is therefore useful to analyze how random fields behave under these transformations. The Gaussian random field $\Phi$ is *statistically homogeneous* if its momenta are invariant under translations, $$\label{eq:homogeneous}
\langle \Phi(\vec{x})\rangle=\langle \Phi(\vec{x}+\vec{t})\rangle,\quad
\langle \Phi^*(\vec{x}) \Phi(\vec{y})\rangle=\langle \Phi^*(\vec{x}+\vec{t}) \Phi(\vec{y}+\vec{t})\rangle \quad \forall \vec{t}\in \mathbb{R}^3,$$ where $\langle \, \rangle$ denotes ensemble average.[^1] It is not essential to assume that the field is Gaussian. This assumption just allows us to concentrate on the average $\langle \Phi(\vec{x})\rangle$ and the correlation $\langle \Phi^*(\vec{x}) \Phi(\vec{y})\rangle$, which uniquely characterize the statistical properties of the random field in this case. A non-Gaussian field that does not satisfy equations (\[eq:homogeneous\]) is not statistically homogeneous either.
The average $\langle \Phi(\vec{x})\rangle$ of a statistically homogeneous random field is a constant in space, and hence is trivially invariant under rotations. A Gaussian random variable $\Phi$ is *statistically isotropic* (around $\vec{O}$) if its momenta are invariant under rotations (around $\vec{O}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:isotropic}
\langle \Phi(\vec{x}) \rangle & = &
\langle \Phi(\vec{O}+\mathcal{R}\cdot(\vec{x}-\vec{O})\rangle \\ \nonumber
\langle \Phi^*(\vec{x}) \Phi(\vec{y})\rangle &= &
\langle \Phi^*(\vec{O}+\mathcal{R}\cdot(\vec{x}-\vec{O}))
\Phi(\vec{O}+\mathcal{R}\cdot(\vec{y}-\vec{O}))\rangle \quad \forall \mathcal{R}\in SO(3).\end{aligned}$$ If we assume that the field is statistically homogeneous, equations (\[eq:isotropic\]) are satisfied for all points $\vec{O}\in \mathbb{R}^3$ if they are satisfied for a single $\vec{O}$ (say, the origin $\vec{O}=0$.) Conversely, one can also show that if a random field $\Phi$ fulfills equations (\[eq:isotropic\]) for all possible points $\vec{O}$, then it also fulfills equations (\[eq:homogeneous\]). In other words, if a random field is statistically isotropic around all points, it is statistically homogeneous. Note that it is not necessary to discuss the statistical properties of $\Phi$ under inversions. The inversion of a single point can be accomplished by a translation, and the inversion of two points can be accomplished by a rotation.
Often it is convenient to decompose spatial functions in eigenvectors of the translation operator. In flat space these are the plane waves $\exp(i \vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})$. Let us hence consider a Fourier decomposition of the random field, $$\Phi(\vec{x})=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \Phi(\vec{k})e^{i \vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}}.$$ The components $\Phi(\vec{k}$) are random fields in Fourier space. In this space, the requirement of statistical homogeneity (\[eq:homogeneous\]) translates into $$\label{eq:power-spectrum}
\langle\Phi(\vec{k})\rangle=\bar{\Phi}_0 \,\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k})
\quad \text{and} \quad
\langle \Phi^*(\vec{k}) \Phi(\vec{k}')\rangle= (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}- \vec{k}')\frac{\pi}{2k^3}\mathcal{P}(\vec{k}),$$ where $\bar{\Phi}_0$ is the (constant) mean of $\Phi$ and $\mathcal{P}(\vec{k})$ denotes the power spectrum,[^2] which is an arbitrary positive definite function[^3] of $\vec{k}$. On the other hand, the requirement of statistical isotropy (\[eq:isotropic\]) implies $$\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{R}\vec{k})=\mathcal{P}(\vec{k}) \quad \forall \mathcal{R}\in SO(3)$$ that is, that the power spectrum only depends on the magnitude $k$ of the wave vector $\vec{k}$. Because any positive function can be written as a square, we can express the power spectrum as $$\label{eq:phi_definition}
\mathcal{P}(\vec{k})=k^3\bar{\Phi}^*(\vec{k})\bar{\Phi}(\vec{k}),$$ where $\bar{\Phi}$ is a real function by definition. Then, the random variable $\Phi$ is statistically isotropic if and only if $\bar{\Phi}$ only depends on $k$.
In this paper, we consider statistically anisotropic primordial perturbations, that is, primordial perturbations whose power spectrum does not only depend on the magnitude $k$. It is hence going to be useful to decompose $\bar{\Phi}(\vec{k})$ into components that transform differently under rotations of the wave vector, $$\label{eq:phi_expansion}
\bar{\Phi}(\vec{k})=\sqrt{4\pi}\sum_{lm}\bar{\Phi}_{lm}(k) Y_{lm}(\hat{k}),$$ where $\hat{k}=\vec{k}/k$ and the $Y_{lm}$ are spherical harmonics. Because $\bar{\Phi}(\vec{k})$ is real, the complex functions $\bar{\Phi}_{lm}$ satisfy $\bar{\Phi}_{lm}^*=(-1)^{m}\bar{\Phi}_{l-m}$. This decomposition of $\bar{\Phi}$ carries over to the power spectrum itself. Inserting equation (\[eq:phi\_expansion\]) into equation (\[eq:phi\_definition\]) and using relation (\[eq:three\_spherical\]) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}(\vec{k}) &=& \sqrt{4\pi}\sum_{lm} \mathcal{P}_{lm}(k)Y_{lm}(\hat{k}), \quad \text{where}
\label{eq:spherical_power}\\
\mathcal{P}_{lm}(k) & =& \sum_{l_1m_1,l_2m_2} (-1)^{m_1}
k^3\,\bar{\Phi}^*_{l_1m_1}(k)\bar{\Phi}_{l_2m_2}(k)
D(l_1 {}-m_1; l_2, m_2 | l, m), \label{eq:P_lm}\end{aligned}$$ and the real coefficient $D$ is given by equation (\[eq:D\]). If the random field is statistically isotropic, $\mathcal{P}_{lm}=0$ for $l\geq 1$. On the contrary, if $\Phi$ is statistically anisotropic, there exists at least one $l\geq 1$ and $m\in \{-l,\ldots, l\}$ such that $\mathcal{P}_{lm}\neq 0$. For simplicity we shall express our results mostly in terms of $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$, though the reader should be aware that the actual free parameters that characterize the statistical anisotropies are the $\bar{\Phi}_{lm}(k)$. Observe that because $\mathcal{P}$ is real, $\mathcal{P}_{lm}^*=(-1)^m \mathcal{P}_{l -m}$, which also follows from the relation (\[eq:P\_lm\]).
Random Fields on a Sphere
-------------------------
Sometimes, one is interested in random fields $\Delta(\hat{n})$ that are defined not on $\mathbb{R}^3$, but rather on a two-sphere, $\hat{n}\in \mathbb{S}^2$ . The standard case is the temperature fluctuations on the cosmic microwave background sky. Because the isometries of a sphere consist only of rotations and inversions, for Gaussian fields it suffices to consider the properties of the random field under rotations (the behavior of the CMB under inversions has been studied in [@inversions].) A Gaussian random field is *statistically isotropic* if the average $\langle \Delta(\hat{n})\rangle$ and the two-point function $\langle \Delta^*(\hat{n})\Delta(\hat{m})\rangle$ are invariant under rotations, $$\label{eq:sphere_isotropic}
\langle \Delta(\hat{n})\rangle=\langle \Delta(\mathcal{R}\cdot\hat{n})\rangle,\quad
\langle \Delta^*(\hat{n}) \Delta(\hat{m})\rangle=\langle \Delta^*(\mathcal{R}\cdot\hat{n}) \Delta(\mathcal{R}\cdot\vec{m})\rangle \quad \forall \mathcal{R}\in SO(3).$$ In the applications we have in mind, random fields on a sphere receive weighted contributions from an infinite number of Fourier modes. For instance, the temperature fluctuations measured by an observer at $\vec{x}_0$ in the direction $\hat{n}$ can be written as [@MaBertschinger] $$\label{eq:delta_expansion}
\Delta_T(\vec{x}_0,\hat{n})=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n}) \Phi(\vec{k})e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}_0},$$ where $\Phi$ is a random field in Fourier space and $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})$ is a real function. We shall specify what $\Phi$ and $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})$ represent below. At this point, we just want to know what constraints statistically isotropy of $\Delta_T(\vec{x}_0,\hat{n})$ imposes on the quantities $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})$. First, note that it follows from equation (\[eq:delta\_expansion\]) that if $\Phi$ is statistically homogeneous, $\langle \Delta_T(\vec{x}_0,\hat{n})\rangle$ is invariant under rotations if $\Delta(0,\mathcal{R}\hat{n})=\Delta(0,\hat{n})$. Furthermore, inserting the expansion (\[eq:delta\_expansion\]) into the second equation in (\[eq:sphere\_isotropic\]) we arrive at the condition $$\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\left[
|\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{m})|^2\mathcal{P}(\vec{k})-
|\Delta(\mathcal{R}\vec{k},\mathcal{R}\hat{n})|^2\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{R}\vec{k})
\right]=0.$$ Therefore, $\Delta_T(\vec{x}_0,\hat{n})$ is statistically isotropic if $$\label{eq:origins}
\Delta(\mathcal{R}\vec{k},\mathcal{R}\hat{n})=
\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})
\quad \text{and} \text \quad
\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{R}\hat{k})=\mathcal{P}(\vec{k})
\quad \forall \mathcal{R}\in SO(3).$$ Note that the two-point function $\langle \Delta_T^*(x_0,\hat{n}) \Delta_T(x_0,\hat{m})\rangle$ does not depend on $\vec{x}_0$ if the random field $\Phi$ is statistically homogeneous.
Temperature Anisotropies {#sec:temperature}
========================
Our main concern here are the contribution of scalar perturbations to the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Let us denote by $\Delta_T(\vec{x},\hat{n})$ the temperature fluctuations measured by an observer at $\vec{x}$ looking at direction $\hat{n}$ in the sky. As hinted above, it is more convenient to study the Fourier transform of the previous fluctuations, $\Delta_T(\vec{k},\hat{n})$. In linear perturbation theory, the evolution of $\Delta_T(\vec{k},\hat{n})$ is described by a set of decoupled differential equations for each mode $\vec{k}$. The linearity of these equations allows us to separate the initial conditions from the evolution. In particular, for adiabatic initial conditions one can write $$\Delta_T(\vec{k},\hat{n})=\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n}) \Phi(\vec{k}),$$ where $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})$ is the temperature fluctuation one obtains by evolving the perturbation equations from initial conditions where $\Phi(\vec{k})=1$, and $\Phi(\vec{k})$ is the value of the Newtonian potential at a sufficiently early time, well into the radiation dominated era. Note that this split between evolution and initial conditions is arbitrary to some extent: what we consider as initial conditions here might be regarded for instance as the outcome of an inflationary stage.
Recall now our discussion of statistical isotropy of a random field defined on a sphere. It follows from equation (\[eq:origins\]) that violations of statistical isotropy in the CMB sky might originate from two sources: from the initial conditions (encoded in the power spectrum $\mathcal{P}$), or from the evolution (encoded in the transfer function $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})$). In this work we assume that the evolution does not generate statistically anisotropic perturbations, that is, we assume that $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})=\Delta(\mathcal{R}\vec{k},\mathcal{R}\hat{n})$ for all rotation matrices $\mathcal{R}$ in $SO(3)$. This is the case in cosmological models where the universe does not contain any non-scalar background field, like in the standard $\Lambda$CDM scenario.[^4] As a consequence, the differential equations that describe the evolution of the perturbations are invariant under rotations of $\vec{k}$ and $\hat{n}$, and it follows that $\Delta_T(\vec{k},\hat{n}$) is a function of the two scalars one can construct out of $\vec{k}$ and $\hat{n}$, namely $k$ and $\hat{k}\cdot\hat{n}$, $\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})=\Delta(k,\hat{k}\cdot\hat{n})$. This property then allows us to expand $\Delta$ in Legendre polynomials $P_l$, $$\label{eq:expansion_Legendre}
\Delta(\vec{k},\hat{n})=
\sum_l(2l+1)(-i)^l\Delta_l(k)P_l(\hat{k}\cdot \hat{n}).$$ This expansion will turn to be useful to compute the two-point function of the temperature anisotropies.
Angular Two-point Function
--------------------------
It is customary to characterize the properties of the temperature fluctuations by the angular two-point function $\langle a^*_{lm} a_{l'm'}\rangle$, where the $a_{lm}$ are the coefficients in the spherical harmonic decomposition $$\Delta_T(\vec{x}_0,\hat{n})=\sum_{lm}a_{lm} Y_{lm}(\hat{n}),$$ and $\vec{x}_0$ is our position in space (because of statistical homogeneity, the statistical properties of the temperature fluctuations do not depend on $\vec{x}_0$.) We would like to express this angular two-point function in terms of the initial power spectrum. Using the expansion (\[eq:expansion\_Legendre\]) and the addition theorem (\[eq:addition-theorem\]) we find first $$a_{lm}=4\pi (-i)^l \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \Delta_{l}(k) \Phi(\vec{k})Y^*_{lm}(\hat{k}).$$ Then, using the definition of the power spectrum (\[eq:power-spectrum\]) and its expansion in spherical harmonics (\[eq:spherical\_power\]) we arrive at our sought result $$\begin{aligned}
\langle a^*_{l_1m_1}a_{l_2 m_2}\rangle &=& (-i)^{l_2-l_1}
\sum_{lm}
D(l_1, m_1; l, m | l_2, m_2) K(l_1,l_2; l,m), \quad \text{where}
\label{eq:two-point} \\
K(l_1, l_2; l, m) &=&
\int \frac{dk}{k}\Delta^*_{l_1}(k)\Delta_{l_2}(k)
\mathcal{P}_{lm}(k), \label{eq:K}\end{aligned}$$ and we have used equation (\[eq:three\_spherical\]) in the Appendix. The structure of the two-point function can be understood in the language of addition of angular momenta. The $l, m$ multipole of the primordial anisotropies can be thought of as a state with angular momentum quantum numbers $l$ and $m$. The temperature perturbation $a_{l_1 m_1}$ “creates" angular momentum with quantum numbers $l_1,m_1$, and, similarly, $a^*_{l_2 m_2}$ destroys angular momentum with quantum numbers $l_2, m_2$. Therefore, the contribution of $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ to the two-point function vanishes if the angular momenta $l_1, m_1$ and $l, m$ cannot add to $l_2, m_2$. In fact, $D$ is zero unless $m_2=m_1+m$ and $l_2\in\{ |l_1-l |,\ldots, l_1+l\}$.
Large Scale Anisotropies
------------------------
In general it is only possible to compute the transfer functions $\Delta_{l}$ in equation (\[eq:K\]) numerically. In order to provide a better handle on statistical anisotropies, in the following we consider a limit where it is possible to analyze them analytically, namely, on large angular scales. As it is well known, on these scales, neglecting the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, the Sachs-Wolfe relation $$\label{eq:delta_approximation}
\Delta_l(k)\simeq\frac{j_l(kD_s)}{3}$$ holds [@MaBertschinger], where $D_s$ denotes the comoving distance to last scattering.[^5] It is important to realize that this result is an approximation with a limited range of validity. In particular, at $l<8$ the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect modifies[^6] the relation (\[eq:delta\_approximation\]) [@KofmanStarobinsky], and at $l>30$, the baryon velocity significantly contributes to the temperature anisotropies [@HuSugiyama]. Therefore, the approximation (\[eq:delta\_approximation\]) is only valid around $8\leq l \leq 30$.
Just as one parametrizes the primordial spectrum in terms of an amplitude and a spectral index, let us parameterize the different components of the anisotropies $\bar{\Phi}_{lm}$ as power laws. It follows then from equation (\[eq:P\_lm\]) that $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ is a superposition of different power-laws, with different amplitudes and spectral indices. Let us assume for simplicity, and without loss of generality that $$\mathcal{P}_{lm}=A_{lm} \left(\frac{k}{k_*}\right)^{n-1}.$$ In this case, the integral in equation (\[eq:K\]) can be explicitly evaluated. Using equations (11.4.33) and (15.1.20) in [@AbramowitzStegun] we arrive at $$\label{eq:explicit_K}
K(l_1, l_2; l m)=
\frac{2^{n-4}\,\pi\,\Gamma[3-n]\Gamma\left[(l_2+l_1+n-1)/2\right]}
{9\,\Gamma\left[(l_1-l_2+4-n)/2\right]
\Gamma\left[(l_2-l_1+4-n)/2\right]
\Gamma\left[(l_2+l_1+5-n)/2)\right]}
\frac{A_{lm}}{(k_* D_s)^{n-1}}.$$ Hence, given the amplitude $A$ and the spectral index in any given anisotropy multipole, one can exactly predict what the two-point function on large angular scales should be. In general however, we do not know what $A$ or $n$, are. Under these circumstances, equation (\[eq:explicit\_K\]) in combination with (\[eq:two-point\]) could be used to fit for the values of $A$ and $n$ (see below.)
Angular Power-Spectrum
----------------------
If primordial perturbations are statistically isotropic ($\mathcal{P}_{lm}=0$ for $l\geq 1$), one can easily verify that the two point function (\[eq:two-point\]) is diagonal. In this case it is customary to define the angular power spectrum $C_l$ through $$\label{eq:conventional_C}
\langle a^*_{l_1 m_1} a_{l_2 m_2}\rangle \equiv C_{l_1} \, \delta_{l_1l_2}\delta_{m_1 m_2}.$$ But if perturbations are statistically anisotropic the two-point function is not diagonal, and the definition of the angular power spectrum above is meaningless. In any case, one never measures the $C_l$’s directly. Instead, one uses an appropriate estimator to infer their values. Here we shall define the $C_l$’s as the expectation value of the estimator that is commonly used to compute the latter, $$\label{eq:C_l}
C_l\equiv \langle \hat{C}_l\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{2l+1}\sum_{m=-l}^{l} \langle a^*_{lm}a_{lm}\rangle.$$ The angular power spectrum defined this way is invariant under rotations. It reduces to (\[eq:conventional\_C\]) if perturbations are statistically isotropic and it is also closer to the quantities that we actually measure. Note however that in the presence of statistical anisotropies, the $C_l$’s defined in this way do not completely characterize the statistical properties of the temperature fluctuations, since the two-point function is not diagonal.
We want to find out now how the angular power spectrum is related to the primordial power spectrum. To this end, we substitute equation (\[eq:two-point\]) into the definition (\[eq:C\_l\]). Using then the identity equation (\[eq:D\_identity\]) we get $$C_l=\int \frac{dk}{k} \,|\Delta_l(k)|^2 \, \mathcal{P}_{00}(k).$$ Therefore, $\mathcal{P}_{00}$ acts like an effective power spectrum. If primordial perturbations are statistically isotropic, then the effective power spectrum reduces to the conventional power spectrum, $\mathcal{P}_{00}(k)=\mathcal{P}(k)$. Otherwise, the effective power spectrum receives contributions from all anisotropy components, $$\mathcal{P}_{00}=\sum_{l,m} k^3 \,\bar{\Phi}_{l m}^* \bar{\Phi}_{l m},$$ where we have used equations (\[eq:orthonormality\]) and (\[eq:complex-conjugation\]). Let us stress that the angular power spectrum defined in equation (\[eq:C\_l\]) does not differentiate between the different anisotropy multipoles. A scale invariant monopole perturbation ($\bar{\Phi}_{00}$) leads to the same set of $C_l$’s as a scale invariant anisotropy in any other multipole ($\bar{\Phi}_{lm}$). Hence, conventional numerical codes, such as CMBFAST [@SeljakZaldarriaga], or CMBEASY [@Doran] can be used to determine the imprints of statistical anisotropies on the angular power spectrum. Alternatively, one can use equation (\[eq:explicit\_K\]) to explicitly evaluate the $C_l$’s on large—but not too large—angular scales.
Looking for Primordial Statistical Anisotropies {#sec:looking}
===============================================
The power in the different multipoles of the primordial perturbations $\mathcal{P}_{lm}(k)$ uniquely determines the different two-point functions of the temperature anisotropies. The latter are observables, provided that sufficient realizations of the random field are available.[^7] Therefore, one can hope to determine what the $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ are, or at least, place upper limits on their amplitude. This section is devoted to the ultimate goal of finding ways to measure $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$.
Determining K
-------------
The first obstacle we have to find in our quest to measure $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ is that the power is hidden behind a convolution, equation (\[eq:K\]). Even if primordial perturbations are statistically isotropic it is difficult to invert that integral in order to find the primordial power [@HuOkamoto]. Therefore, as a first step towards our goal we shall concentrate in determining the integral $K$ in equation (\[eq:K\]). Because $K(l_1, l_2; l, m)$ vanishes when $\mathcal{P}_{lm}=0$, we can think of $K$ as a measure of the anisotropic power; a non-vanishing $K$ for $l\neq 0$ would automatically imply the existence of statistically anisotropic primordial perturbations. The advantage of focusing on $K$ is that we do not have to know what the transfer functions $\Delta_l(k)$ are. Therefore we can analyze all angular scales without having to make any assumptions about the underlying cosmology.
The task of determining some of the values of $K$ is greatly simplified when the anisotropies have a cut-off at at multipole $l=L$, $\bar{\Phi}_{lm}=0$ for $l>L$. In this case, it follows from equation (\[eq:spherical\_power\]) that the power $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ is cut-off for multipoles $l>2L$. Let us drop the factor of two and assume that $\mathcal{P}_{lm}=0$ for $l>L$, with $L$ even. In this case, $K(l_1, l_2; l, m)$ vanishes for $l>L$ and we can use the two-point function to directly determine the values of $K$ for $l=L$. At the end of this subsection, we shall comment on how to iteratively establish whether there exists a putative cut-off at $l=L$.
Consider equation (\[eq:two-point\]) with $l_1=l$ and $l_2=l+L$. Then, due to the properties of angular momentum addition $$\label{eq:two-point_atL}
\langle a^*_{l m} a_{l+L,m+M}\rangle=(-i)^L
D(l, m; L, M| l+L, m+M) K(l, l+L; L, M),$$ which allows to directly solve for $K$ in terms of the two-point function. However, the two-point function is not directly observable. In order to measure $K$ we need a sufficient number of realizations of the random process. At this point, note that the value of $K$ does not depend on $m$. Hence we can define the following unbiased estimator, $$\label{eq:K_estimator}
\hat{K}(l, l+L; L, M)\equiv \frac{ i^L}{2l+1}\sum_{m} \frac{a^*_{l m}a_{l+L, m+M}}{D(l, m; L, M | l+L, m+M)}.$$ For $L=M=0$, our estimator $\hat{K}$ gives the $C_l$’s, equation (\[eq:C\_l\]). Therefore, $\hat{K}$ can be regarded as a generalization of the angular power spectrum. However, note that for $L\neq 0$ the variable $\hat{K}$ is not a scalar, and, in particular, does not transform under an irreducible representation of the rotation group. Let us stress here an additional property of $\hat{K}$. Namely, because $\hat{K}$ is quadratic in the temperature fluctuations, our study of isotropy is decoupled of issues about non-Gaussianity. If the expectation value of $\hat{K}$ does not vanish for $L\geq 0$, primordial perturbations are statistically anisotropic, irrespective of whether temperature anisotropies are Gaussian or not. However, we cannot measure $\langle \hat{K}\rangle$ directly, and the different realizations of the random process $\hat{K}$ are expected to fluctuate around its expectation value. It is here where we have to make additional assumptions about the nature of the fluctuations. In order to estimate the variance of $\hat{K}$, let us assume for simplicity that perturbations are Gaussian and statistically isotropic. This assumption is justified because we are attempting to detect the existence of statistical anisotropies. Then, under these conditions, we find that the real and imaginary parts of $\hat{K}$ are uncorrelated, and for $L\neq 0$ $$\label{eq:K_variance}
\left\langle
(\hat{K}^*\hat{K})(l,l+L; L, M)\right\rangle
=\frac{ C_l\, C_{l+L}}{(2l+1)^2}\sum_{m}
\frac{1}{D(l, m; L, M | l+L, m+M)^2}.$$ We encounter here the same cosmic variance problem one faces when trying to measure the angular power spectrum. Because for a given $l$ we only have a finite number of samples of the two-point function, $2l+1$, we cannot measure $\langle\hat{K}\rangle$ with infinite precision. By the way, note that if the value of the estimator happens to be consistent with zero, then we guessed incorrectly, and primordial anisotropies are not cut-off at $l=L$, but eventually at $l=L-2$.
A Different Estimator for $K$
-----------------------------
As we shall see, the orientation-dependence of our statistic $\hat{K}$ makes the analysis of temperature anisotropies rather cumbersome. Therefore, it may be advantageous to use an estimator of $K$ that possesses well-defined properties under rotations. In order to construct it, let us consider the quadratic combination $$\label{eq:B}
B(l_1, l_2; l, m)=\sum_{m_1, m_2} a^*_{l_1 m_1} a_{l_2 m_2} (-1)^{m_1}
\langle l_1,-m_1; l_2 m_2 | l, m\rangle,$$ where $\langle l_1, m_1, l_2, m_2 | l, m\rangle$ is a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient. The expectation value of $B$ is nothing else but the bipolar spherical harmonic of Hajian and Souradeep [@HajianSouradeep]. It can be shown [@Varshalovich] that under rotations $B$ transforms under an irreducible representation of the rotation group, $$B(l_1, l_2; l, m)\to \sum_{\tilde{m}}D^{l}_{m\tilde{m}} \, B(l_1, l_2; l, \tilde{m}) ,$$ where $D$ is the Wigner matrix of the rotation. Using equation (\[eq:two-point\]), we can express the expectation value of $B$ (the bipolar coefficients) in terms of our quantity $K$, $$\label{eq:bipolar}
\langle B\rangle =\sum_{m_1 m_2}\sum_{L M} (-i)^{l_2-l_1} D(l_1, m_1; L,M | l_2, m_2)
K(l_1, l_2; L, M) (-1)^{m_1}\langle l_1, -m_1; l_2, m_2| l, m \rangle.$$ Again, the previous expression simplifies if there is an anisotropy cut-off at multipoles $l>L$. In that case, one can use the previous expression as a guidance to derive an unbiased estimator of $K$, $$\label{eq:cal_K}
\hat{\mathcal{K}}(l, l+L; L,M)=\frac{i^L B(l, l+L; L, M)}{\sum_{m} (-1)^m D(l, m; L, M| l+L, m+M)
\langle l,-m; l+L, m+M | L, M \rangle},$$ which is guaranteed to transform appropriately under rotations. However, as opposed to the previous case, we only have one realization of the quantity we are trying to estimate, so our estimator suffers from a larger cosmic variance. As a matter of fact, the mean square fluctuations of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ are given by $$\label{eq:cal_K_variance}
\left\langle (\hat{\mathcal{K}}^*\hat{\mathcal{K}})(l, l+L; L,M)\right\rangle=
\frac{C_l C_{l+L}}
{\sum_m D(l, m ; L, M | l+L, m+M)^2},$$ where we have used equations (\[eq:D\]) and (\[eq:symmetry\]) and, once again, we have assumed that perturbations are statistically anisotropic. It is apparent from the last equation, that the variance of $\hat{K}$, equation (\[eq:K\_variance\]), is smaller that the one of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$. In this paper we shall concentrate on the lower variance estimator $\hat{K}$; we reserve the study of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ and related quantities to a hopefully forthcoming publication.
To conclude this section, let us comment on the relation between our integral $K$ and the bipolar spectrum we briefly mentioned during our previous discussion. In order to characterize the statistical anisotropy of the CMB sky, Hajian and Souradeep [@HajianSouradeep] define the bipolar spherical coefficient to be, up to a sign, the expectation value of $B$, equation (\[eq:bipolar\]). In that respect $K(l_1, l_2; l, m)$, equation (\[eq:two-point\]), and the bipolar spherical coefficients are similar: both vanish if the CMB sky is statistically isotropic and viceversa. To reduce the errors of their estimates, Hajian and Souradeep also define the bipolar spectrum, which is quadratic in the bipolar spectrum coefficients, and hence quartic in the $a_{lm}$’s. We have not followed this path here, but have defined instead suitable estimators that are quadratic in the temperature fluctuations. The main difference between out approach and the one of [@HajianSouradeep] though is the physical focus. Whereas the authors of [@HajianSouradeep] are concerned with the statistical properties of the CMB by itself, we are ultimately interested in the statistical properties of the primordial perturbations. Hence, our statistics $\hat{K}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ (and as we shall see also $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$) mirror the properties of the primordial perturbations and owe its definition to a possible origin of statistical anisotropies in the CMB.
Large Angular Scales
--------------------
Our analysis so far has been fairly general. We have not made any strong assumptions about the nature of the primordial perturbations, the content of the universe or the angular scales involved. This is why our handle on statistical anisotropies is not as strong as it could be. At this point we shall trade generality for constraining power. On large angular scales, the integral $K$ can be explicitly evaluated, equation (\[eq:explicit\_K\]). Therefore, we can use large angular scales to explicitly determine the power in the primordial anisotropy multipoles.
For simplicity, let us assume that the power $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ is scale invariant in the scales of interest, $\mathcal{P}_{lm}\approx A_{lm}$. In a more sophisticated analysis we would try to fit for the value of the spectral index $n$. Setting accordingly $n=1$ in equation (\[eq:explicit\_K\]) we find that the integral is proportional to $$I(l_1,l_2)=\frac{\pi}{72}\frac{\Gamma[2] \Gamma[(l_2+l_1)/2]}
{\Gamma[(l_1-l_2+3)/2]\Gamma[(l_2-l_1+3)/2]\Gamma[(l_2+l_1+4)/2]},$$ which does not depend on $l$ or $m$. Therefore, substituting its value into equation (\[eq:K\_estimator\]) we arrive at the following estimator for the amplitude $A_{LM}$ $$\hat{A}^{(l)}_{LM}\equiv \frac{i^L}{2l+1}
\frac{1}{I(l,l+L)}
\sum_{m} \frac{a^*_{lm}a_{l+L,m+M}}{D(l, m; L, M | l+L, m+M)},$$ where $L$ is again the multipole above which the power in the multipoles is cut-off. Note that we have actually found a set of estimators (one for each $l$) of the very same amplitude $A_{LM}$. Hence, we can use this degeneracy to improve the errors of our measurements. Define the averaged estimator $$\label{eq:A}
\hat{A}_{LM}=\frac{1}{l_{max}-l_{min}+1}\sum_{l=l_{min}}^{l_{max}}
\hat{A}^{(l)}_{LM}.$$ In order to improve our measurement of $A_{LM}$, we would like the difference $l_{max}-l_{min}$ to be as large as possible. The values of $l_{min}$ and $l_{max}$ are essentially determined by the regime where our large-scale approximation is valid. Therefore, following our previous discussion, we will set $l_{min}=8$ and $l_{max}+L=30$ in future evaluations. Assuming again that primordial perturbations are Gaussian and statistically isotropic we find that the mean square fluctuations of our estimator are $$\left\langle
|\hat{A}_{LM}|^2\right\rangle=
\frac{1}{(l_{max}-l_{min}+1)^2}
\sum_{l=l_{min}}^{l_{max}}
\left\langle |\hat{A}^{(l)}_{LM}|^2\right\rangle,$$ where the variances of the individual estimators essentially follow from equation (\[eq:K\_variance\]) $$\left\langle
|\hat{A}^{(l)}_{LM}|^2\right\rangle=
\frac{1}{I(l,l+L)^2}
\frac{C_{l} C_{l+L}}{(2l+1)^2}\sum_{m}
\frac{1}{D(l, m; L, M | l+L m+M)^2}.$$
So far we have concentrated on the amplitude of the primordial multipoles right below an eventually existing cut-off above $l=L$. As opposed to our previous discussion of the integrals $K$, in the case at hand it is possible to easily determine $A_{lm}$ for all values of $l\leq L$ by a recursive procedure. Imagine we know $A_{\tilde{l}m}$ with sufficient accuracy for $\tilde{l}\geq l+1$. Then, using equation (\[eq:two-point\]) we can solve for $A_{lm}$, $$A_{l m}=\frac{(-i)^{-l}
\langle a^*_{l_1 m_1} a_{l_1+ l m+m_1}\rangle-
\sum_{\tilde{l}= l+1}^{L} D(l_1, m_1; \tilde{l}, m | l_1+l, m_1+m) I(l_1, l_1+l) A_{\tilde{l}m}}
{\,D(l_1, m_1; l, m | l_1+l, m_1+m)}.$$ Because the left hand side of the equation does not depend on $m_1$, while the right hand side does, we could use it to construct an unbiased estimator for $A_{lm}$ and compute its variance, just as we did before. However, since we shall not need these estimators here, we shall not pursue this venue any further.
For completeness, let us mention that in full analogy with the definition of $\hat{A}^l_{LM}$, one can also derive an estimator $\mathcal{A}$ of the amplitude $A_{LM}$ that transforms under an irreducible representation of the rotation group, $$\hat{\mathcal{A}}^l_{LM}=\frac{i^L}{I(l,l+L)}\frac{B(l, l+L ; L, M)}
{\sum_m (-1)^m D(l,m; L, M | l+L, m+M)C(l,-m; L+L,M+M | L,M)}.$$ Its variance trivially follows from equation (\[eq:cal\_K\_variance\]); as in the case of $\mathcal{K}$ the variance of $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ is bigger than the one of $\hat{A}$. As mentioned earlier, we shall not further consider the estimator $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ here.
A preferred direction in the sky?
---------------------------------
Let us finally apply the formalism we have developed to the anisotropies we observe in the CMB sky. Imagine that, for whatever reason, primordial perturbations display a preferred direction. More precisely, suppose that primordial perturbations contain a dipolar component $\bar{\Phi}_{1m}$. This dipole gives rise to a dipole $\mathcal{P}_{1M}$ and a quadrupole $\mathcal{P}_{2M}$ in the primordial spectrum. In the following we shall test for the existence of the quadrupole component. A discussion of the impact of a preferred direction on the CMB sky can be also found in [@GoHuHuCr; @MagueijoLand].
Assume hence that perturbations in our universe are statistically anisotropic, and $\mathcal{P}_{lm}$ only vanishes for $l\geq 3$. We can then use the estimator defined in equation (\[eq:K\]) to measure $K(l, l+2; 2, M)$. If there is no power in the anisotropy multipole $L=2$, then ${K(l,l+L; 2, M)}$ vanishes. Therefore, the statistic $\hat{K}$ probes the existence of preferred direction in the primordial perturbations.
![Plots of the real and imaginary part of $\hat{K}(l,l+2;2,2)$ (data points) and its root mean square fluctuation in a statistically isotropic universe (continuous line). \[fig:K\]](Re_K2_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Plots of the real and imaginary part of $\hat{K}(l,l+2;2,2)$ (data points) and its root mean square fluctuation in a statistically isotropic universe (continuous line). \[fig:K\]](Im_K2_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![Plots of the real and imaginary part of $\hat{A}^{(l)}_{22}$ (data points) and its root mean square fluctuation in a statistically isotropic universe (continuous line).\[fig:A\]](Re_A2_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Plots of the real and imaginary part of $\hat{A}^{(l)}_{22}$ (data points) and its root mean square fluctuation in a statistically isotropic universe (continuous line).\[fig:A\]](Im_A2_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
We have numerically evaluated $\hat{K}(l,l+2; 2, M)$ using the foreground cleaned maps described in references [@TegmarkOliveiraHamilton] (henceforth TOH) and [@LILC] (henceforth LILC). Any conclusion derived from these maps should be interpreted with care, as it has been argued that they are contaminated by residual foregrounds and their noise properties are ill-understood [@LILC]. However, because sky cuts in CMB maps introduce artificial anisotropies [@HajianSouradeep], at this point we are forced to proceed with these all-sky maps, in the hope that they accurately capture the real temperature fluctuations [@multipole-vectors].
For illustration, in Figure \[fig:K\] we plot the real and imaginary parts of $\hat{K}(l,l+2; 2, M)$ for values of $l$ ranging between $l=2$ and $l=62$ and $M=2$. Our choice of the upper $l$ limit is dictated by our neglect of instrumental noise in the error budget. Indeed, the errors in WMAP’s measurement of the power spectrum [@WMAP] are cosmic variance dominated (they contribute more than $90\%$ of the total error) only up to a multipole of about $l=64$. The error contours delimit the mean square fluctuations of the estimator under the assumption of isotropy, equation (\[eq:K\_variance\]). In order to evaluate the latter quantities, we use the $\Lambda$CDM model that best fits the WMAP data only [@WMAP].
It is evident from the figure that both TOH and LILC maps lead to similar but not quite identical results. We can determine whether data is well-fit by statistical isotropic perturbations by computing the value of $\chi^2$ for the statistic $\hat{K}$. In order to determine how $\chi^2$ is distributed, we have generated $64\cdot 10^4$ random skies drawn from a statistically isotropic distribution with WMAP’s best fit angular power spectrum. The fraction of realizations $P_\textrm{rdm}(\chi^2<\chi_0^2)$ that have an overall $\chi^2$ smaller than the one of the CMB sky in galactic coordinates is $97\%$ for the TOH map and $79\%$ for the LILC map. However, these results are misleading, as it turns out that the values of $\chi^2$ strongly depend on the orientation of the map. This is due to the non scalar nature of $$\chi^2=\sum_l \sum_{M=0}^{L} \left(1+\delta_{M 0}\right)
\frac{|\hat{K}(l, l+2; 2, M)|^2}{\langle |\hat{K}(l, l+2; 2, M)|^2\rangle},$$ which is a consequence of the peculiar transformation properties of our estimator under rotations. In Figure \[fig:orientation\] we plot how $\chi^2_0$ changes as a function of the map orientation. As seen in the figure, the value of $\chi^2_0$ widely varies with the orientation, so it is unclear at this point whether the map is consistent with statistical isotropy.
![The overall $\chi^2$ as a function of rotation angle. The CMB map is rotated along the $x$-axis (left) and $y$-axis (right) of the galactic coordinate system. Note that the plots have a period of $180^\circ$. Chi square is invariant under rotations around the $z$-axis (not shown). \[fig:orientation\]](orientation_K.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The overall $\chi^2$ as a function of rotation angle. The CMB map is rotated along the $x$-axis (left) and $y$-axis (right) of the galactic coordinate system. Note that the plots have a period of $180^\circ$. Chi square is invariant under rotations around the $z$-axis (not shown). \[fig:orientation\]](orientation_A.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
If the CMB sky is statistically isotropic, as we rotate the temperature anisotropy map into all possible orientations, we expect the corresponding values of $\chi^2_0$ to sample the distribution of random skies $P_\textrm{rdm}(\chi_0^2)$ we have considered earlier. In Figure \[fig:comparison\] we compare the probability distribution function of $\chi^2$ for an isotropic sky with the distribution $P_\textrm{map}(\chi^2_0)$ we obtain by randomly orienting the actual CMB map. At first sight, it seems that both distributions are quite similar. In order to quantify the significance of their agreement or eventual disagreement, let us consider the probability $P$ that the $\chi^2$ of a statistically isotropic sky is less than the one of the randomly oriented actual CMB map, $$\label{eq:P}
P=\int d\chi^2_0 \, P_\textrm{rdm}(\chi^2<\chi^2_0)\cdot P_\textrm{map}(\chi^2_0),$$ where, again, $P_\textrm{rdm}(\chi^2<\chi^2_0)$ is the fraction of statistically isotropic random skies with a chi square less than $\chi_0^2$, and $P_\textrm{map}(\chi^2_0)\, d\chi_0^2$ is the probability that the randomly oriented actual CMB mas has chi square equal to $\chi^2_0$.
If the chi square values of a map happened to be invariant under rotations and equaled $\chi_0^2$, we would have $P_\textrm{map}(\chi^2)=\delta(\chi^2-\chi_0^2)$, so $P$ would simply be $P_\textrm{rdm}(\chi^2<\chi_0^2)$. On the other hand, if both $P_\textrm{rdm}$ and $P_\textrm{map}$ represented the same distribution we would get $P=50\%$. Integrating equation (\[eq:P\]) numerically we find $$P=64\% \quad \text{(TOH)} \quad \text{and} \quad P= 33\% \quad \text{(LILC)},$$ that is, there is no significant evidence for statistical anisotropy.
![Comparison of the distribution of $\chi^2$ values of $\hat{K}$ for statistically isotropic random skies and random orientations of the actual CMB map. The distributions have been binned to reduce noise.\[fig:comparison\]](wmap_orientation_TOH.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Comparison of the distribution of $\chi^2$ values of $\hat{K}$ for statistically isotropic random skies and random orientations of the actual CMB map. The distributions have been binned to reduce noise.\[fig:comparison\]](wmap_orientation_LILC.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
We can try to strengthen these results by considering large angular scales. In Figure \[fig:A\] we plot the values of $\hat{A}^{(l)}_{2, M}$ for $M=2$ and $l_{min}=8<l<l_{max}=28$. Again, as shown in Figure \[fig:orientation\], the values of $\chi^2$ depend on the map orientation. In order to quantify up to what extent the maps are statistically isotropic on large angular scales, we have computed the probability $P$ in equation (\[eq:P\]), applied in this case to the chi square of $\hat{A}^l_{LM}$. The probabilities are $$P=51\% \quad \text{(TOH)} \quad \text{and} \quad P= 35\% \quad \text{(LILC)},$$ which agree quite well with the previous values. This is to be expected to some extent, since $\hat{K}$ and $\hat{A}$ are proportional to each other. However, note that the $\chi^2$ of $\hat{K}$ and $\hat{A}$ involve sums over different ranges of $l$.
Finally, to confirm our conclusions, let us evaluate the estimator for the amplitude of an eventual quadrupole anisotropy component, equation (\[eq:A\]). In Figure \[fig:A\_tot\] we plot how the corresponding $\chi^2$ varies as a function of the map orientation and compare, as in the previous cases, randomly simulated skies with random orientations of the actual CMB sky. In this case, signs of statistical anisotropies are still absent. Indeed, the probability (\[eq:P\]) for the statistic $\hat{A}_{LM}$ is $$P=48\% \quad \text{(TOH)} \quad \text{and} \quad P= 43\% \quad \text{(LILC)}.$$
![In the left panel we show the overall $\chi^2$ as a function of rotation angle. The CMB map is rotated along the $y$-axis in galactic coordinates. In the right panel we plot the distribution of values of $\chi^2$ for randomly generated skies and randomly chosen orientations of the LILC map. \[fig:A\_tot\]](orientation_A_tot.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![In the left panel we show the overall $\chi^2$ as a function of rotation angle. The CMB map is rotated along the $y$-axis in galactic coordinates. In the right panel we plot the distribution of values of $\chi^2$ for randomly generated skies and randomly chosen orientations of the LILC map. \[fig:A\_tot\]](wmap_orientation_LILC_A_tot.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
In this paper we have proposed a model-independent parametrization of the primordial spectrum that accommodates statistical anisotropies. We have determined how these anisotropies impact the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and what type of footprints are left behind by the former. Remarkably, the angular power spectrum does not differentiate between statistically isotropic and anisotropic perturbations. As far as the $C_l$’s are concerned, the angular power spectrum is as well fit by an isotropic primordial spectrum than by an anisotropic one.
In order to find out whether primordial perturbations are statistically isotropic, one has to study the non-diagonal components of the two-point correlation function. In this paper, we have considered a set of statistics that measure the amplitude of the different multipoles in the primordial perturbations. The first set, $\hat{K}$ and $\hat{A}$, does not transform under an irreducible representation of the rotation group, but has a lower variance than the second set, $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$, which does possess well-defined transformation properties under rotations. In this paper, we have concentrated on the first set, leaving the second for future work. When applied to the full-sky maps of the CMB temperature fluctuations currently available, the former statistics do not lead to evidence for statistical anisotropy, although the analysis is obscured by the strong variations of our estimators with the map orientation.
The statistical isotropy of the primordial perturbations is an observational issue. As with Gaussianity, scale invariance or adiabaticity, it should be constrained rather than postulated or automatically implied. In this paper we have taken the first steps in that direction. If at the end of the journey it turns out that observational data is inconsistent with isotropic primordial perturbations, our current (inflationary) models for the origin of structure will have to be discarded and replaced by radically different ones.
Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the GNU GSL numerical libraries and the HEALPix[^8] [@GorskiHivonWandelt] and [@CMBEASY] software packages. The author thanks Simon Catterall, Wayne Hu, Dragan Huterer, Levon Pogosian and Mark Trodden for valuable feedback and comments, and Benjamin Wandelt for useful conversations during the embrionary stages of this project. I am particularly grateful to Wayne Hu for inquiring about the behavior of our estimators under rotations.
Useful Formulae
===============
In this appendix we list a series of useful formulae, mainly concerning spherical harmonics. We follow the conventions in [@Sakurai] (which agree with the ones of [@GorskiHivonWandelt].)
- Expansion of plane wave in Legendre polynomials $$\exp(i \vec{k}\cdot\hat{n})=\sum_l (2l+1)\, i^l\, j_l(k)\, P_l(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{n}).$$
- Addition theorem $$\label{eq:addition-theorem}
P_l(\hat{k}\cdot \hat{n})=\frac{4\pi}{2l+1}\sum_m Y_{lm}(\hat{k}) Y^*_{lm}(\hat{n}).$$
- Orthonormality of spherical harmonics $$\label{eq:orthonormality}
\int d^2{\hat{k}} \,\, Y^*_{lm}(\hat{k}) Y_{l'm'}(\hat{k})
=\delta_{ll'}\delta_{mm'}.$$
- Behavior under complex conjugation $$\label{eq:complex-conjugation}
Y^*_{lm}=(-1)^m Y_{l-m}.$$
- Addition of angular momenta $$Y_{l_1m_1}(\hat{k}) Y_{l_2 m_2}(\hat{k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}} \sum_{lm}
D(l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2| l, m)\, Y_{lm}(\hat{k}),$$ where $$\label{eq:D}
D(l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2| l, m)=\sqrt{\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)}{(2l+1)}}
\langle l_1, 0; l_2, 0 | l, 0\rangle
\langle l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2 | l, m\rangle.$$ The $\langle l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2 | l, m\rangle$ are (real) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
- Symmetry properties of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients $$\label{eq:symmetry}
\langle l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2 | l, m\rangle=
(-1)^{l_1-m_1} \sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{2l_2+1}}\langle l_1, -m_1; l, m | l_2, m_2\rangle.$$
- Integral of three spherical harmonics $$\label{eq:three_spherical}
\int d^2\hat{k}\, Y_{lm}^*(\hat{k})
Y_{l_1 m_1}(\hat{k}) Y_{l_2 m_2}(\hat{k})
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}D(l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2| l, m).$$ Note that $\sum_m Y^*_{lm} Y_{lm}$ is invariant under spatial rotations. Hence, it follows from equations (\[eq:three\_spherical\]) and (\[eq:orthonormality\]) that $$\label{eq:D_identity}
\sum_m D(l, m; l_2, m_2 | l, m)=(2l+1)\, \delta_{l_2 0} \, \delta_{m_2 0}.$$
- Relation between Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and Wigner’s 3-j symbol $$\langle l_1, m_1; l_2, m_2| l_1, l_2; l, m\rangle
= (-1)^{l1-l2+m} \sqrt{2l+1}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc} l_1 & l_2 & l \\ m_1 & m_2 & {}-m \end{array}
\right).$$
[99]{}
D. W. Hogg, D. J. Eisenstein, M. R. Blanton, N. A. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann, J. E. Gunn and D. P. Schneider, “Cosmic homogeneity demonstrated with luminous red galaxies,” Astrophys. J. [**624**]{}, 54 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0411197\].
C. L. Bennett [*et al.*]{}, “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**148**]{}, 1 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0302207\]. D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**148**]{}, 175 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0302209\].
A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga and A. Hamilton, “The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 063516 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0307282\]. J. P. Ralston and P. Jain, “The Virgo Alignment Puzzle in Propagation of Radiation on Cosmological Scales,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**13**]{}, 1857 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0311430\]. D. J. Schwarz, G. D. Starkman, D. Huterer and C. J. Copi, “Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 221301 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0403353\].
C. J. Copi, D. Huterer and G. D. Starkman, “Multipole Vectors–a new representation of the CMB sky and evidence for statistical anisotropy or non-Gaussianity at 2<=l<=8,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 043515 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0310511\]. C . J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. J. Schwarz and G. D. Starkman, “On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky,” arXiv:astro-ph/0508047.
H. K. Eriksen, F. K. Hansen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski and P. B. Lilje, “Asymmetries in the CMB anisotropy field,” Astrophys. J. [**605**]{}, 14 (2004) \[Erratum-ibid. [**609**]{}, 1198 (2004)\] \[arXiv:astro-ph/0307507\].
K. Land and J. Magueijo, “The axis of evil,” arXiv:astro-ph/0502237.
K. Land and J. Magueijo, “Is the Universe odd?,” arXiv:astro-ph/0507289.
A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, “The Cosmic Microwave Background Bipolar Power Spectrum: Basic Formalism and Applications,” arXiv:astro-ph/0501001. A. Hajian, T. Souradeep and N. J. Cornish, “Statistical Isotropy of the WMAP Data: A Bipolar Power Spectrum Analysis,” Astrophys. J. [**618**]{}, L63 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0406354\]. A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, “Measuring Statistical isotropy of the CMB anisotropy,” Astrophys. J. [**597**]{}, L5 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0308001\].
P. Bielewicz, H. K. Eriksen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski and P. B. Lilje, “Multipole vector anomalies in the first-year WMAP data: a cut-sky analysis,” arXiv:astro-ph/0507186.
J. Levin, “Topology and the cosmic microwave background,” Phys. Rept. [**365**]{}, 251 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0108043\]. A. Riazuelo, J. Weeks, J. P. Uzan, R. Lehoucq and J. P. Luminet, “Cosmic microwave background anisotropies in multi-connected flat spaces,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 103518 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0311314\].
E. F. Bunn, P. Ferreira and J. Silk, “How Anisotropic is our Universe?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2883 (1996) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9605123\]. T. R. Jaffe, A. J. Banday, H. K. Eriksen, K. M. Gorski and F. K. Hansen, “Evidence of vorticity and shear at large angular scales in the WMAP data: A violation of cosmological isotropy?,” arXiv:astro-ph/0503213.
D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, “Magnetic fields in the early universe,” Phys. Rept. [**348**]{}, 163 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0009061\]. M. Giovannini, “Magnetized CMB anisotropies,” arXiv:astro-ph/0508544.
C. Armendariz-Picon, “Could dark energy be vector-like?,” JCAP [**0407**]{}, 007 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405267\].
V. A. Kostelecky, “Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 105009 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312310\]. T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly, “Lorentz violation at high energy: Concepts, phenomena and astrophysical constraints,” arXiv:astro-ph/0505267.
V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman and R. H. Brandenberger, “Theory Of Cosmological Perturbations. Part 1. Classical Perturbations. Part 2. Quantum Theory Of Perturbations. Part 3. Extensions,” Phys. Rept. [**215**]{}, 203 (1992).
C. P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, “Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,” Astrophys. J. [**455**]{}, 7 (1995) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9506072\].
H. S. M. Coxeter, “Introduction to Geometry," (Wiley, 1980).
L. Kofman and A. A. Starobinsky, “Effect Of The Cosmological Constant On Large Scale Anisotropies In The Microwave Backbround,” Sov. Astron. Lett. [**11**]{}, 271 (1985) \[Pisma Astron. Zh. [**11**]{}, 643 (1985)\].
W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, “Anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background: An Analytic Approach,” Astrophys. J. [**444**]{}, 489 (1995) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9407093\].
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, “Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables" (Dover, 1964, New York)
U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, “A Line of Sight Approach to Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” Astrophys. J. [**469**]{}, 437 (1996) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9603033\].
M. Doran, “CMBEASY:: an Object Oriented Code for the Cosmic Microwave Background,” arXiv:astro-ph/0302138.
W. Hu and T. Okamoto, “Principal Power of the CMB,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 043004 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0308049\].
D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev and V. K. Khersonskii “Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum," (World Scientific, 1988).
C. Gordon, W. Hu, D. Huterer and T. Crawford, “Spontaneous Isotropy Breaking: A Mechanism for CMB Multipole Alignments,” arXiv:astro-ph/0509301.
K. Land and J. Magueijo, “Template fitting and the large-angle CMB anomalies,” arXiv:astro-ph/0509752.
M. Tegmark, A. de Oliveira-Costa and A. Hamilton, “A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 123523 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0302496\].
H. K. Eriksen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski and P. B. Lilje, “Foreground removal by an Internal Linear Combination method: limitations and implications,” Astrophys. J. [**612**]{}, 633 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0403098\]. A. Slosar and U. Seljak, “Assessing the effects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083002 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0404567\].
K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon and B. D. Wandelt, “Analysis Issues for Large CMB Data Sets,” arXiv:astro-ph/9812350.
M. Doran, “CMBEASY:: an Object Oriented Code for the Cosmic Microwave Background,” arXiv:astro-ph/0302138.
J. Sakurai, “Modern Quantum Mechanics," (Addison-Wesley, 1994).
[^1]: Because $\Phi$ is real by assumption, $\Phi=\Phi^*$. We include the complex conjugation in the two-point function for convenience.
[^2]: Note that our power spectrum has a slightly unconventional normalization.
[^3]: One can show this by considering the two-point function of a smoothed field $\Phi_s: 0\leq \langle\Phi^*_s(\vec{x})\Phi_s(\vec{x})\rangle$.
[^4]: In cosmological scenarios that contain non-scalar background fields, it is possible to construct scalar perturbations that are not invariant under rotations of $\vec{k}$ [@triad]. For example, if there exists a background vector field $\vec{A}$ in the universe, the scalar $\vec{k}\cdot\vec{A} \, \Phi$ is not invariant under $\vec{k}\to \mathcal{R}\cdot\vec{k}$.
[^5]: By “last scattering" we mean the decoupling of photons and matter that occurred around redshift ${z=1100}$.
[^6]: We assume a non-zero cosmological constant with $\Omega_{\Lambda}\approx 0.7$. Since we do not know what is causing cosmic acceleration, this is just a guess. Other forms of dark energy lead to different ISW effects.
[^7]: Since we have access to only one universe, this condition is not automatically guaranteed. See the discussion of cosmic variance below.
[^8]: `http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/`.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose and demonstrate a frequency-multiplexed readout scheme in 3D cQED architecture. We use four transmon qubits coupled to individual rectangular cavities which are aperture-coupled to a common rectangular waveguide feedline. A coaxial to waveguide transformer at the other end of the feedline allows one to launch and collect the multiplexed signal. The reflected readout signal is amplified by an impedance engineered broadband parametric amplifier with 380 MHz of bandwidth. This provides us high fidelity single-shot readout of multiple qubits using compact microwave circuitry, an efficient way for scaling up to more qubits in 3D cQED.'
author:
- 'Suman Kundu$^{1}$'
- 'Nicolas Gheeraert$^{1,2}$'
- 'Sumeru Hazra$^{1}$'
- 'Tanay Roy$^{1}$'
- 'Kishor V. Salunkhe$^{1}$, Meghan P. Patankar$^{1}$'
- 'R. Vijay$^{1}$'
title: Multiplexed readout of four qubits in 3D cQED architecture using broadband JPA
---
High fidelity quantum measurements are a crucial part of a scalable quantum computing architecture [@chuang_book]. Apart from determining the state of a quantum register, they are also important for accurate state initialization and quantum error correction. In superconducting circuit technology, the combination of circuit-quantum electrodynamics (cQED) [@Blais-CPB; @wallraff-cqed] with ultra-low noise Josephson Parametric Amplifiers [@Hatridge-JPA; @lehnert-paramp] ushered in the era of fast, high fidelity measurements [@sup-qubit-review-science]. This led to the observation of quantum jumps [@quantum-jump-vijay] and quantum feedback [@Vijay-stabilizing-rabi] and enabled accurate state initialization [@Siddiqi-heralding] and error detection [@IBM-errordet-4qubit; @riste2015detecting; @Martinis_9xmon_nature]. Combined with the nearly six orders of magnitude improvement in coherence times [@sup-qubit-review-science], superconducting circuits have emerged as one of the leading candidates for building scalable quantum computers. While several proof-of-principle demonstrations of algorithms exist, a practical quantum advantage has not yet been demonstrated due to the small number of qubits used in the quantum processors. Multi-qubit quantum processors face challenges like variability in device parameters across a chip, efficient use of cryogenic microwave resources and reduction of gate fidelity due to unwanted crosstalk. A considerable fraction of recent research efforts is focused to solve these scalability related hurdles.
An important step in developing a scalable quantum processor is the implementation of resource-efficient measurement of large number of qubits with high-fidelity. Typical setups require two cryogenic lines to control (input) and measure (output) a single qubit. Further, a third cryogenic line is often needed to bias the first stage parametric amplifier in the output chain. Clearly this is not practical solution beyond a few qubits. One solution is to use frequency multiplexing for the measurement lines since the typical bandwidth of readout cavities is about 5 10 MHz. This idea has been successfully used in 2D cQED architecture where several readout resonators coupled to a common feedline are probed using multi-frequency pulses [@Ustinov-freq-division; @phasequbit; @multiplexedrdtvion; @Martinis-fast-accurate-state-measurement; @Wallraff-multiplexed-rdt]. This approach allows one to perform selective readout of any subset of qubits by choosing corresponding frequency components in the readout pulse. Moreover, the multiple frequency components can be generated using one microwave generator modulated by a high bandwidth arbitrary waveform generator which further helps in minimizing resources per qubit. Some architectures have also included Purcell protection [@Reed-purcell] by incorporating appropriate filters in the common feed-line [@Martinis-fast-accurate-state-measurement] or by putting individual Purcell filters for each readout cavities [@Wallraff-multiplexed-rdt]. While experiments with up to four qubits have been performed in 3D cQED architecture [@RIPgate; @multi-qubit-3d-yale], they have not exploited frequency multiplexing for measurement so far. Further, the modular nature of the 3D cQED architecture can help in solving several scalability related issues to construct a high quality small-scale processor in the near term.
![(a) The four cavity structure is fabricated using Aluminum in three separate pieces. The piece marked 1 is the rectangular waveguide part with a coaxial port at one end. Piece 2 comprises one half of the readout cavities along with the coupling apertures. Piece 3 comprises of the second half of the readout cavities (C$_{1-4}$) with weakly coupled ports for separate qubit excitation if needed (not used here). (b) Fully assembled structure with each interface sealed with Indium; (c) Profile of electric field amplitude at the aperture hole between the waveguide and readout cavities when $10^{-9}$ Watt of excitation is given at the waveguide port. The EM simulation is carried out in COMSOL^^ at each cavity’s resonant frequency[]{data-label="fig:quadcavsimulation"}]("Fig1_cavity_simulation_1s".pdf){width="45.00000%"}
In this letter, we demonstrate a multiplexed readout scheme for transmon qubits [@transmon_theory] in 3D cQED architecture [@Paik-3d-transmon] using a rectangular waveguide feed-line as both the multiplexing element [@waveguide_fluxonium] and a Purcell filter . Four rectangular readout cavities are aperture-coupled to a single rectangular waveguide as shown in Fig. \[fig:quadcavsimulation\]. The cavities are composed of two halves so that the qubits can be placed at the antinode of the field. A coaxial to waveguide transformer at the other end of the waveguide helps address the four separate cavities from a single line. We measured the cavities in reflection and used an impedance-engineered broadband Josephson Parametric Amplifier (JPA)[@BBparamp] to achieve simultaneous single-shot fidelities greater than 98%.
The cavity frequencies are chosen with a spacing of 70 100 MHz to fit within the band of the JPA as shown in Fig. \[fig:gain\]. The linewidths ($\kappa/2\pi$) of the readout cavities are adjusted by changing the aperture hole sizes. We first use finite element electromagnetic simulations in COMSOL^^ to set the coupling aperture size. Final adjustment is done by tuning the aperture size between each cavity and the waveguide using Aluminum tape to get linewidths in the range 5 10 MHz. For obtaining a clean response, it is also important to optimize the coax to waveguide transition by fine tuning the length of the coaxial center conductor inserted inside the waveguide.
![(a) Setup: Readout tones are generated by sideband modulation technique from one generator which is used for paramp pump as well. The reflected signal is amplified, demodulated and then digitized; (b) Measured gain profile as a function of signal frequency is shown. 20 dB gain and 380 MHz of bandwidth is achieved at pump frequency 5.984 GHz. Reflected phase responses of four readout cavities (C$_{1-4}$) as measured from the waveguide port are plotted with respect to the right axis. []{data-label="fig:gain"}]("Fig2_gain_1".pdf){width="50.00000%"}
To readout multiple qubits simultaneously we generate multi-frequency probe pulse(addressing all four cavities) using sideband modulation technique from a central microwave tone. This same central tone is also used as pump to bias the parametric amplifier (see Fig. \[fig:gain\] (a)). The reflected output signal from the waveguide port is amplified by a broadband Josephson parametric amplifier with an average gain of 20 dB in the relevant bandwidth of 380 MHz around 5.985 GHz and near quantum-limited noise. After several stages of amplification the output readout signal is down-converted with respect to the central tone and then digitized after filtering out unwanted frequency components. All cavity signals are finally demodulated in software to recover the amplitude and phase response of each individual cavity. For qubit excitations, we used the same input line as for readout tone, but one can also use separate weakly coupled ports to each individual readout cavity.
--------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --
Cavity Cavity Qubit Anharmoni- Qubit-cavity T$_1$ T$_{Ramsey}$ T$_{Echo}$ Individual Simultaneous
frequency linewidth frequency city coupling readout readout
${\omega_c}/{2\pi}$ (GHz) ${\kappa}/{2\pi}$ (MHz) ${\omega_q}/{2\pi}$ (GHz) ${\alpha}/{2\pi}$ (MHz) ${g}/{2\pi}$ (MHz) ($\mu$s) ($\mu$s) ($\mu$s) fidelity (%) fidelity (%)
5.856 8.4 3.752 -318 126 50.1 2.1 3.1 98.36 98.05
5.966 5.2 4.122 -306 112 44.1 1.4 2.7 98.72 98.57
6.052 7.1 4.880 -292 91 18.8 2.7 3.0 98.39 98.07
6.172 5.4 5.278 -297 81 25.6 2.6 2.6 98.74 98.68
\[0ex\]
--------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --
At 30 mK temperature, all readout cavities were over-coupled and their frequencies were well-separated from each other with loaded linewidth ($\kappa/2\pi$) in the intended range of 5 8 MHz. We first characterized each qubit-cavity system separately. The relevant device parameters were then experimentally determined and are listed in Table \[table:deviceparameter\]. The values are typical for 3D transmons in cQED architecture. These were followed by time domain measurements on all qubits to determine the coherence properties (Table \[table:deviceparameter\]). We then used the multiplexing technique to carry out simultaneous measurements of Rabi oscillations on all four qubits and the data is shown in Fig. \[fig:rabi\]. State-dependent dispersive shifts of all four qubits were determined using Ramsey fringe experiments in presence of different numbers of cavity photons [@Vijay-stabilizing-rabi]. Extracted dispersive shifts were in the range 1.19 1.76 MHz, in good agreement with the dispersive shifts calculated from coupling, detuning and anharmonicity.
![Simultaneous Rabi oscillations of Q$_{1-4}$ as a function of the corresponding control pulse duration. The signal amplitude of Q$_4$ is smaller due to a smaller dispersive shift and reduced JPA gain at 6.172 GHz[]{data-label="fig:rabi"}]("Fig3_rabi_1".pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We then carried out single-shot measurements to determine readout fidelity for all four qubits. Each experimental sequence starts with a measurement pulse to herald the qubit in the ground state [@Siddiqi-heralding] and discard the data points which collapse the qubit to the excited state ($\sim$ 3% 5%). With the qubit prepared in the ground (no pulse on the qubit) or excited state ($\pi\ pulse$ on the qubit), we excite the cavity with the readout tone and integrate the reflected signal. This is repeated 3 x $10^5$ times to form histograms of the cavity response for the ground and excited state respectively. We optimize the measurement time, power and phase of the readout tone such that the overlap between the ground and excited state histograms is minimal to ensure maximum readout fidelity. Simultaneously measured histograms for the ground and excited states for all four qubits gave high measurement fidelities ($\sim 98.5\%$) and are shown in Fig. \[fig:hist\] (a)-(d). As shown in Table \[table:deviceparameter\], these fidelities are comparable to those obtained from measuring each qubit-cavity system separately without multiplexing.
High fidelity single-shot measurement was further confirmed by observing quantum jumps in simultaneously taken readout traces. After preparing all qubits in their excited states, we turn on the measurement pulses for four cavities simultaneously and acquire the cavity response. As shown in Fig. \[fig:hist\] the traces corresponding to four qubits show clear jumps from excited to ground state and with no evidence of crosstalk.
![Measurement histograms: (a), (b), (c) and (d) are the histograms of integrated single-shot readout signal of Q$_1$, Q$_2$, Q$_3$ and Q$_4$ respectively prepared with a $\pi$-pulse (empty square) and without (solid triangle) obtained from $3\times10^5$ measurements.The histograms are fit to a weighted sum of two Gaussian. The vertical dashed lines indicate the threshold used to discriminate state 0 and 1. (e) Quantum jump: After the qubits are initialized to their excited states, continuous strong measurement tones are applied and the reflected readout signal is digitized. Abrupt quantum jumps from the excited state to the ground state are clearly visible with no evidence of measurement crosstalk.[]{data-label="fig:hist"}]("Fig4_hist2_1".pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We studied crosstalk effects on one qubit arising from both qubit and readout drives applied on other qubits. This was done by performing Ramsey fringe experiment in presence of the crosstalk drive. The crosstalk due to other qubit drives was negligible and could be further suppressed by using the weakly coupled ports in each cavity. We only found significant crosstalk between cavity 3 and 4 which led to qubit frequency and decay constant of qubit 3(4) to shift by 0.3(0.4) MHz and 4(5) $\mu$s respectively due to readout drive on cavity 4(3). This crosstalk can be reduced by minor modifications to the cavity design.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated frequency-multiplexed readout scheme in 3D cQED architecture using an impedance-engineered broadband parametric amplifier. We simultaneously measure four transmon qubits in four individual cavities coupled to a single rectangular waveguide. A common input line for qubit and cavity excitations and more importantly a single amplifier chain is used resource efficiently without sacrificing measurement bandwidth or qubit coherence with negligible crosstalk. Further increase of the number of qubits per measurement line would require careful optimization of cavity design and improvement of JPA dynamic range.
*Acknowledgments:-* This work is supported by the Department of Atomic Energy of the Government of India. R.V. acknowledges support from the Department of Science and Technology, India via the Ramanujan Fellowship and Nano Mission. N.G. acknowledges support from the Fondation Nanosciences de Grenoble and Raman Charpak Fellowship. We acknowledge the TIFR nanofabrication facility.
[25]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062320) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02851) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.83.134501) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2773988) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1231930) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.110502) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11505) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050506) [**** (), 10.1038/ncomms7979](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms7979) [**** (), 10.1038/ncomms7983](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms7983) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature14270)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4739454)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4764940)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062333)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190504)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034040)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3435463)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.250502)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031041)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.240501)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevApplied.9.064022)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031036)[****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/107/26/10.1063/1.4939148)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998) use [*Hipparcos*]{} data to show that the X-ray binary systems LSI+61$^\circ$ 303 and A0535+262 are a factor of ten closer (i.e. $d\sim$ few hundred pc) than previously thought ($d\sim2$kpc). We present high quality CCD spectra of the systems, and conclude that the spectral types, reddening and absolute magnitudes of these objects are strongly inconsistent with the closer distances. We propose that the [*Hipparcos*]{} distances to these two systems are incorrect due to their relatively faint optical magnitudes.'
author:
- |
I.A.Steele,$^1$ I. Negueruela,$^1$ M.J.Coe,$^2$ and P. Roche$^3$\
$^1$ Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF\
$^2$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ\
$^3$ Astronomy Centre, CPES, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QJ\
title: 'The distances to the X-ray binaries LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 and A0535+262'
---
epsf
binaries:close – stars:emission-line, Be – X-rays:stars – stars:individual: LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 – stars:individual: A0535+262.
Introduction
============
In a recent paper Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998 - CI98) presented [*Hipparcos*]{} distances to 17 massive X-ray binary systems. In particular they presented results that appeared to indicate that two systems (LSI +61$^\circ$ 303, A0535+262) were up to a factor 10 closer than previously thought. This has profound implications for any models one constructs for these systems, for instance suggesting they need only contain white dwarfs rather than neutron stars to explain their X-ray luminosity.
In this paper we use CCD spectra to redetermine the spectral type of LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 and A0535+262. In both cases we show that the derived spectral types and reddenings are strongly consistent with normal Be stars at the distances previously ascribed to the systems, and not with the new, closer distances. Finally we discuss how the discrepancy between the [*Hipparcos*]{} and our distances may be explained in terms of the faint nature of these particular sources.
Spectral Types
==============
LSI +61$^\circ$ 303
-------------------
An optical spectral type of B1Ib was assigned to LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 by Gregory et al. (1979) using low dispersion image tube spectrograph observations. However using an extinction $A_V\sim3.3$ they argued that the true luminosity is probably less than that implied by the supergiant classification. Based on UV line strengths Howarth (1983) also assigned a spectral type of around B1. However his analysis of the extinction in this object led him to fit a dereddened model atmosphere of temperature $\sim15000$K, corresponding to a spectral type of B4.5III at a distance of 2.4 kpc.
\#1\#2[1\#1]{}
(6.0,3.6)(0,0) (-1.0,-6.4)
Fig. 1 shows a CCD spectrum of LSI+61$^\circ$303 obtained using the IDS spectrograph of the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT), La Palma on the night of 1995 July 7 using the 1200 line/mm grating and the 235mm camera. H$\beta$ presents a typical shell profile, but the line wings do not seem to be as extended as those of H$\alpha$. H$\gamma$ shows a weaker shell profile, while the asymmetric shape of H$\delta$ and the He [i]{} lines is an indication of an emission component on top of the underlying photospheric feature.
The presence of the He[ii]{} lines at $\lambda\lambda$ 4200, 4541 & 4686 Å implies an early spectral type, while their weakness indicates that it cannot be much earlier than B0. The Si[iv]{} $\lambda\lambda$ 4089 & 4116 Å lines (on the wings of H$\delta$) are very weak in comparison to He[i]{} $\lambda$ 4121 Å, indicating a main-sequence object (Walborn & Fitzpatrick 1990). A few O[ii]{} lines have been tentatively identified in Fig. 1, although none is certain. Their absence would make the object earlier than B0.5. The lines of the Si[iii]{} triplet are still visible, though very weak. The presence of C[iii]{} and N[ iii]{} lines also argues for an early type. Overall we believe that the most likely classification is B0V, though an slightly earlier spectral type (up to O9.5V) is also possible.
\#1\#2[1\#1]{}
(6.0,4.6)(0,0) (-1.0,-5.5)
We note here that one possibility to explain a low-brightness blue star at a distance $\sim 200$ pc is that the object is a hot subdwarf. At least one X-ray binary containing a hot subdwarf and a compact object is known (HD 49798 = 1WGA J0648.0-4418; see Bisscheroux et al. 1997). However, it is clear that the spectrum of LSI+61$^\circ$303 is not that of a subdwarf. The presence of helium lines prevents it from being an sdB object, while the ratio between He[i]{}/He[ii]{} argues against an sdO. All sdO stars show He[ii]{} $\lambda$4686 Å $\geq$ He[i]{} $\lambda$4713 Å (generally, He[ii]{} $\lambda$4686 Å $\gg$ He[i]{} $\lambda$4713 Å, see Hunger et al. 1981) while the opposite is true for LSI+61$^\circ$303.
The only possibility therefore is an sdOB star. Figure 2 compares LSI+61$^\circ$303 with three sdOB objects. Feige 66 is a very well-studied sdOB subdwarf (Baschek et al. 1982), while PG 1511+624 and PG 1610+519 have been classified as sdOB by Moehler et al. (1990) and analysed by Allard et al. (1994), who derive absolute magnitudes of $M_{V} = 6.1$ and 5.5 respectively. These magnitudes are compatible with their average value $\left< M_{V} = 5.9\pm 0.5 \right>$ for hydrogen-rich subdwarfs, but are much fainter than the value we would derive for LSI+61$^\circ$303 if it was placed at $\sim 200$pc.
There are two striking differences between the spectrum of LSI+61$^\circ$303 and those of the subdwarfs. First, the strong interstellar absorption lines, which are missing in the spectra of the subdwarfs, all of which are located at high galactic latitudes (the implications of the strong absorption lines in the spectrum of LSI+61$^\circ$303 are discussed in Section 4.1). Second, the He[i]{} lines are much stronger in LSI+61$^\circ$303 even though there must be emission contamination in some lines (e.g. He[I]{} 6678 [Å]{} is known to show shell emission – Paredes et al. 1994). He [i]{} 4026[Å]{} and 4388 [Å]{} are much stronger in LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 than in Feige 66 and the 5873 [Å]{} He[I]{} feature is not visable in any of the sdOB spectrum. It is therefore evident that LSI+61$^\circ$303 is a hydrogen burning star and not a post-AGB object.
A0535+262
---------
\#1\#2[1\#1]{}
(6.0,6.6)(0,0) (-1.0,-3.3)
The usually quoted spectral type of HDE 245770 (the optical counterpart of A0535+262) is O9.7IIIe, based on photographic spectra (Giangrande et al. 1980). Fig. 3 shows two spectra of HDE 245770 in the classification region. The spectrum covering the wavelength range $\lambda \lambda$ 4600–5000 Å was taken on 1996 March 1, using the Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope (JKT) telescope, equipped with the Richardson Brealey Spectrograph (RBS) (Edwin 1988) and the R2400 grating. The spectrum covering $\lambda \lambda$ 3800–4200 Å was taken on 1990 November 14, using the IDS and the 235-mm camera on the INT, equipped with the R1200Y grating.
H$\beta$ presents typical double-peaked emission (see Clark et al. 1998), but the higher Balmer lines seem to be relatively emission-free. The presence of the He[ii]{} $\lambda$ 4686 Å line while He[ ii]{} $\lambda$ 4200 Å is absent indicates a spectral type close to B0. Once again, the main luminosity criteria are the strengths of the Si[iv]{} lines. Strong Si[iv]{} $\lambda\lambda$ 4089 & 4116 Å lines are clearly visible on the wings of H$\delta$. The ratio Si[iv]{} $\lambda$4089 $\sim$ He[i]{} $\lambda$4121 is indicative of a giant star (Walborn & Fitzpatrick 1990). The strength of He[i]{} $\lambda$4009 Å argues against a spectral type earlier than O9.5, while the absence of O[ii]{} and the presence of N[iii]{} make the object earlier than B0.5. Since both He[ii]{} $\lambda$ 4541 Å and the Si[iii]{} triplet can be seen in lower-resolution spectra (e.g., Clark et al. 1998) we believe that B0IIIe is the most appropriate classification, though the previously accepted O9.7IIIe cannot be discarded.
Reddening
=========
LSI +61$^\circ$ 303
-------------------
Howarth (1983) made an analysis of eight short wavelength and five long wavelength IUE spectra of LSI +61$^\circ$ 303. By flattening the [2200Å]{} extinction bump he derives $E(B-V)=0.75\pm0.1$. Such a large reddening is inconsistent with a distance of only $\sim 200$ pc (Ishida 1969). It is therefore important to determine the true value of the reddening to the system. We do this using two methods – the sodium D$_2$ line in our spectra and the strength of optical diffuse interstellar bands.
### Derivation of Reddening from the Interstellar Sodium D$_2$ Line
The first method we employ uses the correlation between the strength of the interstellar Sodium D$_2$ [5890Å]{} line and extinction derived by Hobbs (1974). We have rederived $E(B-V)$ values for all of Hobbs (1974) objects for which he quotes Na D$_2$ equivalent widths using spectral classifications and $B-V$ colours from the Bright Star Catalogue (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1982) and the intrinsic colours of Popper (1980) for dwarfs and giants and Johnson (1966) for supergiants. The correlation in plotted in Fig.4. The scatter in this diagram is large, and shows that this technique will not be particularly accurate in deriving $E(B-V)$. The dataset does not extend beyond $E(B-V)\sim0.7$, and is sparse beyond $E(B-V)\sim0.3$.
Recognising the limitations of Fig. 4 however, we may still attempt to use the Na D$_2$ line to determine the extinction to the system. Two spectra of LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 were obtained in the region covering the Na D lines on the nights of 1994 March 26 and 27 using the RBS of the JKT. The mean Na D$_2$ EW measured was $650\pm90$ mÅ. From Figure 4 this implies $E(B-V)=0.7\pm0.4$, where the error is derived from the apparent spread in $E(B-V)$ in the figure. This supports the extinction determination of Howarth (1983).
### Derivation of Reddening from Diffuse Interstellar Band Strengths
A similar method may be employed using the diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) to measure extinction. Herbig (1975) provides plots of $E(B-V)$ versus EW for a number of diffuse bands. These plots show less intrinsic scatter than the Na relations of Hobbs (1974) and should therefore give a better measure of $E(B-V)$. In addition they extend to higher $E(B-V)$ values ($\sim2.0$) than the Hobbs (1974) sodium data, and so better cover the range of interest here. We measure the lines in two CCD spectra taken during the previously described JKT observing run, and a total of eight spectra obtained on 1993 December 5 and 7 from the 1.5m telescope at Mount Palomar using the f/8.75 Cassegrain echelle spectrograph in regular grating mode (McCarthy 1988). The DIBs measured were those centred at 5780, 5797, 6269 and 6613 [Å]{} (we do not employ the strong 4430 [Å]{} DIB as Herbig shows that it is only poorly correlated with $E(B-V)$). The mean equivalent widths in each band are 480, 160, 110 and 250 m[Å]{} respectively, corresponding to $E(B-V)$ values of 0.8, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.9. The mean $E(B-V)$ derived from this method is therefore $0.65\pm0.25$, where the error reflects the scatter in the values derived for the various bands. This is again similar to the Howarth (1983) value.
\#1\#2[0.6\#1]{}
(3.0,2.6)(0,0) (-0.3,0)
A0535+262
---------
The reddening to A0535+262 was determined from the 2200 [Å]{} feature to be $E(B-V)\sim0.75$ (Giovannelli et al. 1980). Again this is larger than one would expect for an object at $<1$kpc, and we therefore apply a similar analysis to the Na D$_2$ and DIB features in spectra of A0535+262 as we did for LSI+61$^\circ$ 303. Using two JKT spectra obtained on 1994 March 26 and 27 we find a mean Na D$_2$ equivalent width of 500$\pm100$m[Å]{}, corresponding to an $E(B-V)=0.6\pm 0.3$. Similarly using eight Mount Palomar spectra from 1993 December 5 plus the two JKT spectra we find mean DIB strengths for the 5780, 5797, 6269 and 6613 [Å]{} bands of 530, 270, 100 and 180 m[Å]{} respectively, corresponding to $E(B-V)$ values of 0.8, 0.8, 0.4 and 0.6, giving a mean $E(B-V)=0.65\pm0.2$. Once again the similarity between all three measures (2200 [Å]{} bump, DIB, and Na D$_2$) is striking.
Distances to the systems
========================
LSI +61$^\circ$ 303
-------------------
The previous best estimate of the distance to LSI+61$^\circ$ 303 was that of Frail & Hjellming (1991). They used the profile of the 21cm hydrogen and C$^{18}$O lines along with a galactic structure model to place the object at a distance of 2kpc. Using a reddening $E(B-V)\sim0.7$ (the average of the IUE, Na D$_2$ and DIB values) and the observed [*Hipparcos*]{} magnitude of the source, a distance of 2kpc corresponds to an $M_V\sim-4$. Vacca et al. (1996) quote $M_V\sim-4.2$ for a B0V star and $M_V\sim-5.4$ for a B0III star. Such a distance is therefore entirely consistent with our derived spectral type.
CI98 quote a [*Hipparcos*]{} distance of 177 pc to the system, with 1$\sigma$ limits set at 130 and 300pc. Assuming $E(B-V)\sim0.7$ a distance of 177pc corresponds to an absolute $M_V \sim +2$. The intrinsic colours derived using such a reddening are $(B-V)_o \sim 0.05$ and $(U-B)_o \sim -0.8$. CI98 state that these colours are not typical of an early B star, but are those of an accretion disk, which also would have an absolute magnitude in the appropriate range. In order to explain the high reddening to the system, when $E(B-V)$ should be less than 0.4 for an object closer than 1kpc (Ishida 1969), CI98 invoke a circumstellar origin. Taking this into account, CI98 propose a new model for the system where the primary is a compact object surrounded by an accretion disk of $T_{\rm eff}\sim15000$K which hides the central X-ray source. The accretion disk mimics the atmosphere of a B star, giving the observed spectrum.
We have a number of objections against the distance and the model which CI98 propose. Firstly, we showed in section 2 that the spectral type of the object is B0Ve. For an accretion disk to mimic such a spectrum it would have to have not only the temperature ($\sim 30000$K not $\sim15000$K) but the pressure ($\sim 2\times10^3$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) and structure of the outer layers of a B star, plus a region responsible for producing Balmer series emission. It is hard to imagine such a disk forming, let alone being stable. In addition we question why such an object should have the typical colours of an $\sim 10000$ K accretion disk when it would have the spectrum of a much hotter disk. Perhaps a better explanation for CI98 to have put forward would have been that the system consists of a hot subdwarf plus compact object. However, as we have shown in section 2.1, the spectrum is definitely not that of such an object either.
Next we consider our reddening measurements to the system. As stated previously, Howarth (1983) derived $E(B-V)\sim0.75$ from the 2200 [Å]{} feature in IUE spectra of the source. We derive $E(B-V)\sim0.70$ from our Na D$_2$ line measurements and 0.65 from the diffuse interstellar band strengths. The agreement between these three measurements is striking. It implies that the properties of the alleged circumstellar material proposed by CI98 are identical to those of the interstellar medium. This strongly implies that the observed reddening to LSI$+61^\circ$ 303 is interstellar, not circumstellar in origin. We also note that Porceddu et al. (1992) have shown that excess circumstellar extinction in Be stars does not produce strong diffuse interstellar bands.
Finally, CI98 propose the red $(B-V)_o$ and $(U-B)_o$ colours as an accretion disk signature, although as we point out above it is that of a cooler disk than they propose. Comparison with the intrinsic colours of normal B stars (Deutschmann et al. 1976) shows that they are $\sim 0.3$ magnitudes redder in $B-V$ and $\sim 0.2$ magnitudes redder in $U-B$. A more natural explanation of reddenings of this size is simply free-free emission from the circumstellar envelope of the Be star (Schild 1983).
From all of the above we conclude that the simplest explanation is that LSI+61$^\circ$ 303 contains a B0Ve star at a distance of $\sim2$kpc plus a compact object as was previously thought, and that the [*Hipparcos*]{} distance is somehow wrong. We also note that the line of sight to LSI +61$^\circ$303 lies on the direction to the centre of the Cas OB6 association. Garmany & Stencel (1992) give an extinction corrected distance modulus of 11.9 to that association, corresponding to a distance of 2.4 kpc. Therefore LSI +61$^\circ$303 is a likely member of Cas OB6.
A0535+262
---------
We now consider the case of A0535+262. The previous estimates of the distance to this system were based on either the combination of a spectral type and photometry (Hutchings et al. 1978, Giangrande et al. 1989, Giovannelli and Graziati 1982) or Strömgren photometry (Reig 1996). They range from 1.3 to 2.4 kpc, the average being around 2kpc. The reddening from the 2200 [Å]{} feature is $E(B-V)\sim0.75$ (Giovannelli et al. 1980), and we showed in section 3.2 that a similar reddening is derived from diffuse interstellar bands and the Na D$_2$ line.
CI98 quote a [*Hipparcos*]{} distance to the system of 330 pc, with a 1$\sigma$ range of 210 to 780 pc. They argue that the intrinsic $B-V$ of the system is in the range $-0.13$ to $-0.30$, and therefore prefer a spectral type of around B2. They claim this is evidence against an O9.7 spectral type, although such an object would have an intrinsic colour only a few [*hundredths*]{} of a magnitude bluer. In addition they fail to take into account any reddening of $(B-V)$ due to free-free emission (Schild 1983). They also state that the absolute visual magnitude corresponding to such a distance is more consistent with an early B dwarf than a late O giant. Such a distance implies a low X-ray luminosity of the system of only $\sim10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. CI98 propose that systems with such low luminosities may in fact contain white dwarfs rather than neutron stars, with perhaps only X Per standing out as a neutron star system.
Once again we have several problems with these arguments. Firstly the spectra presented in Fig. 3 are clearly those of an O9.5-B0 star, and not a B2 object. This shows the danger of attempting to use colours to derive spectral types of reddened objects (especially when they may show free-free emission!).
Secondly we note that using a distance of 330pc and $E(B-V)=0.75$ we derive $M_V\sim-1$ for this object. This is not consistent with an early B dwarf as was stated by CI98, but with an object of spectral type B6V (Deutschmann et al. 1976). It is also certainly not consistent with the spectral type we derived in Section 2.
Next we again note the similarity of the three extinction measures presented in section 3 as evidence that the reddening material is interstellar rather than circumstellar. Such large reddenings are incompatible with a distance of only $\sim 330$pc (Ishida 1969).
Finally we point out that the explanation for the low X-ray luminosity proposed by CI98 (white dwarfs rather than neutron stars in such systems) does not hold for A0535+262. X-ray spectra of the source in outburst show cyclotron features at around 50 and 100 keV (Kendziorra et al. 1994, Grove et al. 1995). These correspond to a magnetic field strength of $\sim 10^{13}$ G (Araya & Harding 1996), many orders of magnitude greater than that possible for a white dwarf. In addition both the measured spin-up of the X-ray pulsations from the system (Li 1997) and the presence of quasi-periodic oscillations (Finger et al. 1996) fit a neutron star model well. The presence of a neutron star in this system is therefore beyond any reasonable doubt.
From all of the above we conclude that the simplest explanation is that A0535+262 contains a 09.7-B0 IIIe star plus a neutron star. Using a spectral class of B0III ($M_V\sim-5.3$ - Vacca et al. 1996), a reddening $E(B-V)=0.75$, and assuming a standard reddening law (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985) we derive a distance of $\sim2$ kpc to the system. We therefore again conclude that the ‘traditional’ distance to the system is more or less correct.
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that the [*Hipparcos*]{} derived distances ($\sim$ few hundred pc) to two Be/X-ray binary systems, LSI +61$^\circ$ 303 and A0535+262 are inconsistent with the spectral types, reddenings and apparent magnitudes of the objects. There is strong evidence that the ‘traditional’ distances to these objects (each $\sim 2$kpc) are in fact correct. We note here that these two objects have the worst goodness-of-fit values in the [*Hipparcos*]{} catalogue (ESA 1997) of the CI98 sample (although they do lie below the maximum “acceptable” value of 3). In addition they are the faintest in the sample. This appears to indicate that the application of the simple ‘goodness-of-fit’ criterion that anything less than 3 is a good parallax to faint objects is not reliable, and that the interpretation of [*Hipparcos*]{} parallax data should always be carried out with this in mind.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Data reduction for this paper was carried out on the Southampton, Liverpool John Moores and Sussex University STARLINK nodes. We thank Hannah Quaintrell for providing the INT spectrum of LSI+61$^\circ$ 303. We thank Pablo Reig for his assistance in obtaining some of the JKT observations. The JKT and INT are operated by the ING on behalf of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) at the ORM Observatory, La Palma. The 1.5m telescope at Mount Palomar is jointly owned by the California Institute of Technology and the Carnegie Institute of Washington. We thank Deepto Chakrabarty and Tom Prince for their assistance in obtaining the Mount Palomar data. This research has made use of the SIMBAD and Vizzier databases of the Observatorie Astronomique de Strasbourg and the La Palma data archive of the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Finally we thank Rob Fender for bringing the Chevalier & Ilovaisky paper to our attention.
Allard F., Wesemael F., Fontaine G., et al., 1994, AJ 107, 1565 Araya R.A., Harding A.K., 1996, A&AS, 120, C186 Baschek B., Höflich P., Scholz M., 1982, A&A 112, 76 Bisscheroux B.C., Pols O.R., Kahabka P., et al., 1997, A&A 317, 851 Chevalier C., Ilovaisky S., 1998, A&A 330, 201 Clark J.S., et al., 1998, MNRAS 294, 165 Deutschmann et al., 1976, ApJS, 30, 97 Edwin R, 1988, RBS User Manual, La Palma User Manual 11, Royal Greenwich Observatory ESA 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200 Finger M.H., Wilson R.B., Harmon B.A., 1996, ApJ, 459, 288 Frail D.A., Hjellming R.M., 1991, AJ, 101, 2126 Garmany C.D., Stencel R.E., 1992, A&AS, 94, 211 Giangrande A., et al., 1980, A&AS, 40, 289 Giovannelli F., Sabau Graziati L., 1992, Sp. Sci. Rev., 59, 1 Giovannelli F., et al., 1980, in Proc. 2nd European IUE Conf., ESA SP-157, 159 Granes P., Thom C., Vakili F., 1987, in Sletteback A., Snow T.P., eds, proc. 92nd IAU colloquium, Physics of Be Stars, Cambridge University Press, p.66 Gregory P.C., et al., 1979, AJ, 84, 1030 Grove, J.E., et al., 1995, ApJ, 438, 25 Herbig G.H., 1975, ApJ, 196, 129 Hobbs L.M., 1974, ApJ, 191, 381 Hoffleit D., Jaschek C., 1982, The Bright Star Catalogue, 4th Edition, Yale University Observatory Howarth I., 1983, MNRAS, 203, 801 Hunger K., Gruschinske J., Kudritzki R.P., Simon K.P., 1981, A&A 95, 244 Hutchings J.B., et al., 1978, ApJ, 223, 530 Ishida K., 1969, MNRAS, 144, 55 Johnson H.L., 1966, ARA&A, 4, 193 Kendziorra E., et al., 1994, A&A, 291, L31 Li X., 1997, ApJ, 476, 278 McCarthy, J.K., 1988, PhD Thesis, California Inst. Tech. Moehler S., Richtler T., de Boer K.S., et al., 1990, A&AS 86, 53 Paredes J.M., et al., 1994, A&A, 288, 519 Popper D.M., 1980, ARA&A, 18, 115 Porceddu I., Benvenuti P., Krelowski J., 1992, A&A, 257, 745 Reig, P., 1996, PASP, 108, 639 Rieke G.H., Lebofsky M.J., 1985, ApJ, 288, 618 Robertson J.G., 1986, PASP, 98, 1220 Schild R., 1983, A&A, 120, 223 Vacca W.D., Garmany C.D., Schull J.M., 1996, ApJ, 460, 914 Walborn N.R., Fitzpatrick E.L., 1990, PASP, 102, 379
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present maps at 1kpc spatial resolution for star-forming galaxies at $z\sim1$, made possible by the WFC3 grism on HST. Employing this capability over all five 3D-HST/CANDELS fields provides a sample of $2676$ galaxies enabling a division into subsamples based on stellar mass and star formation rate. By creating deep stacked images, we reach surface brightness limits of $1\times10^{-18}\,\textrm{erg}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}\,\textrm{cm}^{-2}\,\textrm{arcsec}^{-2}$, allowing us to map the distribution of ionized gas out to greater than 10kpc for typical L$^*$ galaxies at this epoch. We find that the spatial extent of the distribution increases with stellar mass as $r_{{\rm H}\alpha}=1.5(M_*/10^{10}M_{\odot})^{0.23}$ kpc. Furthermore, the emission is more extended than the stellar continuum emission, consistent with inside-out assembly of galactic disks. This effect, however, is mass dependent with $r_{{\rm H}\alpha}/r_{*}
=1.1 (M_*/10^{10}M_{\odot})^{0.054}$, such that at low masses $r_{{\rm H}\alpha}\sim r_{*}$. We map the distribution as a function of SFR(IR+UV) and find evidence for ‘coherent star formation’ across the SFR- plane: above the main sequence, is enhanced at all radii; below the main sequence, is depressed at all radii. This suggests that at all masses the physical processes driving the enhancement or suppression of star formation act throughout the disks of galaxies. It also confirms that the scatter in the star forming main sequence is real and caused by variations in the star formation rate at fixed mass. At high masses ($10^{10.5}<M_*/M_{\odot}
<10^{11}$), above the main sequence, is particularly enhanced in the center, indicating that gas is being funneled to the central regions of these galaxies to build bulges and/or supermassive black holes. Below the main sequence, the star forming disks are more compact and a strong central dip in the EW(${\rm H}\alpha$), and the inferred specific star formation rate, appears. Importantly though, across the entirety of the SFR- plane we probe, the absolute star formation rate as traced by H$\alpha$ is always centrally peaked, even in galaxies below the main sequence.
author:
- 'Erica June Nelson, Pieter G. van Dokkum, Natascha M. Förster Schreiber, Marijn Franx, Gabriel B. Brammer, Ivelina G. Momcheva, Stijn Wuyts, Katherine E. Whitaker, Rosalind E. Skelton, Mattia Fumagalli, Mariska Kriek, Ivo Labbé, Joel Leja, Hans-Walter Rix, Linda J. Tacconi, Arjen van der Wel, Frank C. van den Bosch, Pascal A. Oesch, Claire Dickey, Johannes Ulf Lange'
title: 'Where stars form: inside-out growth and coherent star formation from HST maps of 2676 galaxies across the main sequence at $z\sim1$'
---
.
Introduction
============
The structural formation history of galaxies is written by the spatial distribution of their star formation through cosmic time. Recently, the combination of empirical modeling and observations of the scaling relation between stellar mass and star formation rate has enabled us to constrain the build up of stellar mass in galaxies over a large fraction of cosmic time ([Yang]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Leja]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Behroozi]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Moster]{}, [Naab]{}, & [White]{} 2013; [Lu]{} [et al.]{} 2014; [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2014). The dawn of Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has enabled us to map the structural growth of this stellar mass content of galaxies at high fidelity over a large fraction of the history of the universe (e.g. [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a, 2012; [van der Wel]{} [et al.]{} 2012; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014a, 2014b; Bruce [et al.]{} 2014; Boada [et al.]{} 2015; Peth [et al.]{} 2015). It has become clear that the physical sizes of galaxies increase with cosmic time as the universe expands (Giavalisco, Steidel, & Macchetto 1996; Ferguson [et al.]{} 2004; Oesch [et al.]{} 2010; Mosleh [et al.]{} 2012; Trujillo [et al.]{} 2006; [Franx]{} [et al.]{} 2008; [Williams]{} [et al.]{} 2010; [Toft]{} [et al.]{} 2007; Buitrago [et al.]{} 2008; [Kriek]{} [et al.]{} 2009; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014a). For star forming galaxies, with increasing stellar mass, the disk scale length increases as does the prominence of the bulge (e.g. [Shen]{} [et al.]{} 2003; [Lang]{} [et al.]{} 2014). The picture that has emerged from these studies is that most galaxies form their stars in disks growing inside out ([Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a, 2013; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014b; [Abramson]{} [et al.]{} 2014).
In the canonical paradigm, inside-out growth is a consequence of the dark mater halo properties of the galaxies. Galaxies are thought to accrete their gas from the cosmic web at a rate throttled by the mass of their dark matter halo (e.g. White & Rees 1978; [Dekel]{} [et al.]{} 2013). The gas cools onto the disk of the galaxy and forms stars with a radial distribution set by the angular momentum distribution of the halo ([Fall]{} & [Efstathiou]{} 1980; Dalcanton, Spergel, & Summers 1997; van den Bosch 2001). As the scale factor of the universe increases, so does the spatial extent of the gas (Mo, Mao, & White 1998); galaxies were smaller in the past and grow larger with time, building up from the inside-out. However, the actual formation of galaxies in a cosmological context is more complex (e.g., van den Bosch 2001; [Hummels]{} & [Bryan]{} 2012). Recently, significant progress has been made by the creation of realistic disk galaxies in hydrodynamical simulations ([Governato]{} [et al.]{} 2010; Agertz, Teyssier, & Moore 2011; Guedes [et al.]{} 2011; [Brooks]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Stinson]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Aumer]{} [et al.]{} 2013; Marinacci, Pakmor, & Springel 2013) and combining theory and observations in a self-consistent framework (Keres [et al.]{} 2009; Dekel & Birnboim 2006; [Dekel]{} [et al.]{} 2009b; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2008, 2011; [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2009, 2011a; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011b, 2011a). How gas is accreted on to galaxies (e.g. Brooks [et al.]{} 2009; [Sales]{} [et al.]{} 2012) and feedback (e.g. Keres [et al.]{} 2005; [Sales]{} [et al.]{} 2010; [[Ü]{}bler]{} [et al.]{} 2014; [Nelson]{} [et al.]{} 2015; [Genel]{} [et al.]{} 2015) have been shown to be essential ingredients. However, precisely what physical processes drive the sizes, morphologies, and evolution of disk galaxies is still a matter of much debate (see, e.g., [Dutton]{} & [van den Bosch]{} 2012; Scannapieco [et al.]{} 2012).
Furthermore, the evidence for this picture is indirect: we do not actually observe star formation building up different parts of these galaxies. Instead, we infer it based on empirically linking galaxies across cosmic time and tracking radial changes in stellar surface densities and structural parameters ([van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2010; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; van Dokkum [et al.]{} 2013; Patel [et al.]{} 2013; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014a; Brennan [et al.]{} 2015; Papovich [et al.]{} 2015). However, this method has uncertainties due to scatter in stellar mass growth rates and merging (e.g. [Leja]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Behroozi]{} [et al.]{} 2013). Furthermore, migration and secular evolution may have changed the orbits of stars after their formation such that they no longer live in their birthplaces (e.g., Ro[š]{}kar [et al.]{} 2008).
The missing piece is a direct measurement of the spatial distribution of star formation within galaxies. This is crucial to understanding the integrated relations of galaxy growth between SFR and . The spatial distribution of star formation yields insights into what processes drive the star formation activity, evolution of stellar mass, and the relation between them. It helps to disentangle the role of gas accretion, mergers, and secular evolution on the assembly history of galaxies. Furthermore, this provides a test of inside-out growth which appears to be a crucial feature of galaxy assembly history.
What is required is high spatial resolution maps of star formation and stellar continuum emission for large samples of galaxies while they were actively forming their disks. The flux scales with the quantity of ionizing photons produced by hot young stars, serving as an excellent probe of the sites of ongoing star formation activity ([Kennicutt]{} 1998). A number of large surveys have used to probe the growth of evolving galaxies, including recently: HiZELS ([Geach]{} [et al.]{} 2008; [Sobral]{} [et al.]{} 2009), WISP ([Atek]{} [et al.]{} 2010), MASSIV ([Contini]{} [et al.]{} 2012), SINS/zC-SINF ([F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2006, 2009), KROSS, [Stott]{} [et al.]{} (2014), and KMOS$^{3D}$ ([Wisnioski]{} [et al.]{} 2015). Broadband rest-frame optical imaging provides information on the stellar component. The spatial distribution of this stellar light contains a record of past dynamical processes and the history of star formation. The comparison of the spatial distribution of ionized gas and stellar continuum emission thus provides an essential lever arm for constraining the structural assembly of galaxies. This potent combination shed light on the turbulent early phase of massive galaxy growth at $z\sim2$ ([F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a; [Tacchella]{} [et al.]{} 2015b, 2015a), and the spatially-resolved star-forming sequence ([Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2013). To apply this same methodology to a global structural analysis requires high spatial resolution spectroscopic measurements for a large sample of galaxies. An ideal dataset would also contain broadband optical imaging with the same high spatial resolution to allow for robust comparison of the spatial distribution of ionized gas and stellar continuum emission.
This has now become possible with the WFC3 grism capability on HST. The combination of WFC3’s high spatial resolution and the grism’s low spectral resolution provides spatially resolved spectroscopy. Because this spectrograph is slitless, it provides a spectrum for every object in its field of view. This means that for every object its field of view and wavelength coverage, the grism can be used to create a high spatial resolution emission line map. The 3D-HST legacy program utilizes this powerful feature for a 248 orbit NIR imaging and grism spectroscopic survey over the five CANDELS fields ([van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2012a, Momcheva et al. in prep). In this paper, we use data from the 3D-HST survey to map the spatial distribution of emission (a tracer of star formation) and stellar continuum emission (rest-frame 7000Å, a proxy for the stellar mass) for a sample of 2676 galaxies at 0.7<z<1.5. The and stellar continuum are resolved on scales of 0.13". This represents the largest survey to date of the spatially resolved properties of the distribution in galaxies at any epoch. This spatial resolution, corresponding to $\sim1$kpc, is necessary for structural analysis and only possible from the ground with adaptive optics assisted observations on 10m class telescopes. This dataset hence provides a link between the high spatial resolution imaging datasets of large samples of galaxies with HST and high spatial resolution emission line maps of necessarily small samples with AO on large ground-based telescopes. This study complements the large MOSDEF ([Kriek]{} [et al.]{} 2015) and KMOS$^{3D}$ ([Wisnioski]{} [et al.]{} 2015) spectroscopic surveys by providing higher spatial resolution emission line measurements.
We present the average surface brightness profiles of and stellar continuum emission in galaxies during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$. We analyze maps for 2676 galaxies from the 3D-HST survey to trace the spatial distribution of star formation. Our sample cuts a large swath through the SFR- plane covering two orders of magnitude in stellar mass $10^9<\textrm{M}_*<10^{11}$ and star formation rate $1<SFR<400\,\textrm{M}_\odot/$yr and encompassing the star forming “main sequence” (MS). [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} (2012) showed that the bright, visually striking clumps of star formation which appear to be common in high redshift galaxies are short-lived and contribute little to the integrated SFR of a galaxy. Here, we average over these short-lived clumps by stacking maps. Stacking thousands of HST orbits provides deep average images that allow us to trace the distribution down to a surface brightness limit of $1\times10^{-18}\,\textrm{erg}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}\,\textrm{cm}^{-2}\,\textrm{arcsec}^{-2}$ in our deepest stacks, an order of magnitude fainter than previous studies in the high redshift universe. This enables us to measure the star formation surface density down to a limit of is $4\times10^{-4}\,\textrm{M}_\odot\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}\,\textrm{kpc}^{-2}$. With these deep stacked images, the primary goals of this study are to derive the average surface brightness profile and effective radius of as a function of mass and star formation rate to provide insight into where star formation occurs in galaxies at this epoch.
{width="\textwidth"}
Data
====
The 3D-HST Survey
-----------------
We investigate the spatial distribution of star formation in galaxies during the epoch spanning $0.7<z<1.5$ across the $SFR-M_*$ plane using data from the 3D-HST survey. 3D-HST is a 248 orbit extragalactic treasury program with HST furnishing NIR imaging and grism spectroscopy across a wide field ([van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2012a, Momcheva et al. in prep). HST’s G141 grism on Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) provides spatially resolved spectra of all objects in the field of view. The G141 grism has a wavelength range of $1.15\mu m < \lambda < 1.65\mu m$, covering the emission line for $0.7<z<1.5$. Combined with the accompanying $H_{F140W}$ imaging, 3D-HST enables us to derive the spatial distribution of and rest-frame R-band emission with matching 1kpc resolution for an objectively selected sample of galaxies.
The program covers the well-studied CANDELS fields ([Grogin]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Koekemoer]{} [et al.]{} 2011) AEGIS, COSMOS, GOODS-S, UDS, and also includes GOODS-N (GO-11600, PI: B. Weiner.) The optical and NIR imaging from CANDELS in conjunction with the bountiful public photometric data from $0.3-24\mu$m provide stringent constraints on the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of galaxies in these fields ([Skelton]{} [et al.]{} 2014).
Determining z, M$_*$, SFR
-------------------------
This study depends on robustly determining galaxy integrated properties, specifically M$_*$ and SFR. Both of these quantities in turn depend on a robust determination of redshift and constraints on the spectral energy distributions of galaxies across the electro-magnetic spectrum. To do this, the photometric data was shepherded and aperture photometry was performed to construct psf-matched, deblended, $J_{F125W}/H_{F140W}/H_{F160W}$ selected photometric catalogs (see [Skelton]{} [et al.]{} 2014). These photometric catalogs form the scaffolding of this project upon which all the remaining data products rest. For this study, we rely on the rest-frame colors, stellar masses, and star formation rates. All of these quantities were derived based on constraints from across the electromagnetic spectrum.
Our redshift fitting method also utilizes the photometry. This is probably not strictly necessary for the sample of line emitting galaxies used for this study, although it helps to confirm the redshift of galaxies with only one emission line detected. It is crucial, however, for galaxies without significant emission or absorption features falling in the grism spectrum. To measure redshifts, the photometry and the two-dimensional G141 spectrum were fit simultaneously with a modified version of the EAzY code ([Brammer]{}, [van Dokkum]{}, & [Coppi]{} 2008). After finding the best redshift, emission line strengths were measured for all lines that fall in the grism wavelength range (see Momcheva et al. in prep).
Galaxy stellar masses were derived using stellar population synthesis modeling of the photometry with the FAST code (Kriek et al. 2009). We used the Bruzual & Charlot (2003) templates with solar metallicity and a [Chabrier]{} (2003) initial mass function. We assumed exponentially declining star formation histories and the [Calzetti]{} [et al.]{} (2000) dust attenuation law (see [Skelton]{} [et al.]{} 2014). Errors in the stellar mass due to contamination of the broadband flux by emission lines are not expected to be significant for this study (see appendix in [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2014).
Galaxy star formation rates in this work were computed by summing unobscured (UV) plus dust absorbed and re-emitted emission (IR) from young stars: $$\textrm{SFR}=\textrm{SFR}_{UV+IR}(M_{\odot}yr^{-1})=1.09\times10^{-10}(L_{IR}+2.2L_{UV})/L_{\odot}$$ ([Bell]{} [et al.]{} 2005). $L_{UV}$ is the total UV luminosity from 1216 – 3000Å. It is derived by scaling the rest-frame 2800Å luminosity determined from the best-fit SED with EAzY ([Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2008). $L_{IR}$ is the total IR luminosity from $8-1000\mu$m. It is derived by scaling the MIPS 24$\mu$m flux density using a luminosity-independent template that is the log average of the Dale & Helou (2002) templates with $1<\alpha<2.5$ ([Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2008; [Franx]{} [et al.]{} 2008; [Muzzin]{} [et al.]{} 2010). See [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2014) for more details.
Sample Selection
----------------
We consider all galaxies 1) in the redshift range $0.7<z<1.5$ for which the emission line falls in the G141 grism wavelength coverage; 2) that have stellar masses $9.0<$ log(M$_*)<11.0$, a mass range over which our $H-$band selected catalogs are complete; and 3) that are characterized as star-forming according to the UVJ-color criterion based on SED shape (Labbe [et al.]{} 2005; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2011). The UVJ selection separates quiescent galaxies from star forming galaxies using the strength of the Balmer/4000Å break which is sampled by the rest-frame $U-V$ and $V-J$ colors. These three criteria result in a parent sample of 8068 star-forming galaxies. The grism spectra are fit down to $H_{F140W}=24$, trimming the sample to 6612.
We select galaxies based on a quite generous cut in Flux: F() $>3\times10^{-17}$erg/s/cm$^2$, This limit corresponds to a median signal to noise $S/N(H\alpha)=2$ and sample of 4314 galaxies. Galaxies with lower fluxes were removed as they may have larger redshift errors. We note here that this sample is -limited, not -selected. That is, it is a mass-selected sample of star-forming galaxies where we require an flux to ensure only galaxies with correct redshifts are included. As a result of the flux and grism extraction limits, we are less complete at low masses and star formation rates. We exclude 178 galaxies which were flagged as having bad GALFIT ([Peng]{} [et al.]{} 2002) fits in the van der Wel [et al.]{} (2014a) catalogs, often indicative of oddities in the photometry. We identify galaxies that are likely to host active galactic nuclei (AGN) as sources with X-ray luminosity $L_x>10^{42.5}{\rm erg\,\,s}^{-1}$ or emission line widths of $\sigma>1000$ (see next section). We remove these 57 galaxies from the sample as emission from AGN would complicate the interpretation of the measured distributions.
Finally, of this sample, we discard 34% of galaxies due to contamination of their spectra by the spectra of other nearby objects (see next section for more detail). The contaminating spectra are primarily bright stars and galaxies unrelated to the object, but it is possible that this criterion might lead to a slight bias against denser environments. The fraction of galaxies removed from the sample due to contamination does not vary with stellar mass or star formation rate. The final sample contains 2676 galaxies and is shown in Fig.\[fig:sample\].
Analysis
========
Morphological Information in the Spectrum
-----------------------------------------
![Illustration of the creation of emission line maps from HST WFC3 grism data. The top panel shows the 2D, interlaced grism spectrum. The second panel shows a model for the “contamination”: the spectra of all objects in the field except the object of interest. The third panel is a 2D model for the continuum emission of the galaxy. The bottom panel is the original spectrum with the contaminating emission from other obejcts, and the stellar continuum, subtracted. The result is a 2D map of the line emission at the spatial resolution of HST (see Sect.3.2 for details). \[fig:makemaps\]](fig2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The maps at the heart of this analysis are created from the two-dimensional 3D-HST grism spectra. The creation of emission line maps is possible as a consequence of a unique interaction of features: WFC3 has high spatial resolution (014) and the G141 grism has low (R$\sim$130) point source spectral resolution. A G141 grism spectrum is a series of high resolution images of a galaxy taken at 46Å increments and placed next to each other on the WFC3 detector. An emission line in such a set up effectively emerges as an image of the galaxy in that line superimposed on the continuum. A resolution element for a galaxy at $z\sim1$ corresponds to a velocity dispersion of $\sigma\sim1000$, so a spectrum will only yield velocity information about a galaxy if the velocity difference across that galaxy is more than 1000. Few galaxies have such large line widths. Thus in general, structure in an emission line is due to *morphology*, not kinematics. While in a typical ground based spectroscopy, the shape of the emission line yields spectral information, in our spectra it yields spatial information. The upshot of this property is that by subtracting the continuum from a spectrum, we obtain an emission line map of that galaxy. A sample G141 spectrum is shown in Fig.\[fig:makemaps\] and sample maps are shown in Fig.\[fig:exmaps\].
We note that although it is generally true that the spectral axes of these maps do not contain kinematic information, there is one interesting exception: broad line AGN. With line widths of $>1000$, the spectra of these objects do contain kinematic information. These sources are very easy to pick out: they appear as point sources in the spatial direction and extended in the spectral direction.
Furthermore, because the WFC3 camera has no slits, we get a 2D spectrum of every object in the camera’s field of view. For all galaxies with 0.7<z<1.5, that have an emission line in G141’s wavelength coverage, we obtain an map to the surface brightness limits. Based on our selection criteria, using this methodology, we have a sample of 2676 galaxies at 0.7<z<1.5 with spatially resolved information.
Making maps
-----------
The reduction of the 3D-HST spectroscopy with the G141 grism and imaging with the filter was done using a custom pipeline. HST data is typically reduced by drizzling, but the observing strategy of 3D-HST allows images to be interlaced instead. With this dither pattern, four images are taken with pointing offsets that are multiples of half pixels. The pixels from these four uncorrected frames are then placed on an output grid with 0.06" pixels ([van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2000). Interlacing improves the preservation of spatial information, effectively improving the spatial resolution of the images. Crucially, interlacing also eliminates the correlated noise caused by drizzling. This correlated noise is problematic for analysis of spectroscopic data because it can masquerade as spectral features.
Although the background levels in NIR images taken from space are lower than in those taken from earth, they are still significant. The modeling of the background in the grism data is complicated because it is composed of many faint higher order spectra. It is done using a linear combination of three physical eigen-backgrounds: zodiacal light, metastable He emission ([Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2014), and scattered light from the Earth limb (Brammer et al. in prep). Residual background structure in the wavelength direction of the frames is fit and subtracted along the image columns. (For more information see [Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2012a, 2014, Momcheva et al. in prep) The 2D spectra are extracted from the interlaced G141 frames around a spectral trace based on a geometrical mapping from the location of their F140W direct image positions. A sample 2D spectrum and a pictorial depiction of the remainder of this subsection is shown in Fig. \[fig:makemaps\].
The advantage of slitless spectroscopy is also its greatest challenge: flux from neighboring objects with overlapping traces can contaminate the spectrum of an object with flux that does not belong to it. We forward-model contamination with a flat spectrum based on the direct image positions and morphologies of contaminating objects. A second iteration is done to improve the models of bright ($H<22$) sources using their extracted spectra. An example of this contamination model is shown in the second panel of Fig.\[fig:makemaps\] (See [Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2012a, 2012b, 2013, Momcheva et al. in prep). To remove contamination from the spectra, we subtract these models for all galaxies in the vicinity of the object of interest. Furthermore, for the present analysis, all regions predicted to have contamination which is greater than a third of the average G141 background value were masked. This aggressive masking strategy was used to reduce the uncertainty in the interpretation of the maps at large radii where uncertainties in the contamination model could introduce systematics.
The continuum of a galaxy is modeled by convolving the best fit SED without emission lines with its combined $J_{F125W}/H_{F140W}/H_{F160W}$ image. The continuum model for our example galaxy is shown in the third panel of Fig.\[fig:makemaps\]. This continuum model is subtracted from the 2D grism spectrum, removing the continuum emission and simultaneously correcting the emission line maps for stellar absorption. What remains for galaxies with $0.7<z<1.5$ is a map of their emission. Five sample maps and their corresponding images are shown in Fig. \[fig:exmaps\]. Crucially, the and stellar continuum images were taken with the same camera under the same conditions. This means that differences in their spatial distributions are intrinsic, not due to differences in the PSF. The spatial resolution is $\sim$1kpc for both the stellar continuum and emission line maps.
The final postage stamps we use in this analysis are $80\times80$ pixels. An HST pixel is 0.06“, so this corresponds to $4.8\times4.8$” or $38\times38$kpc at $z\sim1$. Many of these postage stamps have a small residual positive background (smaller than the noise). To correct for this background, we compute the median of all unmasked pixels in the 2kpc edges of each stamp and subtract it. This means that we can reliably trace the surface brightness out to 17kpc. Beyond this point, the surface brightness is definitionally zero.
Stacking
--------
To measure the average spatial distribution of during this epoch from $z=1.5-0.7$, we create mean images by stacking the maps of individual galaxies with similar and/or SFR (See §4&5). Many studies first use images of individual galaxies to measure the spatial distribution of star formation then describe average trends in this distribution as a function of or SFR (e.g., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2006; Epinat [et al.]{} 2009; [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Nelson]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Epinat]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Contini]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a). Instead, we first create average images by stacking galaxies as a function and SFR then measure the spatial distribution of star formation to describe trends. This stacking strategy leverages the strengths of our data: maps taken under uniform observing conditions for a large and objectively defined sample of galaxies. From a practical standpoint, the methodology has the advantage that we do not need data with very high signal-to-noise. As a consequence, we can explore relatively uncharted regions of parameter space. In particular, we can measure the radial distribution of star formation in galaxies across a vast expanse of the SFR- plane down to low masses and star formation rates. Additionally, we can probe the distribution of ionized gas in the outer regions of galaxies where star formation surface densities are thought to be very low.
We created the stacked images by summing normalized, masked images of galaxies in and . To best control for the various systematics described in the remainder of this section, for our primary analysis, we do not distort the galaxy images by de-projecting, rotating, or scaling them. We show major-axis aligned stacks in §6 and de-projected, radially-normalized profiles in an appendix. Our results remain qualitatively consistent regardless of this methodological decision. For all analyses, the images were weighted by their flux so the stack is not dominated by a single bright object. The filter covers the full wavelength range of the G141 grism encompassing the emission line. Normalizing by the emission hence accounts for very bright line emission without inverse signal-to-noise weighting as normalizing by the emission would.
As a consequence of the grism’s low spectral resolution, we have to account for the blending of emission lines. With a FWHM spectral resolution of $\sim100$Å, $\lambda6563$Å and \[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda6548+6583$Å are blended. To account for the contamination of by \[N[ii]{}\], we scale the measured flux down by a factor of 1.15 (Sanders [et al.]{} 2015) and adopt this quantity as the flux. This is a simplistic correction as \[N[ii]{}\]/ varies between galaxies (e.g. [Savaglio]{} [et al.]{} 2005; [Erb]{} [et al.]{} 2006b; [Maiolino]{} [et al.]{} 2008; [Zahid]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Leja]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2014; Sanders [et al.]{} 2015; Shapley [et al.]{} 2015) as well as radially within galaxies (e.g. [Yuan]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Queyrel]{} [et al.]{} 2012; Swinbank [et al.]{} 2012; [Jones]{} [et al.]{} 2013, 2015; F[ö]{}rster Schreiber [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014b; [Stott]{} [et al.]{} 2014). [Stott]{} [et al.]{} (2014) find a range of metallicity gradients $-0.063<\Delta Z/\Delta r<0.073\,{\rm dex\, kpc}^{-1}$, with the median of $\sim0$ (no gradient) for 20 typical star-forming galaxies at $z\sim1$. Hence, we choose to adopt a single correction factor so as not to introduce systematic uncertainties into the data.
Additionally, $\lambda6563$Å and \[S[ii]{}\]$\lambda\lambda 6716,6731$Å are resolved but are separated by only $\sim3$ resolution elements. In this study, we are concerned primarily with the radial distribution of emission. In order to prevent \[S[ii]{}\] from adding flux at large radii, we mask the region of the 2D spectrum redward of where \[S[ii]{}\] emission could contaminate the maps.
Galaxies are centered according to the light-weighted center of their flux distribution. Given that the can be used as a proxy for stellar mass, we chose to center the galaxies according to their center as our best approximation of centering them according to stellar mass. While the centroid will not always be the exact center of mass, it is a better estimate than our other option, the centroid. We measure the centroid of the images as the flux-weighted mean pixel in the x- and y- directions independently with an algorithm similar to the iraf task imcntr. We shift the image with sub-pixel shifts using damped sinc interpolation. The G141 image is shifted with the same shifts. To center the map requires only a geometric mapping in the spatial direction of 2D grism spectrum. In the spectral direction, however, the redshift of a galaxy and the spatial distribution of its are degenerate. As a result, the uncertainty in the spectral direction of the maps is $\sim0.5$pixels (see [Brammer]{} [et al.]{} 2012a).
{width="\textwidth"}
To simultaneously address these problems, we apply an asymmetric double pacman mask to the maps. This mask is shown applied to the stack in Fig.\[fig:stack\]. The mask serves three purposes. First, it masks the \[S[ii]{}\] emission which otherwise could masquerade as flux at large radii. Second, it mitigates the effect of the redshift-morphology degeneracy by removing the parts of the distribution that would be most affected. Third, it reduces the impact of imperfect stellar continuum subtraction by masking the portion of the spectrum that would be most afflicted.
A mask was also created for each galaxy’s image to cover pixels that are potentially affected by neighboring objects. This mask was constructed from the 3D-HST photometric data products. SExtractor was run on the combined $J_{F125W}/H_{F140W}/H_{F160W}$ detection image (see [Skelton]{} [et al.]{} 2014). Using the SExtractor segmentation map, we flagged all pixels in a postage stamp belonging to other objects and masked them. For both and a bad pixel mask is created for known bad or missing pixels as determined from the data quality extensions of the fits files.
The final mask for each image is comprised of the union of three separate masks: 1) the bad pixel mask, 2) the asymmetric double pacman mask, and 3) the contamination mask (see previous section). A final mask is made from the combination of two separate masks 1) the bad pixel mask and 2) the neighbor mask. The and images are multiplied by these masks before they are summed. Summing the masks creates what is effectively a weight map for the stacks. The raw stacks are divided by this weight map to create the final exposure-corrected stacked images.
Surface brightness profiles
---------------------------
The stacked image for galaxies with $10^{10}<\textrm{M}_*<10^{10.5}$ is shown in Fig.\[fig:stack\]. With hundreds of galaxies, this image is very deep and we can trace the distribution of out to large radii ($\sim10$kpc). To measure the average radial profiles of the and emission, we compute the surface brightness as a function of radius by measuring the mean flux in circular apertures. We checked that the total flux in the stacks matched the and fluxes in our catalogs. We compute error bars on the radial profiles by bootstrap resampling the stacks and in general, we cut off the profiles when $S/N<2.5$. The profile for the example stack is shown in Fig.\[fig:stack\]. Before moving on to discussing the trends in the observed radial profiles, we note two additional corrections made to them.
First, we correct the continuum model used to create the maps. This continuum model goes out to the edge of the segmentation map of each galaxy, which typically encompasses $\gtrsim95$% of the light. We subtract the remaining continuum flux by correcting the continuum model to have the same spatial distribution as the broad band light. The filter covers the same wavelength range as the G141 grism. Therefore, the radial distribution of emission reflects the true radial distribution of continuum emission. We derive a correction factor to the continuum model of each stack by fitting a second degree polynomial to the radial ratio of the stack to the stacked continuum model. This continuum correction is $<20\%$ at all radii in the profiles shown here.
Second, we correct the radial profiles for the effect of the PSF. Compared to typical ground-based observations, our space-based PSF is narrow and relatively stable. We model the PSF using Tiny Tim ([Krist]{} 1995) and interlacing the model PSFs in the same way as the data. The FWHM is 0.14", which corresponds to $\sim1$kpc at $z\sim1$. Although this is small, it has an effect, particularly by blurring the centers of the radial profiles. Images can be corrected using a deconvolution algorithm. However, there are complications with added noise in low S/N regions and no algorithm perfectly reconstructs the intrinsic light distribution (see e.g. [van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2010). We instead employ the algorithmically more straight-forward method of [Szomoru]{} [et al.]{} (2010). This method takes advantage of the GALFIT code which convolves models with the PSF to fit galaxy light distributions ([Peng]{} [et al.]{} 2002). We begin by fitting the stacks with Sérsic (1968) models using GALFIT ([Peng]{} [et al.]{} 2002). These Sérsic fits are quite good and the images show small residuals. We use these fit parameters to create an unconvolved model. To account for deviations from a perfect Sérsic fit, we add the residuals to this unconvolved image. Although the residuals are still convolved with the PSF, this method has been shown to reconstruct the true flux distribution even when the galaxies are poorly fit by a Sérsic profile ([Szomoru]{} [et al.]{} 2010). It is worth noting again that the residuals in these fits are small so the residual-correction step in this procedure is not critical to the conclusions of this paper.
The distribution of as a function of stellar mass and radius
============================================================
![Size-mass relations for ($r_{H\alpha}-M_*$) stellar continuum ($r_*-M_*$). The size of star forming disks traced by increases with stellar mass as $r_{H\alpha}\propto M^{0.23}$. At low masses, $r_{H\alpha}\sim r_{*}$, as mass increases the disk scale length of becomes larger than the stellar continuum emission as $r_{H\alpha}\propto r_{*}\,M_*^{0.054}$. Interpreting as star formation and stellar continuum as stellar mass, this serves as evidence that on average, galaxies are growing larger in size due to star formation. \[fig:mass\_size\] ](fig6.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The structure of galaxies (e.g. [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014a) and their sSFRs (e.g. [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2014) change as a function of stellar mass. This means that both where a galaxy is growing and how rapidly it is growing depend on how much stellar mass it has already assembled. In this section, we investigate where galaxies are building stellar mass by considering the average radial distribution of emission in different mass ranges.
To measure the average spatial distribution of during this epoch from $z=1.5-0.7$, we create mean images by stacking the maps of individual galaxies as described in §3.3. The stacking technique employed in this paper serves to increase the S/N ratio, enabling us to trace the profile of to large radii. An obvious disadvantage is that the distribution is known to be different for different galaxies. As an example, the maps of the galaxies shown in Fig.\[fig:exmaps\] are quite diverse, displaying a range of sizes, surface densities, and morphologies. Additionally, star formation in the early universe often appears to be clumpy and stochastic. Different regions of galaxies light up with new stars for short periods of time. These clumps, while visually striking, make up a small fraction of the total star formation at any given time. Only $10-15$% of star formation occurs in clumps while the remaining $85-90$% of star formation occurs in a smooth disk or bulge component ([F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2011b; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2012, 2013). Stacking smoothes over the short-timescale stochasticity to reveal the time-averaged spatial distribution of star formation.
Fig.\[fig:msprofs\] shows the radial surface brightness profiles of as a function of stellar mass. The first and most obvious feature of these profiles is that the is brightest in the center of these galaxies: the radial surface brightness of rises monotonically toward small radii. The average distribution of ionized gas is not centrally depressed or even flat, it is centrally peaked. This shows that there is substantial on-going star formation in the centers of galaxies at all masses at $z\sim1$.
With regard to profile shape, in log(flux)-linear(radius) space, these profiles appear to be nearly linear indicating they are mostly exponential. There is a slight excess at small and large radii compared to an exponential profile. However, the profile shape is dependent on the stacking methodology: if the profiles are deprojected and normalized by their effective radius (as derived from the data) they are closer to exponential (see appendix). We do not use these normalized profiles as the default in the analysis, as it is difficult to account for the effects of the PSF.
We quantify the size of the ionized gas distribution in two ways: fitting exponential profiles and Sérsic models. For simplicity, we measure the disk scale lengths ($\equiv r_s$) of the ionized gas by fitting the profiles with an exponential between $0.5r_s<r<3r_s$. These fits are shown in Fig.\[fig:msprofs\]. It is clear that over the region $0.5r_s<r<3r_s$ the distribution is reasonably well-approximated by an exponential. Out to $5r_s$, $\sim90\%$ of the can be accounted for by this single exponential disk fit. This implies that most of the lies in a disk.
The scale length of the exponential disk fits increases with mass from 1.3kpc for $9.0<M_*<9.5$ to 2.6kpc for $10.5<M_*<11.0$. With $r_e=1.678r_s$, this corresponds to effective (half-light) radii of 2.2kpc and 4.4kpc respectively. We fit the size-mass relation of the ionized gas disks ($r_{H\alpha}-M_*$) with: $$r_{H\alpha}(m_*)=1.5m_*^{0.23}$$ where $m_*=M_*/10^{10}M_\odot$. Fitting the surface brightness profiles in the same way shows the exponential disk scale lengths of the stellar continuum emission vs. the ionized gas. We parameterize this comparison in terms of the stellar continuum size: $$r_*(m_*)=1.4m_*^{0.18}$$ $$r_{H\alpha}(m_*,r_*)=1.1\,\, r_*\,\,(m_*^{0.054})$$ For $10^9M_\odot<M_*<10^{9.5}M_\odot$, the emission has the same disk scale length as the emission. This suggests that the emission closely follows the emission (or possibly the other way around). At stellar masses $M_*>10^{9.5}$ the scale length of the emission is larger than the . As mass increases, the grows increasingly more extended and does not follow the emission as closely. The size-mass relations for and are shown in Fig.\[fig:mass\_size\].
The ionized gas distributions can also be parameterized with Sérsic profiles. We fit the observed, PSF-convolved stacks with Sérsic models using GALFIT as described in the previous section. The Sérsic index of each, which reflects the degree of curvature of the profile, is $1<n<2$ for all mass bins, demonstrating that they are always disk-dominated. The Sérsic indices and sizes measured with GALFIT are listed in Table 1. The sizes measured with GALFIT are similar to those measured using exponential disk fits and exhibit the same qualitative trends.
While the bootstrap error bars for each individual method are very small, $2-4$%, different methodologies result in systematically different size measurements. We derive our default sizes by fitting exponentials to the $0.5r_s<r<3r_s$ region of PSF-corrected profiles. Fit the same way, sizes are $10-20$% larger when profiles are not corrected for the PSF. Adopting slightly different fitting regions can also change the sizes by $10-20$%. The GALFIT sizes are $3-15$% larger. With all methods the trends described remain qualitatively the same. That is, the effective radius of the emission is always greater or equal to the effective radius of the and both increase with stellar mass.
------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- -----
(r)[2-4]{} (r)[5-7]{} log(M$_*$) r$_s$ r$_e$ n r$_s$ r$_e$ n
\[2mm\] $9.0<\textrm{log(M}_*)<9.5$ 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.0 1.8 1.9
$9.5<\textrm{log(M}_*)<10.0$ 1.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 2.4 1.9
$10.0<\textrm{log(M}_*)<10.5$ 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.6 3.1 1.7
$10.5<\textrm{log(M}_*)< 11.0$ 2.6 5.1 1.7 2.0 3.9 2.1
------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- -----
: Structural Parameters[]{data-label="tab:structPar"}
\
*Note.* Disk scale length and effective radius in kpc and Sérsic index for and as a function of stellar mass. For an exponential disk (n=1), $r_e=1.678r_s$.
The comparison between the radial distribution of and can be seen explicitly in their quotient, the radial equivalent width (EW()) profile (Fig. \[fig:mProfs\]), indicating where the emission is elevated and depressed relative to the emission. The first and most obvious feature is that the normalization of equivalent width profiles decreases with increasing stellar mass, consistent with spatially-integrated results (Fumagalli [et al.]{} 2012) and the fact that sSFR declines with stellar mass (e.g. [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2014). Additionally, below a stellar mass of $\textrm{log(M)}_*<9.5$, the equivalent width profile is flat, at least on the scales of $\sim1$kpc resolved by our data. These galaxies are growing rapidly across their disks. In addition to the overall normalization of the EW decreasing, as stellar mass increases the shape of the EW profile changes, its slope growing steeper. For $9.5<{\rm log(M_*)}<10.0$, rises by a factor of $\sim1.3$ from the center to 2r$_e$, for $10.5<{\rm log(M_*)}<11.0$, it rises by $\gtrsim3$. At low masses, the entire disk is illuminated with new stars; at higher masses, the is somewhat centrally depressed relative to the stellar continuum emission. Consistent with the measured size trends, the radial EW() profiles show that has a similar distribution as the stellar continuum emission for $9.0<{\rm log(M_*)}<9.5$; as mass increases becomes more extended and less centrally concentrated than the stellar continuum emission.
Interpreting as star formation and as stellar mass implies that star formation during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$ is building galaxies from the inside-out as discussed in §7.3.
The radial distribution of across the star forming sequence
===========================================================
![We investigate the spatial distribution of star formation in galaxies across the SFR(UV+IR)- plane. To do this, we stack the maps of galaxies on the star forming sequence main sequence (black) and compare to the spatial distribution of in galaxies above (blue) and below (red) the main sequence. The parent sample is shown in gray. The fractions of the total parent sample above the flux and extraction magnitude limit are listed at the bottom in gray. As expected, we are significantly less complete at low masses, below the main sequence. About one third of selected galaxies are thrown out of the stacks due to contamination of their spectra by other sources in the field. Of the galaxies above the flux and extraction limits, the fractions remaining as part of the the final selection are listed and shown in blue/black/red and respectively. \[fig:bins\]](fig8.eps){width="45.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
In the previous section, we showed how the radial distribution of star formation depends on the stellar mass of a galaxy. Here we show how it depends on the total star formation rate at fixed mass. In other words, we show how it depends on a galaxy’s position in the SFR- plane with respect to the star forming main sequence. (The star forming ’main sequence’ is an observed locus of points in the SFR- plane [Brinchmann]{} [et al.]{} 2004; [Zheng]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Noeske]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Elbaz]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Daddi]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Salim]{} [et al.]{} 2007; [Damen]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Magdis]{} [et al.]{} 2010; [Gonz[á]{}lez]{} [et al.]{} 2010; Karim [et al.]{} 2011; [Huang]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2012, 2014)
Definition of the Star Forming Main Sequence
--------------------------------------------
We define the star forming sequence according to the results of [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2014), interpolated to $z=1$. The slope of the relation between SFR and decreases with , as predicted from galaxy growth rates derived from the evolution of the stellar mass function ([Leja]{} [et al.]{} 2015), reflecting the decreased efficiency of stellar mass growth at low and high masses. [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2014) find that the observed scatter is a constant $\sigma=0.34$dex with both redshift and .
We investigate where ‘normal’ star-forming galaxies were forming their stars at this epoch by determining the radial distribution of in galaxies on the main sequence. We elucidate how star formation is enhanced and suppressed in galaxies by determining where star formation is “added” in galaxies above the main sequence and “subtracted” in galaxies below the main sequence. To determine where star formation is occurring in galaxies in these different regions of the SFR- plane, we stack maps as a function of mass and SFR. We define the main sequence as galaxies with SFRs $\pm1.2\sigma=\pm0.4$dex from the [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2014) main sequence line at $z\sim1$. Specifically, we consider galaxies ‘below’, ‘on’, or ‘above’ the star forming main sequence to be the regions \[-0.8,-0.4\]dex, \[-0.4,+0.4\]dex, or \[+0.4,+1.2\]dex with respect to the main sequence line in the SFR- plane. To define these regions consistently we normalize the SFRs of all galaxies to $z\sim1$ using the redshift evolution of the normalization of the star forming sequence from [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2012). These definitions are shown pictorially by Fig. \[fig:bins\] in red, black, and blue respectively. We imposed the +1.2dex upper limit above the main sequence so the stacks wouldn’t be dominated by a single, very bright galaxy. We impose the -0.8dex due to the flux-driven completeness limit. Fig. \[fig:bins\] also shows which galaxies were actually used in the stacks. Our broad band magnitude extraction limit and flux limit manifest themselves as incompleteness primarily at low masses and SFRs as reflected in the gray numbers and filled symbols.
We adopted this $\pm1.2\sigma$ definition of the main sequence to enable us to probe the top and bottom 10% of star formers and ferret out differences between galaxies growing very rapidly, very slowly, and those growing relatively normally. According to our definition ($\pm1.2\sigma$), the ‘Main Sequence’ accounts for the vast majority of galaxy growth. It encompasses 80% of UVJ star-forming galaxies and 76% of star formation. The star forming main sequence is defined by the running median star formation rate of galaxies as a function of mass. The definition is nearly identical when the mode is used instead, indicating that it defines the most common rate of growth. While we left 20% of star-forming galaxies to probe the extremes of rapid and slow growth, only 7% of these galaxies live above the main sequence and nearly double that, 13%, live below it. This is a manifestation of the fact that the distribution of star formation rates at a given mass is skewed toward low star formation rates. Counting galaxies, however, understates the importance of galaxies above the main sequence to galaxy evolution because they are building stellar mass so rapidly. Considering instead the contribution to the total star formation budget at this epoch, galaxies above the main sequence account for $>20\%$ of star formation while galaxies below the main sequenceonly account for $<3\%$.
Results
-------
![Radial profiles of as a function of mass normalized by the main sequence radial profile (MS). Above the star forming main sequence, the is elevated at all radii (blue hues). Below the star forming main sequence, the is depressed at all radii (red hues). \[fig:divsum\]](fig10.eps){width="50.00000%"}
One of the primary results of this paper is shown in Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\]: the radial distribution of on, above and below the star forming main sequence. Above the main sequence, is elevated at all radii. Below the main sequence, is depressed at all radii. The profiles are remarkably similar above, on, and below the main sequence – a phenomenon that can be referred to as ‘coherent star formation’, in the sense that the offsets in the star formation rate are spatially-coherent. As shown in and Fig.\[fig:divsum\], the offset is roughly a factor of 2 and nearly independent of radius: at $r<2$kpc the mean offset is a factor of 2.2, at $3<r<5$kpc it is a factor of 2.1. Above the main sequence at the highest masses where we have the signal-to-noise to trace the to large radii, we can see that the remains enhanced by a factor of $\gtrsim2$ even beyond 10kpc. The most robust conclusion we can draw from the radial profiles of is that star formation from $\sim2-6$kpc is enhanced in galaxies above the main sequence and suppressed in galaxies below the main sequence (but see §7.4 for further discussion).
We emphasize that the SFRs used in this paper were derived from UV+IR emission, These star formation rate indicators are measured independently from the flux. Thus, it is not a priori clear that the emission is enhanced or depressed for galaxies above or below the star forming main sequence as derived from the UV+IR emission. The fact that it is implies that the scatter in the star forming sequence is real and caused by variations in the star formation rate (see §7.4).
In the middle panels of Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\] we show the radial profiles of emission as a function of above, on, and below the star forming main sequence. As expected, we find that the average sizes and Sérsic indices of galaxies increase with increasing stellar mass. Disk scale lengths of and are listed in Table 2. At high masses, we find that above and below the main sequence, the is somewhat more centrally concentrated than on the main sequence (consistent with [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; [Lang]{} [et al.]{} 2014, Whitaker et al. in prep), possibly indicating more dominant bulges below and above the main sequence. We note that these trends are less obvious at lower masses. Furthermore, as one would expect, the mass to light ratio decreases with sSFR because young stars are brighter than old stars. Therefore, at fixed mass, galaxies above the main sequence have brighter stellar continuum emission and galaxies below the main sequence have fainter emission.
------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
(r)[2-4]{} (r)[5-7]{} log(M$_*$) below MS above below MS above
\[2mm\] $9.0<\textrm{log(M}_*)<9.5$ $ 1.43 \pm 0.28$ $ 1.24 \pm 0.06$ $ 1.12 \pm 0.06$ $ 1.17 \pm 0.03$ $ 1.24 \pm 0.01$ $ 1.17 \pm 0.03$
$9.5<\textrm{log(M}_*)<10.0$ $ 1.44 \pm 0.07$ $ 1.68 \pm 0.02$ $ 1.20 \pm 0.15$ $ 1.46 \pm 0.03$ $ 1.51 \pm 0.01$ $ 1.27 \pm 0.09$
$10.0<\textrm{log(M}_*)<10.5$ $ 1.90 \pm 0.14$ $ 1.99 \pm 0.05$ $ 1.95 \pm 0.08$ $ 1.78 \pm 0.08$ $ 1.83 \pm 0.02$ $ 1.82 \pm 0.09$
$10.5<\textrm{log(M}_*)< 11.0$ $ 1.68 \pm 0.11$ $ 2.60 \pm 0.08$ $ 3.14 \pm 0.49$ $ 1.57 \pm 0.02$ $ 2.22 \pm 0.05$ $ 1.86 \pm 0.13$
------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
\
\* For an exponential disk (n=1), the half-light radius is $r_e=1.678r_s$.
In the bottom panels of Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\] we show the radial profiles. The most obvious feature of these profiles is that EW() is *never* centrally peaked. is always flat or centrally depressed, indicating the is always equally or less centrally concentrated than the the emission. Above the main sequence, the is elevated at all radii. Below the main sequence, the is depressed at most radii. These trends are discussed more extensively in §7.4-5, where we convert the profiles to sSFR profiles.
Effects of orientation
======================
{width="90.00000%"}
In the previous sections we analyzed average images and radial profiles of emission with galaxies stacked as they were oriented on the detector. This methodology has the advantage that it allows for better control of systematics. In particular, we can effectively subtract the continuum out to large radii as we can use the radial distribution of the flux to correct for the $\leq5$% of flux missing from the continuum models. A galaxy’s position angle on the detector, however, is arbitrary and has no physical meaning.
Here we present stacks of galaxies rotated to be aligned along the major axis, as measured from the continuum emission. This is an important test of the idea that the emission originates in disks that are aligned with the stellar distribution: in that case these rotated stacks should have similar axis ratios as the rotated stacks. We divide the galaxies into the same mass bins as in the previous sections, and compare the most face-on vs. the most edge-on galaxies. The position angle and projected axis ratio ($q=B/A$) of each galaxy is measured from its image using GALFIT ([Peng]{} [et al.]{} 2002). We rotate the and images according to their position angle to align them along the major axis. In each mass bin, we then create face- and edge-on stacks from the galaxies with the highest and lowest 20% in projected axis ratio, respectively.
The distribution of projected axis ratios is expected to be broad if most galaxies are disk-dominated (see, e.g., van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014b). If we interpret the galaxy images as disks under different orientations, we would expect the stacks of galaxies with the highest 20% of projected axis ratios to have an average axis ratio of $\sim 0.9$ and the stacks of galaxies with the lowest 20% of projected axis ratios to be flattened with average axis ratios of $\sim 0.3$ (see van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014b). As shown in Fig. \[fig:rotStacks\] the rotated stacks are consistent with this expectation. Furthermore, the rotated stacks are qualitatively very similar to the rotated stacks, which means that the emission is aligned with that of the stars.
For the edge-on stacks, we measure the flattening of the emission and compare it to that of the emission. In the four mass bins, from low mass to high mass, we find $q(H\alpha)=[0.29\pm0.02,0.32\pm0.03,0.31\pm0.02,0.37\pm0.02]$ and $q(H_{F140W})=[0.28\pm0.01,0.27\pm0.01,0.29\pm0.01, 0.34\pm0.01]$ respectively, where the errors are determined from bootstrap resampling. We find that the average axis ratio of emission is $q(H_{F140W})=0.295 \pm 0.005$ and $q(H\alpha)=0.323 \pm 0.011$. We conclude that the is slightly less flattened than the emission, but the difference is only marginally significant.
There are physical reasons why can have an intrinsically larger scale height than the emission. Given that outflows are ubiquitous in the $z\sim2$ universe (e.g. [Shapley]{} [et al.]{} 2003; [Shapiro]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Newman]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Kornei]{} [et al.]{} 2012; F[ö]{}rster Schreiber [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a), it is possible that the would have a larger scale height due winds driving ionized gas out of the plane of the stellar disk. Furthermore, attenuation towards HII regions could be more severe in the midplane of the disk than outside of it. This would result in emission being less concentrated around the plane of the disk, giving a larger scale height. Finally, the gas disks and the stellar disks can be misaligned. The fact that the edge-on and stacks are so similar shows that all these effects are small.
At a more basic level, an important implication of the similarity of the stacks and the stacks is that it directly shows that we are not stacking noise peaks. If we were just stacking noise, a stack of galaxies flattened in would not be flattened in because the noise would not know about the shape of the emission. It is remarkable that this holds even for the lowest mass stack, which contains the galaxies with the lowest S/N ratio as well as the smallest disk scale lengths.
Discussion
==========
Thus far, we have only discussed direct observables: and . In this Section we explicitly interpret the radial profiles of as radial profiles of star formation and the radial profiles of as radial profiles of stellar surface density.
Interpreting and as SFR and Mass
----------------------------------
In §4 and §5, we showed the radial distribution of , , and . emission is typically used as a tracer of star formation, (rest-frame optical) emission as a proxy for stellar mass, and for the specific star formation rate (sSFR) (e.g. [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014b; [Tacchella]{} [et al.]{} 2015b, 2015a). We do the same here to gain more physical insight into the observed profiles. If we assume that traces star formation and traces stellar mass, the profiles can be scaled to these physical quantities using the integrated values. To derive mass surface density profiles, we ignore M/L gradients and apply the integrated $/L_{F140W}$ as a constant scale factor at all radii. Similarly, to derive star formation surface density profile, we ignore radial dust gradients and scale the profiles based on the integrated $SFR(UV+IR)/L_{H\alpha}$ ratio. The sSFR profile is then the quotient of the SFR and profiles. However, there are a number of caveats associated with interpreting the , , and profiles in this manner.
We first assess the assumption that there are no radial gradients in the SFR/ ratio. This assumption can be undermined in four ways: dust, AGN, winds, and metallicity, which have opposing effects. Dust will increase the SFR/ ratio by obscuring the ionizing photons from star forming regions. AGN, winds, and higher metallicity will reduce the SFR/ ratio, as they add ionizing photons that do not trace star formation. These aspects, and hence the extent to which a scaling from to SFR is a good assumption, themselves depend on stellar mass and star formation rate. Dust attenuation is correlated with stellar mass (e.g. [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2006, 2010; [Pannella]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011b; [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Momcheva]{} [et al.]{} 2013). At fixed mass, dust attenuation is also correlated with star formation rate ([Wang]{} & [Heckman]{} 1996; [Adelberger]{} & [Steidel]{} 2000; [Hopkins]{} [et al.]{} 2001; [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2006, 2010; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011b; [Sobral]{} [et al.]{} 2012; [Dom[í]{}nguez]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2015). Within galaxies, dust attenuation is anti-correlated with radius (e.g., [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2012), as it depends on the column density. This means that SFR and H$\alpha$ should trace each other reasonably well for low mass galaxies with low star formation rates, and particularly poorly in the the centers of massive, rapidly star-forming galaxies ([Nelson]{} [et al.]{} 2014; [van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2015). The same qualitative scalings with mass and star formation likely apply to the likelihood of an AGN being present, outflows, and the contamination of by \[N[ii]{}\]. That is, AGN are most likely to haunt the centers of massive, rapidly star-forming galaxies (e.g., [Rosario]{} [et al.]{} 2013; F[ö]{}rster Schreiber [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a). \[N[ii]{}\]/ is most likely to be enhanced above the assumed value in the centers of massive galaxies (as described in §3.3). Shocks from winds may contribute to the emission in the central regions, particularly at high masses ([Newman]{} [et al.]{} 2012; F[ö]{}rster Schreiber [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a). The takeaway here is that we are relatively confident interpreting as star formation at low masses, low SFRs, and all profiles outside of the center. We are less confident for the centers of the radial profiles of massive or highly star-forming galaxies. Next, we assess the assumption that there is no radial gradient in the M/L ratio. Dust and AGN affect the M/L in the same way as SFR/ although less strongly (e.g. [Calzetti]{} [et al.]{} 2000; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Marsan]{} [et al.]{} 2015; [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2015). Galaxies growing inside-out will also have gradients in their stellar population ages. Since older stellar populations have higher M/L ratios, these age gradients translate into M/L gradients. Age and dust increase / and AGN decrease it. Hence using as a proxy for is a fairly safe assumption at lower masses where age and dust gradients are small and AGN are rare. It is somewhat less certain at high masses. We also note that the contribution of the emission to the total flux is small, $\sim5\%$.
As the profile is the quotient of the and interpreting it as a profile of sSFR is accompanied by the amalgam of all of the above uncertainties: dust, age, AGN, and metallicity. This does not necessarily mean that the sSFR profile is more uncertain than the profiles of star formation and mass, as some effects cancel. In a two component dust model (e.g. [Calzetti]{}, [Kinney]{}, & [Storchi-Bergmann]{} 1994; [Charlot]{} & [Fall]{} 2000), the light from both stars and HII regions is attenuated by diffuse dust in the ISM. The light from the HII regions is attenuated additionally by dust in the undissipated birth clouds. Because the continuum and line emission will be affected equally by the diffuse dust, the profile will only be affected by the extra attenuation toward the stellar birth clouds, not the totality of the dust column. As a consequence, the effect of dust on the profiles is mitigated relative to the profiles. The quantity of extra attenuation towards HII regions remains a matter of debate with estimates ranging from none ([Erb]{} [et al.]{} 2006a; [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2010) to a factor of 2.3 ([Calzetti]{} [et al.]{} 2000; [Yoshikawa]{} [et al.]{} 2010; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2013) and many in between (e.g., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011b; Mancini [et al.]{} 2011; [Kashino]{} [et al.]{} 2013). As with the total attenuation, the quantity of extra attenuation toward HII regions appears to increase with and SFR ([Price]{} [et al.]{} 2014; [Reddy]{} [et al.]{} 2015). Reddy et al. (2015) find that extra attenuation becomes significant at SFR$\sim20{\rm M}_\odot/{\rm yr}$. If true, extra extinction should be taken into account for galaxies on the main sequence at the highest masses, and above the main sequence at ${\rm log(M}_*)>9.5$. The issue should be less acute for galaxies with low masses and SFRs. The only way to definitively resolve this question is to obtain spatially-resolved dust maps in the future.
Star formation in disks
-----------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
The center panel of Fig.\[fig:mphysProfs\] shows the radial distribution of SFR as a function of stellar mass derived by scaling the profiles to the total SFR(UV+IR). The radial distribution of SFR is consistent with being disk-dominated: as discussed in §4, an exponential provides a reasonably good fit to the profiles and the Sérsic indices are $1<n<2$. Out to $7r_s$, $\sim85\%$ of the can be accounted for by a single exponential disk fit. Approximately $15$% of the emission is in excess above an exponential: 5% from the center ($<0.5r_s$) and 10% from large radii ($>3r_s$).
Taken at face value the shape of the stacked profiles suggests that the star formation during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$ mostly happens in disks with the remainder building central bulges and stellar halos. In reality, of course, the universe is likely much more complicated. Radial dust gradients will make the star formation appear less centrally concentrated. Stacking galaxies of different sizes will make the star formation appear more centrally concentrated, as shown in the appendix. Additionally, the gas that traces can be ionized by physical processes other than star formation such as AGN, winds, or shock heating from the halo. So with the we observe we may also be witnessing the growth of black holes, excited gas being driven out of galaxies, or the shock heating of the inflowing gas that fuels star formation.
Interestingly, a common feature of the profiles is that they all peak at the center. If we interpret the as star formation, this means that at all masses, galaxies are building their centers. Although we caution that shocks from winds and AGN could add (F[ö]{}rster Schreiber [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014a) and dust attenuation could subtract from the centers of the profiles. That we observe to be centrally peaked was not necessarily expected: recently it was found that some massive galaxies at $z\sim 2$ have H$\alpha$ rings (see e.g. [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014b; [Tacchella]{} [et al.]{} 2015a), which have been interpreted as evidence for inside-out quenching. We note that our averaged profiles do not exclude the possibility that some individual galaxies have rings at $z\sim 1$, which are offset by galaxies with excess emission in the center.
Inside-out Growth
-----------------
The star formation surface density (as traced by ) is always centrally peaked but the sSFR (as traced by ) is never centrally peaked. Confirming Nelson [et al.]{} (2013) we find that, in general, is lower in the center than at larger radii. Confirming [Nelson]{} [et al.]{} (2012), we find that the effective radius of the emission is generally larger than the effective radius of the emission. This means that the emission is more extended and/or less centrally concentrated than the emission. If traces star formation and traces stellar mass, these results indicate that galaxies have radial gradients in their specific star formation rates: the sSFR increases with radius. If the centers are growing more slowly than the outskirts, galaxies will build outward, adding proportionally more stars at larger radii. This suggests that star formation is increasing the size of galaxies. However, galaxies are still building significantly at their centers (probably even more than we see due to the effects of dust) consistent with the fact that size growth due to star formation appears to be fairly weak (van Dokkum [et al.]{} 2013; van der Wel [et al.]{} 2014a; [van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2015).
Additionally, there appears to be a trend in $r_s(H\alpha)/r_s(H_{F140W})$ with mass. Below $3\times10^9\textrm{M}_{\odot}$, the and the roughly trace each other: the radial EW profile is flat and $r_s(H\alpha)\sim r_s(H_{F140W})$. As mass increases, becomes more extended than the emission: the EW() profile is increasingly centrally depressed and $r_s(H\alpha) > r_s(H_{F140W})$. This reflects the natural expectations of inside out growth and the shape of the sSFR- relation from both a physical and an observational standpoint.
Observationally, our tracers and may trace somewhat different things as a function of increasing stellar mass. At the low mass end, because low mass galaxies have such high sSFRs, it’s possible that the emission is dominated by light from young stars and is not actually a good tracer of stellar mass. This means that there may in fact be a difference in the disk scale lengths of the stellar mass and star formation but it is hard to detect because our proxy for is dominated by the youngest stars. At the high mass end, galaxies have more dust so star formation could be preferentially obscured at small radii. Consequently, the could appear to be less centrally concentrated than the star formation is in reality, making the inferred size larger (see e.g. [Simpson]{} [et al.]{} 2015). Taken together, these effects could contribute to the trend of increasing $r_s(H\alpha)/r_s(H_{F140W})$ with stellar mass. However, as described in §7.1, there are a number of other observational effects that work in the opposite direction, decreasing the $r_s(H\alpha)/r_s(H_{F140W})$ at high masses. Dust will also obscure the stellar continuum emission, meaning that the stellar mass could also be more concentrated than observed. Age gradients will also change the M/L ratio, again adding more stellar mass at the center. [Szomoru]{} [et al.]{} (2013) estimate that galaxies are $\sim25\%$ more compact in mass than in light. AGN contributing line emission to the profiles will also work to decrease this ratio by adding extra flux and decreasing the size of the star formation. In sum, it seems more likely that observational effects will increase the $r_s(H\alpha)/r_s(H_{F140W})$ with mass (and generally) than decrease it but as the effects act in both directions we cannot say with certainty which are more important.
While many observational effects could contribute to the the mass dependence of the size ratio, this effect may also have a physical explanation. More massive galaxies have older mean ages. This means that a larger fraction of their star formation took place at earlier cosmic times. Hence, it is perhaps then reasonable that their stellar mass – the integral of their past star formation history – would be more compact than the gas disks with ongoing star formation. On the other hand, low mass galaxies have younger mean ages, which means their mass-weighted sizes are closer to the sizes of their star forming disks.
Above and Below the Main Sequence
---------------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
Here we return to the profiles above and below the star-forming main sequence, that is, for galaxies with relatively high and relatively low star formation rates for their stellar mass. [Whitaker]{} [et al.]{} (2012) showed that the SEDs of galaxies above and below the main sequence are different from those on it. Above the main sequence, the SEDs are dusty but blue which they interpreted as indicative of AGN or merger-induced starbursts. Below the main sequences, the SEDs are not dusty but red, which they interpreted as indicative of star formation being shut down. Additionally, [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} (2011a) showed that galaxies above and below the main sequence were structurally more compact and centrally concentrated than galaxies on the star forming main sequence.
Hints as to what physical processes are driving a galaxy above or below the main sequence are given by these trends in stellar structure and SED shape. The next key piece of information is *where* the star formation is enhanced above and suppressed below the star forming sequence, which we show here. For instance, if the primary physical processes driving galaxies above the main sequence are AGN or central starbursts, we would expect to be enhanced in the center but not at larger radii. If quenching is driven by processes acting from the center and progressing from the inside outward, we would galaxies below the main sequence to have a decrease in primarily in the center.
We characterize galaxies with respect to the star formation main sequence using their total SFR(IR+UV)s which reflect the total obscured+unobscured ionizing flux from young stars. As described in §5.2, we find that above the main sequence, the is enhanced at all radii; below the above the main sequence the is depressed at all radii. In Fig.\[fig:physProfs\] we show SFR, , and sSFR profiles made by scaling our profiles using the integrated SFR(IR+UV)/SFR() and profiles using the integrated $/L_{F140W}$ with all the associated caveats described in §7.1. Because the integrated $/L_{F140W}$ decreases with increasing SFR at fixed mass, the offset in the light profiles shown in middle panels of Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\] disappears in the profiles shown middle panels of Fig.\[fig:physProfs\]. At fixed mass, galaxies are brighter above the main sequence and fainter below but the underlying mass profiles are fairly similar at all SFRs (although see next section for a discussion of the highest masses). On the other hand, the dust attenuation increases with increasing SFR at fixed mass. Acting in concert, dust and age mean that the profiles shown in the bottom panels of Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\] likely underestimate the true difference in sSFR above, on, and below the main sequence. In the bottom panels of Fig.\[fig:physProfs\] the trends in sSFR are enhanced after accounting for dust and age.
The most robust conclusion we can draw about the radial distribution of star formation, an inferred quantity, is that star formation in the disk between $2-6$kpc is enhanced above the main sequence and suppressed below the main sequence. This, in turn, has several important implications.
First, our results constrain the importance of AGN emission above the main sequence. One possibility is that galaxies above the star forming main sequence are there because the bright UV+IR emission of an AGN was incorrectly interpreted as star formation. In this case, the emission would be elevated in the center but the same as on the main sequence throughout the rest of the disk. This, however, is not what we observe: the in the disk from 2-6kpc is elevated, meaning that galaxies are not only above the main sequence due to misinterpreted AGN.
Second, because is an independent indicator of star formation, the fact that it is enhanced at all radii confirms that the scatter in the main sequence is real and due to variations in the star formation rate at fixed mass. If the observed main sequence scatter were due exclusively to measurement errors in the UV+IR SFRs, the should not be enhanced or depressed in concert, but it is.
Third, the profiles provide information on the importance of mergers and galaxy encounters “pushing” galaxies above the main sequence. It is well established that interaction-driven gravitational torques can funnel gas to the center of a galaxy inducing a burst of star formation (e.g., [Hernquist]{} 1989; [Barnes]{} & [Hernquist]{} 1991, 1996; [Mihos]{} & [Hernquist]{} 1996). However, in idealized merger simulations, [Moreno]{} [et al.]{} (2015) show that while star formation is enhanced in the central kpc of interacting galaxies, it is *suppressed* everywhere else. This is not what we observe: the in our stacks above the main sequence is enhanced at all radii; it is not enhanced in the central kpc and suppressed at larger galacto-centric radii. Some ambiguity is inherent in the interpretation of an average distribution of because the distribution of in individual galaxies could vary significantly from the average. Our stacking method cannot distinguish between local enhancements at random locations in the disk and global enhancement of the disks of individual galaxies. Nevertheless, our uniformly higher star formation rates suggest that major mergers are not the [*only*]{} physical process driving the elevated star formation in galaxies above the star forming main sequence.
Below the main sequence, it is possible the dominant processes suppressing star formation act primarily in the centers of galaxies where AGN live, bulges grow, and timescales are short. If this were the case, we would expect to be lower in the center of the galaxies but unchanged at large radii. Again, this is not what we observe: below the main sequence is suppressed at all radii, indicating that the physical mechanisms suppressing star formation must act over the whole disk, not exclusively the center.
Instead perhaps, for stellar masses below $\textrm{M}\sim3\times10^{10}\textrm{M}_\odot$, some cosmological hydrodynamic simulations ([Sparre]{} [et al.]{} 2015) and models ([Dutton]{}, [van den Bosch]{}, & [Dekel]{} 2010; [Kelson]{} 2014) have suggested that a galaxy’s position in the SFR- plane is driven by its mass accretion history. In this schema, galaxies living below the main sequence had early formation histories and galaxies above the main sequence had later formation histories. [Sparre]{} [et al.]{} (2015) show that in Illustris, most of the scatter in the star-forming main sequence is driven by these long scale ($\gtrsim500$Myr) features of galaxies’ formation trajectories rather than short-term stochasticity. [Dutton]{} [et al.]{} (2010) predict based on this model for main sequence scatter that the size of gas disks should be the same above and below the main sequence. Consistent with this prediction, for masses below $\textrm{M}\sim10^{10.5}\textrm{M}_\odot$, we do not see significant differences in sizes above and below the main sequence, although the error bars are large (see Table2 for values). The fact that the average radial distribution of does not have wildly different structure above and below the main sequence perhaps makes more sense in the context of scatter driven by longer timescale variations in the mass accretion history as opposed to some ubiquitous physical process. In other words, the similarity of the radial profiles appears consistent with a simple model in which the overall star formation rate scales with the gas accretion rate (averaged over some timescale) and the gas distributes itself in similar structures regardless of its accretion rate. It will be interesting to compare the observed gas distributions directly to those in galaxy formation models.
Regardless of the physical reasons, across the SFR- plane two important features are consistent. 1) The observed distribution is always centrally peaked. 2) The observed EW() is never centrally peaked.
Bulge growth and quenching at high masses?
------------------------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
![Relation between disk scale length and SFR in and emission for galaxies with $10.5<{\rm log(M_*)}<11.0$. In emission, the disk scale length is smaller above and below the main sequence than on it. In emission, the disk scale length below the main sequence remains smaller than on the main sequence but is larger above it. \[fig:highMsize\]](fig15.eps){width="50.00000%"}
While is enhanced at all radii in galaxies above the main sequence and suppressed at all radii below the main sequence, in the high mass bin ($\textrm{M}=10^{10.5}-10^{11}\textrm{M}_\odot$), the trends appear to have some radial dependence as well. To examine trends at high masses in more detail, in Fig.\[fig:highMprofs\] we show the same the radial profiles of , , and above, on and below the main sequence as in Figs.\[fig:obsprofs\] and \[fig:physProfs\]. Here we also normalize by the main sequence profiles to highlight differences.
Above the main sequence, there is a central excess in emission (left panels of Fig.\[fig:highMprofs\]). The cause of this excess is difficult to interpret: it could be due to an AGN or extra star formation in the central regions or both. As mentioned in §2.3, galaxies with X-ray luminosity $L_x>10^{42.5}{\rm erg\,\,s}^{-1}$ or a very obvious broad line component are excluded from the analysis in this paper. The excess central emission exists even when galaxies hosting obvious AGN are excluded. However, with a very conservative cut on broad line AGN in which galaxies with even marginal elongation in the spectral direction are excluded, the central excess in disappears. Hence, it is possible that this central enhancement is driven primarily by emission from AGN. If it is due to an AGN, it could suggest that supermassive black holes are growing in this region of parameter space. If it is due to star formation, it could indicate that bulge construction is underway, consistent with the growing prominence of bulges observed during this epoch ([Lang]{} [et al.]{} 2014). We note that because the IR/ in this bin is so high, it is likely that the excess in central ionizing flux (either from star formation or an AGN) would actually be even larger if it were not attenuated.
If the high SFRs in galaxies above the main sequence are fueled by elevated gas accretion rates, the disks of these galaxies are likely to be gas-rich. In these gas-rich environments, it has been suggested that gravitational torques induced by violent disk instability could drive gas rapidly inward by viscous and dynamical friction ([Noguchi]{} 1999; [Dekel]{}, [Sari]{}, & [Ceverino]{} 2009a; [Krumholz]{} & [Burkert]{} 2010; [Bournaud]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2011; [Forbes]{}, [Krumholz]{}, & [Burkert]{} 2012; [Cacciato]{}, [Dekel]{}, & [Genel]{} 2012; [Elmegreen]{}, [Zhang]{}, & [Hunter]{} 2012; [Dekel]{} [et al.]{} 2013; [Forbes]{} [et al.]{} 2014). Once in the center this gas could fuel the bulge and/or black hole growth evidenced by the excess central emission.
During the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$ in this mass range ($\textrm{M}=10^{10.5}-10^{11}\textrm{M}_\odot$) the quenched fraction roughly doubles (from $\sim30-60\%$). Since the SFRs of galaxies must fall below the main sequence on their way to quenchdom, this region of parameter space would be a good place to look for hints as to how galaxies quench. Relative to the main sequence, the below the main sequence appears to be depressed in the center (Fig.\[fig:highMprofs\] bottom left). The profile also appears depressed relative to the main sequence at larger radii, a manifestation of its smaller scale radius (Fig.\[fig:highMsize\]). That is, we find that below the main sequence, the star-forming disk of emission is both less centrally concentrated and more compact.
In addition to the in the centers of galaxies below the main sequence being depressed relative to galaxies on the main sequence, it is also depressed relative to the emission (Fig.\[fig:highMprofs\], top right). Interpreted as sSFR, this means that the stellar mass doubling time in the centers of these galaxies is significantly lower than at larger radii. Centrally depressed sSFR has been taken as evidence of inside-out quenching ([Tacchella]{} [et al.]{} 2015a). Here we show this for the first time explicitly below the main sequence where it is most straight-forward to interpret in the context of star formation quenching. That being said, it should be noted that although the is centrally depressed in two interesting relative senses (relative to the and relative to the main sequence ), in an absolute sense, the is *not* centrally depressed, it is centrally peaked. That is, on average, there is not a hole in the observed emission at the centers of massive galaxies below the main sequence. So while we may be seeing some suppression of star formation in the center of these galaxies below the main sequence, it is not ‘quenching’ in the standard sense of a complete cessation of star formation.
Our findings could be viewed in the context of an evolutionary pathway from bulge growth to quenching (e.g., [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} 2011a; [Lang]{} [et al.]{} 2014; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014b; [Tacchella]{} [et al.]{} 2015a). Consistent with [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} (2011a), we find excess central stellar continuum emission similarly above and below the star forming sequence. [Wuyts]{} [et al.]{} (2011a) suggests that this structural similarity could indicate an evolutionary link between the galaxies above and below the main sequence.
AGN can in principle drive gas out of the centers of their host galaxies, efficiently removing the fuel for star formation (see e.g., [Croton]{} [et al.]{} 2006). Large bulges are also in principle capable of stabilizing galaxy disks and suppressing star formation from the inside-out (‘gravitational quenching’ [Martig]{} [et al.]{} 2009; [Genzel]{} [et al.]{} 2014b). Observationally, it seems that regardless the physical cause, galaxies quench after reaching a stellar surface density threshold (e.g. [Franx]{} [et al.]{} 2008). Whatever process is underway above the main sequence, there are theoretical indications that it is capable of suppressing star formation. Some authors argue this occurs from the inside-out. The deep depression in in the centers of galaxies below the main sequence could be taken as evidence for one of these quenching mechanisms acting in this way.
One remaining mystery, as shown in Fig.\[fig:highMsize\] is that the disks have much smaller sizes below the main sequence than on or above it. It is possible that the galaxies below the main sequence formed earlier than the galaxies on or above the main sequence at this redshift and hence the galaxies above the main sequence are not actually direct progenitors of those below. It is also possible that these galaxies underwent some sort of compaction on their way to quenching (e.g. [Dekel]{} & [Burkert]{} 2014; [Zolotov]{} [et al.]{} 2015) The most robust thing we can say is that below the main sequence, seems to be both less centrally concentrated and less extended. How exactly this should be interpreted is unclear without the aid of simulations.
The average spatial distribution of star formation from $z=0.7-1.5$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
In §4&5 we determined the radial profiles of star formation as a function of and SFR. Here we briefly analyze the radial distribution of all star formation at this epoch, that is, at what distance from the center of a galaxy is a star most likely to form. The average image of all selected galaxies is shown in Fig.\[fig:avstar\]. This is the average spatial distribution of in galaxies during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$. Each galaxy has an map with a depth of 2 orbits on HST. We summed the maps of 2676 galaxies, creating the equivalent of a 5352 orbit image. This average image is deepest image in existence for galaxies at this epoch. With this stacked 5352 orbit HST image, we can trace the radial distribution of down to a surface brightness limit of $1\times10^{-18}\,\textrm{erg}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}\,\textrm{cm}^{-2}\,\textrm{arcsec}^{-2}$. This allows us to map the distribution of emission out to $\sim 14$kpc where the star formation surface density is $4\times10^{-4}\,\textrm{M}_\odot\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}\,\textrm{kpc}^{-2}$ ([Kennicutt]{} 1998).
Weighting the radial profile of by area shows its probability distribution. The probability distribution has a peak, the expectation value, at 0.75kpc. Note, we did not normalize by the flux here so the expectation value reflects the most likely place for a random HII region within a galaxy to exist. If we interpret as star formation then during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$, when $\sim33\%$ of the total star formation in the history of the universe occurred, the most likely place for a new star to be born was 0.75kpc from the center of its home galaxy.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we studied galaxy growth through star formation during the epoch $0.7<z<1.5$ through a new window provided by the WFC3 G141 grism on HST. This slitless grism spectroscopy from space, with its combination of high spatial resolution and low spectral resolution gives spatially resolved information, for 2676 galaxies over a large swath of the SFR- plane. can be used as a proxy for star formation, although there are many uncertainties (§7.1). The most important new observational result of our study is the behavior of the profiles above and below the main sequence: remarkably, star formation is enhanced at all radii above the main sequence, and suppressed at all radii below the main sequence (Fig.\[fig:physProfs\]). This means that the scatter in the star forming sequence is real. It also suggests that the primary mode of star formation is similar across all regions of this parameter space.
Across the expanse of the SFR- plane, the radial distribution of star formation can be characterized in the following way. Most of the star formation appears to occur in disks (Fig.\[fig:msprofs\]), which are well-aligned with the stellar distribution (Fig.\[fig:rotStacks\]). To first order, and stellar continuum emission trace each other quite well. On average, the surface density is always highest in the centers of galaxies, just like the stellar mass surface density. On the other hand, the , and the inferred specific star formation rate, is, on average, [*never*]{} highest in the centers of galaxies (Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\]). Taken at face value, this means that star formation is slightly more extended than the existing stars (Fig.\[fig:mass\_size\]), demonstrating that galaxies at this epoch are growing in size due to star formation.
The results in this study can be extended in many ways. In principle, the same dataset can be used to study the spatial distribution of \[O[iii]{}\] emission at higher redshifts, although it is more difficult to interpret and the fact that it is a doublet poses practical difficulties. With submm interferometers such as NOEMA and ALMA the effects of dust obscuration can be mapped. Although it will be difficult to match the resolution and sample size that we reach in this study, this is crucial as dust is the main uncertainty in the present analysis. Finally, joint studies of the evolution of the distribution of star formation and the stellar mass can provide constraints on the importance of mergers and stellar migration in the build-up of present-day disks.
, L. E., [Kelson]{}, D. D., [Dressler]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2014, , 785, L36
, K. L., & [Steidel]{}, C. C. 2000, , 544, 218
Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 410, 1391
, H., [Malkan]{}, M., [McCarthy]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2010, , 723, 104
, M., [White]{}, S. D. M., [Naab]{}, T., & [Scannapieco]{}, C. 2013, , 434, 3142
, J. E., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 1996, , 471, 115
, J. E., & [Hernquist]{}, L. E. 1991, , 370, L65
, P. S., [Marchesini]{}, D., [Wechsler]{}, R. H., [et al.]{} 2013, , 777, L10
, E. F., [Papovich]{}, C., [Wolf]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2005, , 625, 23
Boada, S., Tilvi, V., Papovich, C., [et al.]{} 2015, eprint arXiv:1503.00722, 1503.00722
, F., [Dekel]{}, A., [Teyssier]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 741, L33
, G., [Pirzkal]{}, N., [McCullough]{}, P., & [MacKenty]{}, J. 2014, [Time-varying Excess Earth-glow Backgrounds in the WFC3/IR Channel]{}, Tech. rep.
, G. B., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., & [Coppi]{}, P. 2008, , 686, 1503
, G. B., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 765, L2
, G. B., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012a, , 200, 13
, G. B., [S[á]{}nchez-Janssen]{}, R., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [et al.]{} 2012b, , 758, L17
Brennan, R., Pandya, V., Somerville, R. S., [et al.]{} 2015, eprint arXiv:1501.06840, 1501.06840
, J., [Charlot]{}, S., [White]{}, S. D. M., [et al.]{} 2004, , 351, 1151
Brooks, A. M., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Brook, C. B., & Wadsley, J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 396
, A. M., [Solomon]{}, A. R., [Governato]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2011, , 728, 51
Bruce, V. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., [et al.]{} 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 444, 1660
Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000
Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., [et al.]{} 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, L61
, M., [Dekel]{}, A., & [Genel]{}, S. 2012, , 421, 818
, D., [Armus]{}, L., [Bohlin]{}, R. C., [et al.]{} 2000, , 533, 682
, D., [Kinney]{}, A. L., & [Storchi-Bergmann]{}, T. 1994, , 429, 582
, G. 2003, , 115, 763
, S., & [Fall]{}, S. M. 2000, , 539, 718
, T., [Garilli]{}, B., [Le F[è]{}vre]{}, O., [et al.]{} 2012, , 539, A91
, D. J., [Springel]{}, V., [White]{}, S. D. M., [et al.]{} 2006, , 365, 11
, E., [Dickinson]{}, M., [Morrison]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2007, , 670, 156
Dalcanton, J. J., Spergel, D. N., & Summers, F. J. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 482, 659
Dale, D. A., & Helou, G. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 576, 159
, M., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 690, 937
Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 368, 2
, A., & [Burkert]{}, A. 2014, , 438, 1870
, A., [Sari]{}, R., & [Ceverino]{}, D. 2009a, , 703, 785
, A., [Zolotov]{}, A., [Tweed]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 435, 999
, A., [Birnboim]{}, Y., [Engel]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2009b, , 457, 451
, A., [Siana]{}, B., [Henry]{}, A. L., [et al.]{} 2013, , 763, 145
, A. A., & [van den Bosch]{}, F. C. 2012, , 421, 608
, A. A., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., & [Dekel]{}, A. 2010, , 405, 1690
, D., [Daddi]{}, E., [Le Borgne]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2007, , 468, 33
, B. G., [Zhang]{}, H.-X., & [Hunter]{}, D. A. 2012, , 747, 105
Epinat, B., Contini, T., Le F[è]{}vre, O., [et al.]{} 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 504, 789
, B., [Tasca]{}, L., [Amram]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2012, , 539, A92
, D. K., [Steidel]{}, C. C., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [et al.]{} 2006a, , 647, 128
—. 2006b, , 646, 107
, S. M., & [Efstathiou]{}, G. 1980, , 193, 189
Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., [et al.]{} 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, L107
, J., [Krumholz]{}, M., & [Burkert]{}, A. 2012, , 754, 48
, J. C., [Krumholz]{}, M. R., [Burkert]{}, A., & [Dekel]{}, A. 2014, , 438, 1552
, N. M., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [Erb]{}, D. K., [et al.]{} 2011a, , 731, 65
, N. M., [Genzel]{}, R., [Lehnert]{}, M. D., [et al.]{} 2006, , 645, 1062
, N. M., [Genzel]{}, R., [Bouch[é]{}]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2009, , 706, 1364
, N. M., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [Genzel]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2011b, , 739, 45
F[ö]{}rster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Newman, S. F., [et al.]{} 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 38
, M., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Schreiber]{}, N. M. F., [et al.]{} 2008, , 688, 770
Fumagalli, M., Patel, S. G., Franx, M., [et al.]{} 2012, eprint arXiv:1206.1867, 757, L22
, J. E., [Smail]{}, I., [Best]{}, P. N., [et al.]{} 2008, , 388, 1473
, S., [Fall]{}, S. M., [Hernquist]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.01117
, R., [Burkert]{}, A., [Bouch[é]{}]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2008, , 687, 59
, R., [Newman]{}, S., [Jones]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2011, , 733, 101
, R., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Rosario]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2014a, , 796, 7
, R., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Lang]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2014b, , 785, 75
Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., & Macchetto, F. D. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 470, 189
, V., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [Bouwens]{}, R. J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 713, 115
, F., [Brook]{}, C., [Mayer]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2010, , 463, 203
, N. A., [Kocevski]{}, D. D., [Faber]{}, S. M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 197, 35
Guedes, J., Callegari, S., Madau, P., & Mayer, L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 76
, L. 1989, , 340, 687
, A. M., [Connolly]{}, A. J., [Haarsma]{}, D. B., & [Cram]{}, L. E. 2001, , 122, 288
, S., [Haynes]{}, M. P., [Giovanelli]{}, R., & [Brinchmann]{}, J. 2012, , 756, 113
, C. B., & [Bryan]{}, G. L. 2012, , 749, 140
, T., [Ellis]{}, R. S., [Richard]{}, J., & [Jullo]{}, E. 2013, , 765, 48
, T., [Wang]{}, X., [Schmidt]{}, K. B., [et al.]{} 2015, , 149, 107
Karim, A., Schinnerer, E., Mart[í]{}nez-Sansigre, A., [et al.]{} 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 61
, D., [Silverman]{}, J. D., [Rodighiero]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2013, , 777, L8
, D. D. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1406.5191
, Jr., R. C. 1998, , 498, 541
Keres, D., Katz, N., Fardal, M., Dav[é]{}, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 395, 160
Keres, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav[é]{}, R. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 363, 2
, A. M., [Faber]{}, S. M., [Ferguson]{}, H. C., [et al.]{} 2011, , 197, 36
, K. A., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [Martin]{}, C. L., [et al.]{} 2012, , 758, 135
, M., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Franx]{}, M., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., & [Magee]{}, D. K. 2009, , 705, L71
, M., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [Reddy]{}, N. A., [Siana]{}, B. 2015, , 218, 15
, J. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. [Shaw]{}, H. E. [Payne]{}, & J. J. E. [Hayes]{}, 349
, M., & [Burkert]{}, A. 2010, , 724, 895
Labbe, I., Huang, J., Franx, M., [et al.]{} 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, L81
, P., [Wuyts]{}, S., [Somerville]{}, R. S., [et al.]{} 2014, , 788, 11
, J., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Franx]{}, M., & [Whitaker]{}, K. E. 2015, , 798, 115
, J., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Momcheva]{}, I., [et al.]{} 2013, , 778, L24
, Z., [Mo]{}, H. J., [Lu]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2014, , 439, 1294
, G. E., [Rigopoulou]{}, D., [Huang]{}, J.-S., & [Fazio]{}, G. G. 2010, , 401, 1521
, R., [Nagao]{}, T., [Grazian]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2008, , 488, 463
Mancini, C., F[ö]{}rster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., [et al.]{} 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 86
Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2013, eprint arXiv:1305.5360
, Z. C., [Marchesini]{}, D., [Brammer]{}, G. B., [et al.]{} 2015, , 801, 133
, M., [Bournaud]{}, F., [Teyssier]{}, R., & [Dekel]{}, A. 2009, , 707, 250
, J. C., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 1996, , 464, 641
Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 295, 319
, I. G., [Lee]{}, J. C., [Ly]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2013, , 145, 47
, J., [Torrey]{}, P., [Ellison]{}, S. L., [et al.]{} 2015, , 448, 1107
Mosleh, M., Williams, R. J., Franx, M., [et al.]{} 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, L12
, B. P., [Naab]{}, T., & [White]{}, S. D. M. 2013, , 428, 3121
, A., [van Dokkum]{}, P., [Kriek]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2010, , 725, 742
, D., [Genel]{}, S., [Vogelsberger]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 448, 59
, E., [van Dokkum]{}, P., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 513, 394
, E. J., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Brammer]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2012, , 747, L28
Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Momcheva, I., [et al.]{} 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, L16
, S. F., [Genzel]{}, R., [F[ö]{}rster-Schreiber]{}, N. M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 761, 43
, K. G., [Weiner]{}, B. J., [Faber]{}, S. M., [et al.]{} 2007, , 660, L43
, M. 1999, , 514, 77
Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Carollo, C. M., [et al.]{} 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, L21
, M., [Carilli]{}, C. L., [Daddi]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2009, , 698, L116
Papovich, C., Labb[é]{}, I., Quadri, R., [et al.]{} 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 26
Patel, S. G., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., [et al.]{} 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 15
, C. Y., [Ho]{}, L. C., [Impey]{}, C. D., & [Rix]{}, H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266
Peth, M. A., Lotz, J. M., Freeman, P. E., [et al.]{} 2015, eprint arXiv:1504.01751, 1504.01751
, S. H., [Kriek]{}, M., [Brammer]{}, G. B., [et al.]{} 2014, , 788, 86
, J., [Contini]{}, T., [Kissler-Patig]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 539, A93
, N. A., [Erb]{}, D. K., [Pettini]{}, M., [Steidel]{}, C. C., & [Shapley]{}, A. E. 2010, , 712, 1070
, N. A., [Steidel]{}, C. C., [Fadda]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2006, , 644, 792
, N. A., [Kriek]{}, M., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [et al.]{} 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1504.02782
, D. J., [Santini]{}, P., [Lutz]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 771, 63
Ro[š]{}kar, R., Debattista, V. P., Stinson, G. S., [et al.]{} 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, L65
, L. V., [Navarro]{}, J. F., [Schaye]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 409, 1541
, L. V., [Navarro]{}, J. F., [Theuns]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2012, , 423, 1544
, S., [Rich]{}, R. M., [Charlot]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2007, [UV Star Formation Rates in the Local Universe]{}, arXiv:0704.3611
Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., [et al.]{} 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 138
, S., [Glazebrook]{}, K., [Le Borgne]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 635, 260
Scannapieco, C., Wadepuhl, M., Parry, O. H., [et al.]{} 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 423, 1726
, K. L., [Genzel]{}, R., [Quataert]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2009, , 701, 955
, A. E., [Steidel]{}, C. C., [Pettini]{}, M., & [Adelberger]{}, K. L. 2003, , 588, 65
Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., [et al.]{} 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 88
, S., [Mo]{}, H. J., [White]{}, S. D. M., [et al.]{} 2003, , 343, 978
, J. M., [Smail]{}, I., [Swinbank]{}, A. M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 81
, R. E., [Whitaker]{}, K. E., [Momcheva]{}, I. G., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.3689
, D., [Best]{}, P. N., [Matsuda]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2012, , 420, 1926
, D., [Best]{}, P. N., [Geach]{}, J. E., [et al.]{} 2009, , 398, 75
, M., [Hayward]{}, C. C., [Springel]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2015, , 447, 3548
, G. S., [Bovy]{}, J., [Rix]{}, H.-W., [et al.]{} 2013, , 436, 625
, J. P., [Sobral]{}, D., [Swinbank]{}, A. M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 443, 2695
Swinbank, M., Smail, I., Sobral, D., [et al.]{} 2012, eprint arXiv:1206.1867
, D., [Franx]{}, M., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [et al.]{} 2013, , 763, 73
, S., [Carollo]{}, C. M., [Renzini]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2015a, Science, 348, 314
, S., [Lang]{}, P., [Carollo]{}, C. M., [et al.]{} 2015b, , 802, 101
, S., [van Dokkum]{}, P., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2007, , 671, 285
Trujillo, I., Forster Schreiber, N. M., Rudnick, G., [et al.]{} 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 18
, H., [Naab]{}, T., [Oser]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2014, , 443, 2092
van den Bosch, F. C. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 327, 1334
, A., [Bell]{}, E. F., [H[ä]{}ussler]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2012, , 203, 24
van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., [et al.]{} 2014a, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 28
van der Wel, A., Chang, Y.-Y., Bell, E. F., [et al.]{} 2014b, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, L6
, P. G., [Franx]{}, M., [Fabricant]{}, D., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., & [Kelson]{}, D. D. 2000, , 541, 95
, P. G., [Whitaker]{}, K. E., [Brammer]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2010, , 709, 1018
, P. G., [Brammer]{}, G., [Fumagalli]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 743, L15
van Dokkum, P. G., Leja, J., Nelson, E. J., [et al.]{} 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, L35
, P. G., [Nelson]{}, E. J., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1506.03085
, B., & [Heckman]{}, T. M. 1996, , 457, 645
, K. E., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Brammer]{}, G., & [Franx]{}, M. 2012, , 754, L29
, K. E., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [et al.]{} 2011, , 735, 86
, K. E., [Franx]{}, M., [Leja]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 795, 104
White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 183, 341
, R. J., [Quadri]{}, R. F., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2010, , 713, 738
, E., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Wuyts]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 209
, E., [Kurk]{}, J., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 789, L40
, S., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [Schreiber]{}, N. M. F., [et al.]{} 2008, , 682, 985
, S., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [Franx]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2007, , 655, 51
, S., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [van der Wel]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011a, , 742, 96
, S., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Lutz]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2011b, , 738, 106
, S., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Genzel]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2012, , 753, 114
, S., [F[ö]{}rster Schreiber]{}, N. M., [Nelson]{}, E. J., [et al.]{} 2013, , 779, 135
, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Zhang]{}, Y., & [Han]{}, J. 2012, , 752, 41
, T., [Akiyama]{}, M., [Kajisawa]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2010, , 718, 112
, T.-T., [Kewley]{}, L. J., [Swinbank]{}, A. M., [Richard]{}, J., & [Livermore]{}, R. C. 2011, , 732, L14
, H. J., [Geller]{}, M. J., [Kewley]{}, L. J., [et al.]{} 2013, , 771, L19
, X. Z., [Bell]{}, E. F., [Papovich]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2007, , 661, L41
, A., [Dekel]{}, A., [Mandelker]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2015, , 450, 2327
Appendix
========
In this paper we investigate the average radial distribution of emission by stacking the maps of individual galaxies and computing the flux in circular apertures on this stack. With this methodology, we average over the distribution of inclination angles, position angles, and sizes of galaxies that go into each stack. The simplicity of this method has a number of advantages. First, it requires no assumptions about the intrinsic properties of galaxies. Second, it allows us to measure the average size of the distribution in the star forming disk. Finally, because the image plane is left in tact, we can correct for the PSF.
To complement this analysis, here we present the average deprojected, radially-normalized distribution of . We do this to test the effect of projection and a heterogenous mix of sizes on the shape of the radial profile of , to ensure trends were not washed out with the simpler methodology employed in the rest of the paper.
To do this, we use GALFIT ([Peng]{} [et al.]{} 2002) to derive the effective radius, axis ratio, and position angle of each galaxy from its stellar continuum image. We correct for the inclination angle of each galaxy by deprojecting the (x,y) pixel grid of it’s image based on the inclination angle implied by the axis ratio. The surface brightness profile is computed by measuring the flux in deprojected radial apertures. In practice, this is done simply by extracting the radial profile of each galaxy in elliptical apertures defined by the position angle, axis ratio, and center of the image. The extraction apertures were normalized by the effective radius of each galaxy. A radial profile in deprojected, $r_e$-normalized space is derived for each galaxy. These individual galaxy profiles are flux-normalized by their integrated magnitude and summed to derive the mean radial distribution.
The average de-projected, $r_e$-normalized radial profiles of , , and are shown in Fig.\[fig:NFSprofs\]. In general, the qualitative trends seen here are the same as those described in the main text. For the region $0.5<r_e<3$ the radial profile of remains consistent with an exponential all masses, above, on, and below the star forming sequence. The radial profiles of both and are somewhat less centrally peaked than the analogous profiles in Fig.\[fig:obsprofs\]. This is expected of disk-dominated galaxies under different orientation angles as flux from the disk of edge-on galaxies could be projected onto the center. Additionally, stacking galaxies of different sizes can result in a somewhat steeper (higher n) profile than the individual galaxies that went into it (see [van Dokkum]{} [et al.]{} 2010). Because the shapes of the and profiles are similarly effected by deriving the profiles with this different methodology, the shape of the profiles remain largely unchanged.
{width="\textwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1000
Quasi-one-dimensional (quasi-1D) magnetic systems have recently received renewed experimental and theoretical attention with the observation of the spin-Peierls transition in the two inorganic CuGeO$_3$ [@hase] and NaV$_2$O$_5$ [@isobe; @ohama; @weiden] compounds which consist of weakly coupled spin-1/2 chains [@horsch]. While such a phenomenon was discovered in organic materials [@organics], the new inorganic compounds can be synthesised as relatively large single crystals allowing for new experimental studies [@hase; @isobe; @ohama; @weiden; @regnault; @NMR; @x-rays; @ain; @raman].
The phase transition was inferred from an isotropic drop in the magnetic susceptibility [@hase] at a transition temperature T$_{\mathrm{SP}}$ signalling a non-magnetic ground state (GS). The spin-Peierls transition is characterized by the opening of a spin gap, as has been observed by inelastic neutron scattering [@regnault] (INS) and NMR spectroscopy [@NMR; @ohama], accompanied by a distortion of the lattice observed in x-ray diffraction experiments [@x-rays].
The formation at low temperature of a non magnetic GS has raised the possibility of observing topological magnetic excitations (solitons) as proposed theoretically in spin-$1/2$ frustrated Heisenberg spin chains [@haldane] (the so called $J_1-J_2$ model, where $J_1$ and $J_2=\alpha J_1$ are the nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor exchange couplings, respectively). At the Majumdar-Ghosh (MG) point, $\alpha=0.5$, the GS is doubly degenerate corresponding to the two simple dimer patterns (called A and B) obtained by a regular succession of disconnected singlet (valence) bonds. In fact, for all $\alpha>\alpha_c$ ($\alpha_c\approx
0.241$) [@haldane; @crit; @castilla; @white] the GS was numerically shown to be dimerized. The elementary excitations in this phase are easily depicted at the MG point: a soliton $s$ (antisoliton $\bar{s}$) consists of an unpaired spin separating two dimer patterns A (B) and B (A) [@shastry]. These objects carry spin $\frac{1}{2}$ and can propagate thereby acquiring a dispersion. A spin-$1$ magnon excitation can be viewed as the excitation of a singlet bond into a triplet. However, in the $J_1-J_2$ model, such excitations decay into unbound soliton and antisoliton excitations.
The spin-Peierls materials are widely described in the literature [@boucher] in terms of a static 1D antiferromagnetic frustrated dimerized Heisenberg chain [@lieb] which includes, in addition to the frustrating magnetic $J_2$ coupling, an explicit dimerization $\delta$ of $J_1$ [@pytte]. Interchain interactions are neglected in this description. The values of $J_1$ and $J_2$ were estimated from a fit of the magnetic susceptibility at high temperature and the dimerization $\delta$ by requiring the model to have the experimental spin gap. Typical results such as $J_1$=160 K, $\alpha=0.36$, $\delta=0.014$ were obtained for CuGeO$_3$ [@riera; @castilla] and $J_1$=440 K, $\alpha=0$, $\delta=0.048$ for NaV$_2$O$_5$ [@weiden; @augier1]. The $J_1-J_2-\delta$ model successfully predicts [@fledder; @poilblanc] the experimentally observed $s\bar{s}$ bound state [@regnault; @ain]. Indeed, the static potential of strength $\delta$ lifts the degeneracy between the two dimer A and B patterns. Therefore the energy cost of creating a A–B–A defect scales approximately as the length of the B structure. A confining force proportional to $\delta$ and to the separation between $s$ and $\bar{s}$ comes then naturally out [@affleck; @uhrig; @werner]. Besides the spin-$1$ magnons, this also suggests the existence of singlet $s\bar{s}$ bound states [@uhrig; @nuthukumar; @georges] which could be seen e.g. in Raman spectroscopy [@raman].
The static dimerized model has, nevertheless, some drawbacks. It shows no spontaneous symmetry breaking (since the dimerization is introduced [*de facto*]{} in the model) and ignores phonon dynamics which are expected to be important when the phonon frequency and the energy scale of spin fluctuations become comparable.
In this Letter we investigate a [*dynamical*]{} spin-phonon model which fully incorporates the phonon dynamics. A weak coupling renormalization group (RG) treatment [@zimanyi] is used to argue that this model spontaneously dimerizes even in the absence of interchain coupling (at $T=0$) for large enough spin-phonon coupling at all phonon frequency. Complementary numerical calculations are needed for arbitrary parameters and show that this spontaneous dimerization (accompanied by a simultaneous opening of a gap in the spin excitation spectrum) occurs in fact in a wide range of parameter space. The elementary excitations are characterized as solitons. We show the absence of $s\bar{s}$ binding for decoupled chains. However, in the presence of an elastic interchain coupling sharp spin-$1$ magnon excitations are recovered in the dynamical structure factor. Therefore we believe that a correct description of real materials must include the interchain coupling [@uhrig2].
The key ingredient of the model is the magneto-elastic coupling; the exchange integral is [*dynamically*]{} modulated by the relative atomic displacements along the chains. Using independent phonon creation (destruction) operators $b_i^{\dagger}$ ($b_i^{\phantom\dagger}$) on each bond (i,i+1) the model reads [@khomskii; @affleck], $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
H&=&J \sum_i [(1+g (b_i^{\phantom\dagger}
+b_i^\dagger))(\vec{S}_{i}.\vec{S}_{i+1}-\frac{1}{4})\\
\nonumber
&+&\alpha (\vec{S}_{i}.\vec{S}_{i+2}-\frac{1}{4})]
+H^0_{\mathrm{ph}}+H_\perp,\end{aligned}$$ where g is the magneto-elastic coupling constant. Here, we assume dispersionless optical phonons of frequency $\Omega$ [*i.e.*]{} $H^0_{\mathrm{ph}}=\Omega \sum_i(b_i^\dagger b_i^{\phantom\dagger}
+\frac{1}{2})$. Presumably a model with on-site phonons will lead to similar results, however, the model used here is probably the more relevant to CuGeO$_3$ [@geerstma]. The interchain elastic coupling $H_\perp$ will be discussed later.
The numerical results are based on Lanczos exact diagonalization (ED) [@poilblanc_ed] of closed rings with up to L=14 sites supplemented by finite size scaling analysis and a comparison with Bethe Ansatz exact results of the Heisenberg chain and Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) calculations of the frustrated $J_1$–$J_2$ chain. A reliable treatment of the phonon dynamics is a difficult task. Preliminary studies have been carried out by considering a single $q=\pi$ phonon mode [@augier2]. However, to investigate the [*local*]{} $s\bar{s}$ interaction it becomes necessary to consider the complete multi-mode problem [@sandvik]. We use here the variational treatment introduced by Fehrenbacher based on phononic coherent states. Two phononic states per site are retained including the vacuum and a phononic coherent state. This approach is non perturbative, preserves the full dynamics of the phonons, and becomes exact in the weak and strong coupling limits [@fehrenbacher].
As a first step, we shall consider the case of an isolated spin-phonon chain ($H_\perp=0$). A RG argument similar to the one proposed in Ref. [@zimanyi] can be used for this model for small $g^2\Omega/J$. Due to the SU(2) symmetry and the absence of charge excitations there is only one instantaneous interaction $h$, with a positive bare value, which is marginally irrelevant [@affleck]. Integrating out the phonons generates a retarded electron-electron interaction $\tilde{h}$ with a bare value $\tilde{h}(0)\approx -cg^2 J/\Omega$ (c is a positive constant). One can then renormalize both types of interactions down to energies of the order of the phonon frequency. Below that scale, all interactions become essentially instantaneous leading to an effective Hamiltonian with new instantaneous interactions obtained by adding the retarded renormalized coupling $\tilde{h}(\Omega)$ to the instantaneous one $h(\Omega)$. The RG equations are [@zimanyi] $h'=h^2$ and $\tilde{h}'=\frac{3}{2}h\tilde{h}+\tilde{h}^2$, involving the derivatives with respect to the logarithm of the energy scale. If the shift is large enough to change the sign of the instantaneous coupling ([*i.e.*]{} $h(\Omega)+\tilde{h}(\Omega)<0$), the system is in the spontaneously dimerized phase. This scenario always occurs for a large enough coupling such that $cg^2>\Omega h(0)/(2J)$ in the limit $\Omega \ll J$.
We now show numerically the existence of a $T=0$ spontaneous symmetry breaking towards a dimerized phase in a large region of parameter space. The dimerized phase is signalled, in the thermodynamic limit, by (i) the two fold degeneracy of the GS, (ii) the opening of a spin gap and (iii) a lattice dimerization. The singlet-triplet spin gap $\Delta^{01}(L)$ as well as the separation $\Delta^{00}(L)$ between the singlet GS in the $K=0$ and $K=\pi$ momentum sectors were seen to scale accurately according to exponential laws [@georges; @augier1]. The data strongly suggest $\Delta^{00}=0$, a first evidence for a symmetry breaking in the GS. In addition, a finite extrapolated value of the spin gap $\Delta^{01}$ was obtained for a wide range of parameters. As shown in Fig. \[para\], $\Delta^{01}$ increases strongly with the magneto-elastic coupling $g$. Lower frequency phonons were found even more effective in opening the spin gap.
Then, to gain more insight we have computed the structural distortion associated to the broken symmetry. The GS correlation function $C_{\mathrm{latt}}(q)=\langle u_{-q}
u_q\rangle_0$ of the Fourier components $u_q=L^{-1/2}\sum_i\exp(iqr_i) u_i$ of the relative lattice displacements ($u_i=b_i^{\phantom\dagger}+b_i^\dagger$) exhibits a divergence at momentum $q=\pi$ of the form $C_{\mathrm{latt}}(\pi)\propto L$. The dimerization $\delta^*$ of the exchange integral is defined by $\delta^{*2}=g^2\ \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} \{L^{-1}C_{\mathrm{latt}}(\pi)\}$. $\delta^*$ obtained from a finite size scaling analysis is shown in Fig. \[para\] for $\alpha=0$ and $\Omega=0.3J$. Its $g$ dependence follows closely the behavior of the spin gap. According to the previous RG analysis, $\delta^*$ should be non zero above a critical coupling, which is consistent with numerical results.
We now turn to the characterization of the elementary magnetic excitations in the dimerized GS. If topological solitons exist in the spin-phonon model such excitations should be created in pairs. However, finite chains with an odd number of sites cannot accommodate a simple dimerized pattern and the GS of such a system is expected to contain a single solitonic excitation. Therefore, the energy difference defined by $E_S(k)=E_{\mathrm{odd}}^0(L,k)-E_{\mathrm{even}}^{0}(L)$, where $E_{\mathrm{odd}}^0(L,k)$ is the GS energy of the chain of length $L=2p+1$ with momentum $k$ and $E_{\mathrm{even}}^0(L)$ is the absolute GS energy of even chains interpolated at $L=2p+1$, can be considered as the excitation energy of a spin-$1/2$ topological defect propagating with a momentum $k$ along the chain. Note that, consequently soliton energies cannot be computed in models including an explicit translation symmetry breaking, like e.g. the dimerized Heisenberg chain. To test the accuracy of this procedure, we have compared our results for the spin-phonon model to the ones obtained for the purely magnetic $J_1$–$J_2$ chain at the MG point where the spin correlation length is the shortest. In both cases, ED of periodic chains show a dispersion which can be parametrized as $E_S(k)\simeq\sqrt{\Delta_S^2+v_S^2(k\mp\pi/2)^2}$, where $\Delta_S$ is the soliton gap and $v_S$ a characteristic velocity. The lowest excitation in a finite system is then obtained for the momentum which is closest to $\pi/2$ [@sca1]. For the spin-phonon model, $\Delta_S$ appears to be finite for a wide region of parameter space (see Fig. \[soliton\](a)). Hence, the spin-$1/2$ excitation spectrum is massive indicating the existence of solitons contrary to the case of the Heisenberg chain where spin-$1/2$ excitations (called spinons) are gapless [@descloiseaux], as explicitly shown in Fig. \[soliton\](a) using the Bethe Ansatz solution for $\alpha=0$ [@sca2]. The soliton gap should not depend on boundary conditions, and using DMRG data for open chains [@sca1], we find $\Delta_S\simeq0.1170(2)J$ at the MG point in the absence of a spin-phonon coupling in good agreement with the estimate in Ref. [@shastry] of $\Delta_S\simeq0.125J$.
Spin-$1$ magnons can be considered as a $s\bar{s}$ combination in a triplet state. Consequently, the excitation triplet and [*second*]{} singlet gaps are written as $\Delta^{ab}\simeq 2\Delta_S+E_B^{ab}$, where $E_B^{ab}$ accounts for a finite range spin-dependent interaction between $s$ and $\bar{s}$. $E_B^{ab}$ is finite only if the $s\bar{s}$ combination forms a bound state, otherwise it vanishes and $s$ and $\bar{s}$ separate to infinity. The latter scenario occurs for example in the spontaneously ($\alpha>\alpha_c$) dimerized frustrated Heisenberg chain [@affleck] where $\Delta^{00}=\Delta^{01}$. However, in the case of spin-phonon models, a direct comparison between $\Delta^{00}$ and $\Delta^{01}$ requires some caution: low energy spin-$0$ excitations of phononic character are likely to exist and are indistinguishable from the magnetic singlet $s\bar{s}$ excitations. The triplet binding energy $E_B^{01}=\Delta^{01}-2\Delta_S$ can nevertheless be calculated on closed rings and ED results are shown in Fig. \[soliton\](b). The data for the spin-phonon model are very similar to the DMRG data on open chains at the MG point (also shown in Fig. \[soliton\](b)) strongly suggesting a vanishing binding energy for all parameters. This is consistent with the weak coupling RG treatment: one obtains an effective field theory similar to the one describing the pure spin system (with renormalized coupling constants) and no bound state is expected [@affleck]. We conclude that solitons and antisolitons are not bound in the 1D spin-phonon model.
Because of the decay of the $s\bar{s}$ pair, we do not expect any sharp $\delta$-function structure in the low frequency spin structure factor. The latter which can be experimentally obtained by INS is defined as $S_{zz}(q,\omega)=\sum_n |\langle\Phi_n|S_z(q)|\Phi_0\rangle|^2
\delta(\omega-E_n+E_0),$ where $E_0$ ($E_n$) is (are) the energy(ies) of the GS $\Phi_0$ (triplet states $\Phi_n$) and $S_z(q)$ is the Fourier transform of $S_z^i$. Results for the spin-phonon model on a 12 site chain are shown in Fig. \[szzqw\](a) for realistic parameters of NaV$_2$O$_5$ ([*i.e.*]{} leading to a spin gap $\Delta^{01}\simeq0.2J$) and are strikingly different from those obtained for a static dimerization [@augier1]. The main structure, although reminiscent of the well-known spinon dispersion of the Heisenberg chain ($\omega(q)=\frac{\pi}{2}J|\sin{q}|$) [@descloiseaux], is shifted towards higher energies and is much broader. Furthermore, the relative weight of the low energy peak (e.g. at $q=\pi/2$) decreases for increasing system size. Consistent with the previous analysis, there are no well defined spin-1 magnons.
Next, we argue that the interchain coupling is crucial in order to produce well defined magnon excitations as experimentally observed. To test this scenario we have considered an elastic interchain coupling of the form [@affleck], $H_\perp=K_\perp\sum_i
\sum_{\langle\gamma,\gamma'\rangle} u_i^\gamma u_i^{\gamma'}$, where $\langle\gamma,\gamma'\rangle$ refers to adjacent chains. We shall treat this interchain elastic coupling at the mean field level [@khomskii; @affleck], while retaining the full dynamics of the 1D phonons. A given chain $\gamma$ will then be elastically coupled to the static deformation $\langle u_i^{\gamma'}\rangle_0=(-1)^i u_0 $ of the $Z$ neighboring chains. Consequently we get an additional [*dynamical*]{} term, $H_{\perp,\mathrm{MF}}=\lambda \sum_i (-1)^i
(b_i^{\phantom\dagger}+b_i^\dagger)$ where $\lambda=ZK_\perp u_0$ which explicitly doubles the unit cell.
Turning on a small mean field interchain coupling $\lambda$ in the absence of frustration could again favor one of the two lattice distortions and confine solitons into pairs, in which case a number of $s\bar{s}$ stable bound states proportional to $1/\lambda$ (in the limit $\lambda\ll J$) would be expected [@affleck]. Although the previous analysis on soliton binding cannot be done anymore, we give further arguments in favor of soliton binding based on the study of the dynamical structure factor. This one is shown on Fig. \[szzqw\](b) for parameters relevant to NaV$_2$O$_5$ with a non-zero value of $\lambda$. Qualitatively, the low energy magnon structure is now much better defined and the magnon dispersion is clearly apparent. The maximum of the dispersion occurs at $\omega\approx1.7J$, an energy close to the exact value $\frac{\pi}{2}J$ of the Heisenberg chain [@descloiseaux]. At momentum $q=\pi/2$ where finite size effects are shown to be quite small [@poilblanc; @augier1], the average frequency $\langle \omega \rangle$ and the width $\Delta\omega$ of the structure depend strongly on the presence of an interchain coupling. The structure clearly gets narrower when the interchain coupling increases. Furthermore, when $\lambda\ne 0$ the relative weight of the lowest energy peak increases with the length of the chain, contrary to the case of the isolated chain.
We thank IDRIS (Orsay) for allocation of CPU time on the C94 and C98 CRAY supercomputers. The research of IA is supported in part by NSERC of Canada.
M. Hase, I. Terasaki, and K. Uchinokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3651 (1993).
M. Isobe and Y. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{}, 1178 (1996).
T. Ohama [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{}, 545 (1997).
M. Weiden [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. B [**103**]{}, 1 (1997).
See e.g. H. Horsch and F. Mack, cond-mat/9801316 (unpublished) for the case of NaV$_2$O$_5$.
See J. W. Bray [*et al.*]{}, in [*Extended Linear Chain Compounds*]{}, edited by J. S. Miller (Plenum Press, New York, 1983), Vol. [**3**]{}.
L. P. Regnault [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 5579 (1996).
M. Itoh [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 11 606 (1996).
J. P. Pouget [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 4037 (1994); Y. Fujii [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{}, 326 (1997).
M. Aïn [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1560 (1997).
P. van Loosdrecht [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 311 (1996); P. van Loosdrecht, cond-mat/9711091 (unpublished); S. A. Golubchik [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/9711048 (unpublished).
F. M. D. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 4925 (1982).
K. Okamoto and K. Nomura, Phys. Lett. A [**169**]{}, 433 (1992); R. Chitra [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 6581 (1995).
G. Castilla, S. Chakravarty and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1823 (1995).
S. R. White and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 9862 (1996).
B. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. Lett [**47**]{}, 964 (1981).
For a review see e.g. J. P. Boucher and L. P. Regnault, J. Phys. I (Paris) [**6**]{}, 1939 (1996).
E. H. Lieb and B. Nachtergaele, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 4777 (1995).
E. Pytte, Phys. Rev. B [**10**]{}, 4 637 (1974); M. C. Cross and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev B [**19**]{}, 402 (1979).
J. Riera and A. Dobry, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 16 098 (1995).
D. Augier [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, R5732 (1997).
A. Fledderjohann and C. Gros, Europhys. Lett. [**37**]{}, 189 (1997).
D. Poilblanc [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, R11 941 (1997).
I. Affleck, Proceedings of the NATO ASI: Dynamical properties of Unconventional Magnetic Systems, April, 1997, cond-mat/9705127, to be published.
G. Uhrig and H. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, R9624 (1996).
R.Werner and C.Gros, cond-mat/9705099 (unpublished).
V. N. Nuthukumar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, R9635 (1996).
G. Bouzerar, A. P. Kampf and F. Schönfeld, cond-mat/9701176 (unpublished).
G. T. Zimanyi, S. A. Kivelson, and A. Luther, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2089 (1988);L. Caron and C. Bourbonnais, Phys. Rev. B [**29**]{}, 4230 (1984).
G. S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**79**]{}, 163 (1997).
D. Khomskii, W. Geerstma and M. Mostovoy, Czech. J. of Phys. [**46**]{}, Suppl S6, 32 (1996).
W. Geerstma and D. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 3011 (1996).
D. Poilblanc, in [*Numerical Methods for Strongly Correlated Systems*]{}, edited by D. J. Scalapino (Frontiers in Physics, 1997); E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 763 (1994).
D. Augier and D. Poilblanc, Eur. Phys. J. B [**1**]{}, 19 (1998).
See A. W. Sandvik, R. R. P. Singh and D. K. Campbell, cond-mat/9706046 (unpublished) for a QMC approach.
The method was shown to be also accurate in the intermediate range: R. Fehrenbacher, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 12 230 (1994) and Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2288 (1996).
If $\Delta_S\ne0$, one expects $1/L^2$ corrections in the energy.
J. Des Cloiseaux and J. J. Pearson, Phys. Rev. [**128**]{}, 2131 (1962).
In this case, $E_S\propto 1/L$ (with logarithmic corrections).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we prove that for a given biquaternion algebra over a field of characteristic two, one can move from one symbol presentation to another by at most three steps, such that in each step at least one entry remains unchanged. If one requires that in each step two entries remain the same then their number increases to fifteen. We provide even more basic steps that in order to move from one symbol presentation to another one needs to use up to forty-five of them.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel'
author:
- Adam Chapman
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: Chain Lemma for Biquaternion Algebras in Characteristic 2
---
Chain lemma, common slot lemma, biquaternion algebra, quaternion algebra, characteristic 2, quadratic forms primary 16A28, 16K20; secondary 15A18, 16H05
Introduction
============
Every quaternion algebra over a field $F$ has a symbol presentation $$[\alpha,\beta)=F[x,y : x^2+x=\alpha, y^2=\beta, x y+y x=y]$$ if $F$ is of characteristic $2$, and $$(\alpha,\beta)=F[x,y : x^2=\alpha, y^2=\beta, x y=-y x]$$ if $F$ is of characteristic not $2$, for some $\alpha,\beta \in F$.
A biquaternion algebra is a tensor product of two quaternion algebras. If $[\alpha,\beta)$ and $[\gamma,\beta)$ are symbol presentations of the quaternion algebras, then $[\alpha,\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta)$ is a symbol presentation of the biquaternion algebra. By a chain lemma we mean a theorem that provides a list of basic steps with which one can obtain from one symbol presentation of the biquaternion algebra all the other symbol presentations.
An element $x$ in the algebra is called Artin-Schreier if it satisfies $x^2+x \in F$ and square-central if $x^2 \in F$.
The chain lemma for biquaternion algebras in characteristic not two was studied recently in [@Siv] and [@ChapVish2].
In this paper we prove a similar chain lemma for biquaternion algebras in case of characteristic $2$. We study it through quadruples of standard generators. A quadruple of generators is $(x,y,z,u)$ such that $$x^2+x=\alpha, y^2=\beta, z^2+z=\gamma, u^2=\delta,$$ $$x y+y x=y, x z=z x, x u=u x, y z=z y, y u=u y, z u+u z=u$$ where $[\alpha,\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta)$ is the algebra under discussion. The quadruple consists naturally of two pairs, $(x,y)$ and $(z,u)$. We are not concerned with the order of the pairs, i.e. $(x,y,z,u)=(z,u,x,y)$. Of course the order of the elements inside the pair is important, the first element corresponds to a separable field extension of the center and the second corresponds to an inseparable field extension. The first element is Artin-Schreier, and the second element is square-central.
We define the following steps on a quadruple of generators $(x,y,z,u)$:
- : At most three generators are changed.
- : At most one generator is changed in each pair.
- : At most one pair is changed.
- : $x$ and $z$ are preserved and $y$ and $u$ are multiplied by $a+b (x+z)$ for some $a,b \in F$
- : $y$ and $u$ are preserved and an element of the form $a y u$ is added to $x$ and $z$ for some $a \in F$.
- : $y$ and $z$ are preserved and $x$ changes to $x+b y (1+b y)^{-1} z$ and $u$ changes to $(1+b y) u$ for some $b \in F$.
- : At most one generator is changed.
We prove that one can move from one quadruple of generators to another by a chain consisting of up to three steps of type $\Lambda_3$. We prove further that every step of type $\Lambda_3$ can be replaced with up to three steps of type $\Pi$ and two steps of type $\Lambda_2$. Furthermore, we prove that each step of type $\Lambda$ can be replaced with up to either three steps of type $\Lambda_1$ or two of type $\Lambda_1$ and one of type $\Omega_i$, $\Omega_s$ or $\Omega_c$. Since $\Pi$ changes only one quaternion algebra, it is known that $\Pi$ can be replaced with up to three steps of type $\Lambda_1$. Consequently, in order to move from one quadruple of generators to another one needs to do up to $45$ steps, where at most $6$ of them are of type $\Omega_i$, $\Omega_s$ or $\Omega_c$ and all the rest are of type $\Lambda_1$.
The basic steps on the quadruples of generators can be easily translated to basic steps on the symbol presentations.
The $\Omega_s$ step changes $[\alpha,\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta)$ to $$[\alpha,(a^2+a b+b^2 (\alpha+\gamma)) \beta) \otimes [\gamma,(a^2+a b+b^2 (\alpha+\gamma)) \delta)$$ for some given $a,b \in F$.
The $\Omega_i$ step changes $[\alpha,\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta)$ to $$[\alpha+a^2 \beta \delta,\beta) \otimes [\gamma+a^2 \beta \delta,\delta)$$ for some given $a \in F$.
The $\Omega_c$ step changes $[\alpha,\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta)$ to $[\alpha+\frac{b^2 \beta \gamma}{1+b^2 \beta},\beta) \otimes [\gamma,\delta(1+b^2 \beta))$ for some $b \in F$.
The $\Lambda_1$ step changes one of the quaternion algebras $[\alpha,\beta)$ to either to $[\alpha,(a^2+a b+b^2 \alpha) \beta)$ or $[\alpha+a^2+a+b^2 \beta,\beta)$ for some $\alpha,\beta \in F$.
Throughout this paper, let $A$ be a fixed biquaternion division algebra over a field $F$ of characteristic two.
Decomposition with respect to maximal subfields
===============================================
In this section we shall prove that if $A$ contains a maximal subfield, generated either by two Artin-Schreier elements or one Artin-Schreier and one square-central, then it decomposes as the tensor product of two quaternion algebras such that each of the generators is contained in a different quaternion algebra.
These lemmas will be used later on in this paper.
\[instep0\] If $x$ and $z$ are commuting Artin-Schreier elements then there exist some square-central elements $u$ and $y$ such that $(x,y,z,u)$ is a quadruple of generators.
If $x$ and $z$ are commuting Artin-Schreier elements then $C_A(F[x])$ is a quaternion algebra containing $z$. This algebra contains some $q$ such that $q^2 \in F[x]$ and $z q+q z=q$. The involution on $F[x,u]$ satisfying $x^*=x+1$ and $z^*=z$ extends to $A$. In particular, $q^* x=x q^*$, and therefore $q^* \in C_A(F[x])$. If $q^*=q$ then by taking $u=q$, $u$ is square-central and $z u+u z=u$. Otherwise, we take $u=q+q^*$. In particular $A=A_0 \otimes F[z,u]$. $x$ is in the quaternion subalgebra $A_0$ and therefore there exists some square-central element $y \in A_0$ such that $x y+y x=y$.
\[instep\] If $x$ is Artin-Schreier and $u$ is square-central then there exist some Artin-Schreier element $z$ and some square-central element $y$ such that $(x,y,z,u)$ is a quadruple of generators.
If $x$ is Artin-Schreier and $u$ is a square-central element commuting with $x$ then $C_A(F[x])$ is a quaternion algebra containing $u$. This algebra contains some $q$ such that $q^2+q \in F[x]$ and $q u+u q=u$. The involution on $F[x,u]$ satisfying $x^*=x+1$ and $u^*=u$ extends to $A$. In particular, $q^* x=x q^*$, and therefore $q^* \in C_A(F[x])$.
For some $\beta \in F$, $u^2=\beta$. Write $\mu=q (a+b u) q^*$ for some unknown $a,b \in F$. Since $q+q^*$ is symmetric with respect to $*$ and commutes with $u$, $q+q^*=c+d u$ for some fixed $c,d \in F$. Obviously $\mu^*=\mu$. We want $\mu u+u \mu=u$. It is a straight-forward calculation to see the condition becomes $1=a+a c+b d \beta+(a d+b c) u$. Consequently, we want the following system to be satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
1 & = & (c+1) a+d \beta b\\
0 & = & d a+c b\end{aligned}$$ This system has a solution, unless $c (c+1)=d^2 \beta$.
If $c (c+1) \neq d^2 \beta$ then by taking $z=q (a+b u) q^*$ where $a,b$ is a solution to the system above, $z$ is Artin-Schreier and $z u+u z=u$.
If $c (c+1)=d^2 \beta$ then $(q^*)^2+q^*=(q+c+d u)^2+(q+c+d u)=q^2+c^2+d^2 \beta+d u+q+c+d u=q^2+q$. This means that $q^2+q$ is invariant under $*$, and therefore $q^2+q \in F$. In this case we will take $z=q$.
All in all, one can find an Artin-Schreier element $z$ such that $z u+u z=u$ and $x z=z x$, which means that $A=A_0 \otimes F[z,u]$. $x$ is in the quaternion subalgebra $A_0$ and therefore there exists some square-central element $y \in A_0$ such that $x y+y x=y$.
A chain consisting of steps of type $\Lambda_3$
===============================================
In this section we will show that every two generating quadruples are connected by a chain of up to three steps of type $\Lambda_3$.
\[E1lem\] For any two Artin-Schreier elements $x,z$, if they do not commute then the subalgebra $F[x,z]$ is a quaternion algebra, whose center is either $F$ or a quadratic extension of it.
There exist $a,b \in F$ such that $x^2+x=a$ and $z^2+z=b$. Let $r=x z+z x$, $t=x z+z x+z=r+z$. It is easy to see that $x r+r x=r$, and $x t+t x=0$.
Since $z=r+t$, $z^2+z+b=r^2+t^2+r t+t r+r+t+b=0$. Therefore $(z^2+z+b) x+x (z^2+z+b)=r t+t r+r=0$.
Since $s=x+t$ commutes with $x,t,r$, it is in the center of $F[x,z]$. The elements $x$ and $r$ generate a quaternion algebra over the center of $F[x,z]$, and since $t$ differs from $x$ by a central element, $F[x,z]$ is a quaternion algebra over its center.
Since $F[x,z]$ is a subalgebra of a biquaternion algebra, it cannot be the entire algebra, and therefore its center is either $F$ or a quadratic field extension of $F$.
\[E1\] If $x$ and $z$ are not commuting Artin-Schreier elements then there exists some $w \in V$ which is either Artin-Schreier or square-central and commutes with them both.
If the center of $F[x,z]$ is a quadratic extension of $F$ then it is generated by some $w \in V$, and that finishes the proof. Otherwise, according to Lemma \[E1lem\] the center of $F[x,z]$ is $F$ and $A=F[x,z] \otimes F[w,u : w^2+w=c,u^2=d,w u+u w=u]$ for some $c,d \in F$, and this also finishes the proof.
\[Onesteps\] Every two quadruples of generators are connected by a chain of up to three steps of type $\Lambda_3$.
Let $(x,y,z,u)$ and $(x',y',z',u')$ be two quadruples of generators. If $x$ and $x'$ are not commuting then according to Lemma \[E1\] there exists some $w$ which is either Artin-Schreier or square-central commuting with $x$ and $x'$.
If $w$ is Artin-Schreier then according to Lemma \[instep0\] there exist $s,t \neq 0$ such that $(x,s,w,t)$ is a quadruple of generators.
Similarly, there exist some $s',t'$ such that $(x',s',w,t')$ is a quadruple of generators.
Consequently, there is a chain $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x,s,w,t) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x',s',w,t') \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x',y',z',u').$$
If $w$ is square-central then according to Lemma \[instep\] there exist $s,t \neq 0$ such that $(x,s,t,w)$ is a quadruple of generators.
Similarly, there exist some $s',t'$ such that $(x',s',t',w)$ is a quadruple of generators.
Consequently, there is a chain $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x,s,t,w) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x',s',t',w) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x',y',z',u').$$
If $x$ and $x'$ are commuting then according to Lemma \[instep0\] there exist $s,t \neq 0$ such that $(x,s,x',t)$ is a quadruple of generators.
Consequently, there is a chain $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x,s,x',t) \stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra} (x',y',z',u').$$
Replacing a step of type $\Lambda_3$ with steps of types $\Pi$ and $\Lambda_2$
==============================================================================
In this section we shall show how a step of type $\Lambda_3$ can be obtained by up to three steps of type $\Pi$ and two of type $\Lambda_2$.
\[notcomm\] If $y$ and $y'$ are two non-commuting square-central elements in $A$ then $F[y,y']$ is a quaternion algebra either over $F$ or over a quadratic extension of $F$. In particular, there exists either an Artin-Schreier element or a square-central element that commutes with both of them.
Let $t=y y'+y' y$ and $r=y y'+y' y+y'$. It is easy to see that $y t=t y$, $y' t=t y'$ and $y r+r y=t$. In particular $t$ is in the center of $F[y,y']$. If $t=0$ then $y'=r$ and $y'$ commutes with $y$, but we assumed the contrary, and so $t \neq 0$. For similar reasons $r \neq 0$.
Let $q=y r t^{-1}$. It is a straight-forward calculation to see that $q \in V$ and $q r+r q=r$. Consequently $q$ and $r$ generate a quaternion algebra over the center of $F[y,y']$. Since this center contains $t$, it is easy to see that $y$ and $y'$ belong to that quaternion algebra, and therefore $F[y,y']=K[q,r]$ where $K=Z(F[y,y'])$. Since it is a subalgebra of a biquaternion algebra over $F$, its center can be either $F$ or a quadratic extension of $F$. In both cases there exists either an Artin-Schreier element or a square-central element that commutes with both $y$ and $y'$.
\[TwoSteps\] Every step of type $\Lambda_3$ can be achieved by at most three steps of type $\Pi$ and two of type $\Lambda_2$.
A step of type $\Lambda_3$ preserves either an Artin-Schreier generator or a square-central generator.
Assume that it preserves an Artin-Schreier generator, i.e. $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra}(x,y',z',w').$$
If $y' \in F[x,y]$ then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra}(x,y',z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u').$$
Otherwise, if $y'$ commutes with $y$ then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,?,y y')\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',?,y y')\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u').$$
Assume that they do not commute. According to Lemma \[notcomm\], there exists either an Artin-Schreier element or a square-central element $t$ commuting with both $y$ and $y'$.
If $\mu=x t+t x+t \not \in F$ then it is a straight-forward calculation to show that $\mu$ commutes with $x$, $y$ and $y'$, and so $\mu$ generates a quadratic extension in both $F[z,u]$ and $F[z',u']$. If it is separable then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,\mu,?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',\mu,?)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u'),$$ and if inseparable then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,?,\mu)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',?,\mu)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u').$$
Otherwise, $t$ could be picked such that $\mu=0$ and then $x t+t x=t$, and therefore $t$ must be square-central. In this case $$\begin{aligned}
(x,y,z,u)&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(x,y,?,t y)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,t,?,t y)\\&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(x,t,?,t y')\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',?,t y')\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u').\end{aligned}$$
Assume that the initial $\Lambda_3$-step preserves a square-centarl generator, i.e. $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_3}{\lra}(x',y,z',w').$$
If $x' \in F[x,y]$ then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra}(x',y,z,w)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',w').$$
Otherwise, if $x'$ commutes with $x$ then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,x+x',?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,x+x',?)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u').$$
Assume that they do not commute. According to Lemma \[E1lem\], there exists either an Artin-Schreier element or a square-central element $t$ commuting with both $x$ and $x'$.
Let $\mu=t+y t y^{-1}$. This element commutes with $x$, $x'$ and $y'$. If $\mu \not \in F$ then $\mu$ generates a quadratic extension in both $F[z,u]$ and $F[z',u']$. If it is separable then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,\mu,?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',\mu,?)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u'),$$ and if inseparable then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,?,\mu)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',?,\mu)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y',z',u').$$
If $\mu=0$ then $t$ commutes with $y$ and hence $t \in F[z,u]$. If $t$ is square-central then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,t,?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,t,?)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u'),$$ and if Artin-Schreier then $$(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x,y,?,t)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,?,t)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u').$$
If $\mu \in F^\times$ then $(\mu^{-1} t) y+y (\mu^{-1} t)=y$, which means that $\mu^{-1} t$ is Artin-Schreier, but $t$ was either Artin-Schreier or square-central to begin with, and therefore $\mu=1$. In this case, $t+x,t+x' \not \in F$, because otherwise $x$ and $x'$ commute, and we assumed that they do not. Now, $t+x$ commutes with both $x$ and $y$, which means that it generates a quadratic extension of $F$ inside $F[z,u]$, which means that either $a (t+x)$ is Artin-Schreier for some $a \in F^\times$ or $t+x$ is square-central. Similarly, $t+x'$ commutes with both $x'$ and $y$, which means that it generates a quadratic extension of $F$ inside $F[z',u']$, which means that either $a' (t+x')$ is Artin-Schreier for some $a' \in F^\times$ or $t+x'$ is square-central.
If $a (t+x)$ and $a' (t+x')$ are Artin-Schreier then we have $$\begin{aligned}
(x,y,z,u)&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(x,y,a(t+x),?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(t,y,a(t+x),?)\\&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(t,y,a'(t+x'),?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,a'(t+x'),?)\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u').\end{aligned}$$
If $t+x$ and $t+x'$ are square-central then we have $$\begin{aligned}
(x,y,z,u)&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(x,y,?,t+x)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(t,y,?,t+x)\\&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(t,y,?,t+x')\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,?,t+x')\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u').\end{aligned}$$
If $a(t+x)$ is Artin-Schreier and $t+x'$ is square central then we have $$\begin{aligned}
(x,y,z,u)&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(x,y,a(t+x),?)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(t,y,a(t+x),?)\\&\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}&(t,y,?,t+x')\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,?,t+x')\stackrel{\Pi}{\lra}(x',y,z',u').\end{aligned}$$
The case of square-central $t+x$ and Artin-Schreier $a' (t+x')$ is essentially the same as the last one.
\[twoentries\] As a result, every two quadruples of generators are connected by a chain of up to $9$ steps of type $\Pi$ and $6$ steps of type $\Lambda_2$.
Replacing a step of type $\Lambda_2$ with steps of types $\Omega_i$, $\Omega_s$, $\Omega_c$ and $\Lambda_1$
===========================================================================================================
I this section we shall show how a step of type $\Lambda_2$ can be obtained by up to three steps, one of which can be of type $\Omega_i$, $\Omega_s$ or $\Omega_c$ and the others are of type $\Lambda_1$. Since $\Pi$ can be obtained by up to three steps of type $\Lambda_1$, it means that every two quadruples of generators are connected by a chain of up to $45$ steps, where up to $6$ of them are of type $\Omega_i$, $\Omega _s$ or $\Omega_c$ and the rest are of type $\Lambda_1$.
If a step of type $\Lambda_2$ preserves two inseparable generators, i.e. $(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra} (x',y,z',u)$ then it can be achieved by at most two steps of type $\Lambda_1$ and one of type $\Omega_i$.
The element $x z'+z' x+z'$ is nonzero because $(x z'+z' x+z') u+u (x z'+z' x+z')=u$. Consequently, $(x,y,x z'+z' x+z',u)$ is a quadruple of generators. Similarly, $(x z'+z' x+x,y,z',u)$ is a quadruple of generators. One can therefore do the following steps: $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y,x z'+z' x+z',u) \stackrel{\Omega_i}{\lra} (x z'+z' x+x,y,z',u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x',y,z',u).$$
The element $r=x z'+z' x$ was added in the middle step to the Artin-Schreier generators. This element commutes with $y$ and $u$, and therefore it is in $F[u,y]$ and consequently of the form $a+b y+c u+d y u$. This element however also satisfies $x r+r x=z' r+r z'=r$. Hence, $a=b=c=0$.
If a step of type $\Lambda_2$ preserves two Artin-Schreier generators, i.e. $(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x,y',z,u')$ then it can be achieved by at most two steps of type $\Lambda_1$ and one of type $\Omega_s$.
If $y u'+u' y=0$ then $y$ commutes with $u'$ and then one can do $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y,z,u') \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y',z,u').$$
Otherwise, $y u'+u' y$ is square-central, and $(x,y,z,(y u'+u' y) y)$ is a quadruple of generators. Similarly $(x,(y u'+u' y)^{-1} u',z,u')$ is a quadruple of generators. One can therefore do $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (u,y,z,(y u'+u' y) y) \stackrel{\Omega_s}{\lra} (x,(y u'+u' y)^{-1} u',z,u') \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y',z,u').$$
In the middle step, the square-central generators were multiplied by $q=y^{-1} (y u'+u' y)^{-1} w'$. This element commutes with $x$ and $z$ and therefore $q \in F[x,z]$ and consequently of the form $a+b x+c z+d x z$. However, $q$ commutes with $y u'$, and therefore $d=0$ and $b=c$.
If a step of type $\Lambda_2$ preserves one Artin-Schreier generator and one square-central generator, i.e. $(x,y,z,u)\stackrel{\Lambda_2}{\lra}(x',y,z,u')$ then it can be achieved by either at most three steps of type $\Lambda_1$ or at most two steps of type $\Lambda_1$ and one of type $\Omega_c$.
If $x u'+u' x+u'$ is zero then $x u'+u' x=u'$. Therefore one can do $(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y,z,y u') \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x',y,z,y u') \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x',y,z,u')$.
Let us assume $x u'+u' x+u' \neq 0$. $$\begin{aligned}
x (x u'+u' x+u')+(x u'+u' x+u') x &= &x^2 u'+x u' x+x u'+x u' x+u' x^2+u' x\\=(x+\alpha) u'+x u'+u' (x+\alpha)+u' x &=&x u'+\alpha u'+x u'+u' x+\alpha u'+u' x=0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $x$ commutes with $x u'+u' x+u'$. In fact, $(x,y,z,x u'+u' x+u')$ is a quadruple of generators, and in particular $x u'+u' x+u'$ is square-central. Now $$x (x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u' x)+(x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u'x) x=(x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u' x),$$ and $(x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u' x)$ commutes with $z$ and $x u'+u' x+u'$, and therefore $(x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u' x)=b y+c x y$ for some $b,c \in F$, but $(x u'+u' x+u')^{-1}(x u'+u' x)$ also commutes with $x u'+u' x$ while $y (x u'+u' x)+(x u'+u' x) y=0$ and $x y (x u'+u' x)+(x u'+u' x) x y=y (x u'+u' x)$ and therefore $c=0$. In particular $x u'+u' x=b (x u'+u' x+u') y$.
It is a straight-forward calculation to check that $$(x+b y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z) u'+u' (x+b y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z)=0,$$ $$(x+b y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z) z+z (x+b y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z)=0,$$ and so $(x+b y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z,y,z,u')$ is a quadruple of generators too.
Therefore we have the chain $$(x,y,z,u) \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x,y,z,x u'+u' x+u') \stackrel{\Omega_c}{\lra} (x+\beta y (x u'+u' x+u') u'^{-1} z,y,z,u') \stackrel{\Lambda_1}{\lra} (x',y,z,u').$$
Every two quadruples of elements are connected by a chain of up to $45$ steps, of which up to $6$ are of type $\Omega_i$, $\Omega_s$ or $\Omega_c$ and the rest are of type $\Lambda_1$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Prof. Jean-Pierre Tignol for the helpful discussions.
Bibliography {#bibliography .unnumbered}
============
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The mechanism of production of a large number of universes is considered. It is shown that universes with parameters suitable for creation of life are necessarily produced as a result of quantum fluctuations. Fractal structures are formed provided fluctuations take place near a maximum of the potential. Several ways of formation of similar fractal structures within our universe are discussed. Theoretical predictions are compared with observational data.'
author:
- |
S.G. Rubin\
Moscow Engineering Physics Institute,\
115409, Moscow, Russia;\
Centre for CosmoParticle Physics “Cosmion”;\
e-mail: [email protected]
title: Fine tuning of parameters of the universe
---
Introduction
============
Within many years it was supposed that we live in a space with Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric. From the astrophysical point of view it means an expanding universe with small negative acceleration. From the point of view of modern field theory it means the vacuum energy density being strictly zero or, equivalently, a vanishing cosmological constant. There were no clear theoretical reasons for this, but there was speculation about a hidden symmetry, implying this strict equality (see, for example, the review [@Star99]).
Four years ago observations [@Riess98] indicated some positive value of the cosmological constant $\Lambda \approx 0.7\rho _M$, which is only a little less than the average density of matter $\rho _M$ in the universe. All quantum effects, which give a contribution to the vacuum energy, surpass this value by many orders of magnitude. The mechanism of almost complete cancellation of different contributions is still not understood. And at the same time, if the cosmological constant would be approximately 200 times larger as its present value, galaxies would not have been formed [@Wein87] and life would have been impossible. The impression is that the universe is specially arranged to create life.
The bound of the cosmological constant described above is not the only case where the existence of life implies a constraint on parameters in nature. In elementary particle physics there a
re a number of similar examples. I recall here only one - the smallness of the electron mass. The electron mass is about 2000 times smaller than the nucleon mass. One might suppose that it would not to matter if it would be several times larger than its value $0.511 MeV/c^2$. But in this case neutrons would be stable and the process $p^{+}+e^{-}\rightarrow n+\bar \nu$ would result in a sharp decrease of proton abundance in the universe with adverse consequences for the existence of life. We see that the universe is ”adjusted to life” by a set of parameters and the cosmological constant is only one of those parameters (for a recent review see e.g. [@Guth00]). It looks like that nature has in store a large number of universes and only a small number of it is suitable for life. The question is how to find a mechanism to select those.
In this paper a mechanism of production of a large number of universes is considered. The universes differ from each other in physical parameters. It is shown that universes with parameters suitable for creation of the life are necessarily produced as a result of quantum fluctuations. The distribution of the universes has fractal character provided fluctuations take place near the maximum of a potential. The ways of observation of fractal structures inside our universe are discussed in Section 3.
Basic postulates
================
Usually, when a theoretical model is set up, first a concrete Lagrangian is postulated. Coupling constants are assumed to be small such that quantum corrections to the original Lagrangian are considered to be small as well. Nevertheless, corrections are small only for weak fields, while for strong fields this does not hold. To be more specific, let us consider the Lagrangian of a scalar field $$\label {1}
L = \frac {1} {2} \left ({\partial _ \mu \varphi} \right) ^ 2 -
\frac {{m ^ 2}} {2} \varphi ^ 2 - \frac {\lambda} {4} \varphi ^ 4 ~ .$$ One can compute one-loop quantum corrections to the potential and finds [@Linde90] $$\label {2}
\delta V = \frac {{\left ({3\lambda \varphi ^ 2 + m ^ 2} \right) ^
2 }} {{64\pi ^ 2}} \ln \frac {{\left ({3\lambda \varphi ^ 2 + m ^
2} \right)}} {{2m ^ 2}} - a\varphi ^ 2 - b\varphi ^ 4.$$ The last two terms renormalize the mass and coupling constant of the Lagrangian and depend on the scheme of renormalization. The first term changes the form of the potential. This is the most important term for the following considerations. Multi-loop corrections as well as interaction with other fields may add new terms to the potential. It is important to note that any simple interaction causes an infinite number of additional terms to the original Lagrangian.
It is easy to see, comparing expressions (\[1\]) and (\[2\]), that new terms are small in comparison with the original terms if $\varphi << m\cdot exp (1/\lambda)$. To get an estimate, one may choose $m = 100 GeV$, $\lambda = 0.1$, then quantum corrections to the potential become large at $\varphi \sim 10^{6} GeV$. It is a rather large energy for an accelerator. However, at an early inflationary stage of our universe the average value was rather large, $\varphi > 10^{19} ~ GeV$. Hence, it is necessary to take into account an infinite number of additional terms in the Lagrangian (\[1\]). Moreover, the amplitude of a scalar field is restricted even more stringently. The logarithm in expression (\[2\]) is the result of the summation of an infinite number of terms [@Coleman75], which converges only when $\varphi < m/\sqrt
{3\lambda}$. Besides, one can see directly from Lagrangian (\[1\]) that the interaction term is of order of the mass term when $\varphi\sim m\sqrt {2 /\lambda}$. Two last estimations are in good agreement with each other and give a much smaller value of the field when quantum corrections are really small. A similar problem was discussed in the framework of hybrid inflation [@Luth99].
Thus, when considering phenomena in strong fields, i.e. $\varphi > m/\sqrt {\lambda}$, it is necessary to take into account all additional terms, inevitably arising due to quantum corrections. The potential becomes much more complex, based on the low energy limit of the theory. This can be visualized by the picture of mountains and valleys. In a mountain area it is possible to have smooth surfaces with small curvature only in valleys, i.e., in minima of the potential energy. After climbing to some height, it becomes obvious that the shape of the terrain is much more complex.
Usually the potential of interaction of a scalar field is assumed to be of the most simple form. The property of renormalizability of the theory is not required if one supposes that gravitational effects on Plank scale will regularize integrals. Usually, the fields are weak and quantum corrections are reduced to the renormalization of parameters of a Lagrangian under the assumption that the final corrections are small. As consequence of the previous discussion, at the moment of formation of our universe, i.e., at large amplitudes of a field, quantum corrections most likely were comparable with original terms of the Lagrangian, and its form was much more complex than the Lagrangian considered above.
The main conclusion is that the choice of any simple form of Lagrangian with specific parameters leads to difficult problems: One must explain [*ab initio*]{} the origin of both the form of Lagrangian and numerical values of parameters and finally manage to prove that quantum corrections are small at high energies. In addition, the field is only a dynamical variable which has no physical meaning. It is not clear why we should single out the value $\varphi =0$ when postulating the form of a potential.
Let us take the opposite point of view and limit ourselves to the minimal number of specific assumptions about the form of a potential. Namely, let us postulate some kind of “democracy” - all terms are possible - and consider consequences of this assumption. More accurately, I suppose:
- The potential of a scalar field is a polynomial with an infinite number of terms. Coefficients of polynomial terms are uncorrelated numbers and are normalized by the Plank mass $M_{pl}$. As was discussed above, this postulate does not contradict conclusions of the quantum field theory at low energy near the bottom of the potential. At high energy it leads to qualitatively new results.
- The potential satisfies the conditions $0<V(\varphi )< M _
{pl} ^ 4$($ \hbar = c = 1 $). The first inequality is ordinary one and is necessary to escape problems with vacuum instability. The second inequality is needed to avoid influence of effects of quantum gravity what is usually out of our control and would completely change all physics.
As an example, let us consider the following Lagrangian of a scalar field $$\label {3}
L = \frac {1} {2} \left ({\partial _ \mu \varphi} \right) ^ 2 -
V (\varphi) ~ .$$ The field $\varphi$ is determined in the interval $(-\infty,
+\infty)$. The typical behavior of the potential is represented in \[Fig1\]. It should also be stated that the Lagrangian (\[2\]) is a special case of a more general Lagrangian, in which quantum corrections to the kinetic term would be taken into account.
The universe is located in one of the minima, where the potential $V (\varphi)$ can be approximated in a simple way: $V (\varphi)
\approx V (\varphi _ {m}) + a\phi ^ 2 + b\phi ^ 4, \quad \phi =
\varphi - \varphi _ m $. Usually a similar potential is postulated from the beginning with specific constants $ a $ and $ b $. The constant $ a $ is connected with mass of a quanta of the field $\varphi, a = m _ {\varphi} ^ 2 /2$, if $a> 0$. Other universes occupy other minima which are characterized by a potential with different parameters $a$ and $b$. The next section is devoted to cosmological consequences of the above postulates.
Quantum fluctuations as the generator of the universes
======================================================
All (quasi) stationary states are located in minima of a potential and our universe, not being an exception, is located in such a minimum as well. As there is an enumerable set of minima (remind that the potential in question is the polynomial with infinite number of terms), each of which is characterized by some specific energy density, it seems unlikely that our universe has appeared just in the minimum with a very small energy density suitable for life. For an estimate of this probability let us assume that the probability to end up in a minimum of the potential with energy density $\rho _ {V} ^ {(m)} = V(\varphi _ m)$ in an interval $d\rho
_ V ^ {(m)}$ is given by $$dP\left ({\rho _ V ^ {(m)}} \right) = d\rho _V^{(m)} /M_{pl}^4$$ (i.e. the uniform distribution of $\rho _ V ^ {(m)}$ is assumed in the whole interval $(0, M _ {pl}^4)$). The observational value of energy density in our universe is $\rho _ V \sim 10^{-123}
M_{pl}^4$. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the fraction of universes with vacuum energy density similar to ours is $\approx
10^{-123}$. It is hard to believe, given an infinite number of such universes, that an event with such small probability has happened in nature. We conclude that a mechanism of a “sorting” of the universes is necessary, and such mechanism really exists.
To proceed, let us show that if we have a set of potential minima where life is possible, the field ends up in one of those minima starting from an arbitrary initial value of the field. Consider Fig. \[Fig1\]. Let the field start at a value represented by point A in Fig. \[Fig1\]. The spatial area which is characteristic of the size of fluctuation, is chosen to equal the Planck scale $(\sim 10^{19}GeV\approx 10^{-33}cm)$. It is a lower limit where the concept of time can be used. The further destiny of the area strongly depends on field configurations within this area. Configurations being important for our considerations are those where spatial derivatives are small, i.e. $(\partial\varphi _
{\mu})^2 << V(\varphi)$. In this case we can use well developed methods of inflation theory and especially chaotic inflation [@Linde90]. The inflation paradigm is developing during more than 20 years [@Guth81; @Kolb91; @Khlopov; @Brand01]. It successfully solves the basic problems of cosmology of our universe starting from the earliest stage since its creation and ending by the stage of galaxy formation. Here it worth to mention at least the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the problem of magnetic monopole absence.
![*A part of the potential in a finite range of field $\varphi$.*[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Potential.eps)
It is important to note that the size of spatial area corresponding to fluctuation is growing exponentially. A physical distance $R$ between two points increases like $R(t) \sim exp (Ht)$, while the size of horizon $1/H$ remains constant. The Hubble parameter $H$ is connected to the energy density of the potential $H = \sqrt {8\pi
V(\varphi) /3m_{pl}^2}$. It is obvious that an initial causally connected volume of size $1/H$ is divided into a number $\simeq e^3
$ of causally disconnected areas with the same size $1/H$ in characteristic time $1/H$. The field values in different areas may differ from each other due to quantum fluctuations [@Rey87]. It should be noted that this picture represents a look ’from inside’ of the domain. An external observer would detect only field fluctuations of the size $1/H$ [@Guth00; @Linde90]. Thus, the initial area is divided into an increasing number of causally disconnected areas with various values of the field $\varphi$. This process is the main process of the inflationary scenario.
Thus, the size of the originally chosen area grows, new areas with slightly different field values arise inside it. In some of the areas the field tends to the nearest local minimum of the potential, while in some other areas field values approach its local maximum due to fluctuations.
A universe with specific vacuum energy density is formed inside the domain where the field reached a potential minimum. According to the above estimate, the probability that this density favors life of our type, is of the order of $\sim 10^{-123}$. New quantum fluctuations in any given universe produce new spatial domains with high energy density $\sim M_{pl}^{4}$ and size $\sim 1/M_{pl}$. The process of size expansion in these causally disconnected volumes repeats itself in the manner discussed above [@Linde90]. Some of these domains contain field values corresponding to the slope of the potential at point B in Fig. \[Fig1\]. Thus, quantum fluctuations allow a field in some domains to pass through minima of the potential.
The destiny of spatial areas where the field overcomes potential maxima is much more interesting. Consider the fluctuation of the field near such maximum (point C in \[Fig1\]). The initial spatial size of this fluctuation is $\sim 1/H$. When some time of the order of $\sim 1/H$ has passed this spatial area will be separated into $e^{3}$ causally disconnected domains with different field values. The average value of the field $\varphi$ inside some of these domains will appear at the other side of the maximum (point $C'$ in Fig. \[Fig1\]). Each of these domains will be divided in $e^3$ subdomains of the size of $\approx 1/H$ in time $1/H$ and some of them will pass back through the maximum of the potential. This process continuously reproduces itself and already after several steps a picture of a fractal structure will be observed. Until now we have not considered the motion of the classical field which is governed by the classical equation [@Linde90] $$\label{Ecl} \ddot \varphi + 3H\dot \varphi =
-dV/d\varphi ~ .$$ According to this equation of motion the classical field moves away from the maximum what could prevent the formation of the fractal structure. Hence, the development of fractal structure in a final stage can take place only if the fluctuations are large. More specifically, let us assume that the classical field changes its value by $\Delta\varphi_{cl}$ in the time $1/H$. Then a fractal structure arises if the condition of the fluctuation dominance $\Delta \varphi_{fluct} >>\Delta \varphi_{cl}$ is satisfied. It gives enough time for formation of a fractal structure due to the fluctuations around a maximum. An average value of fluctuations is well known, given by $\Delta \varphi_{fluct}\simeq H/2\pi$. The classical motion can be computed explicitly if one approximates the potential around a maximum by the function $$\begin{aligned}
V(\varphi)\simeq V_0 - (\varphi - \varphi_{Max})^2 a^2/2 ~ .\end{aligned}$$ An approximate solution of Eq.(\[Ecl\]) has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi (t) \simeq \varphi_{Max} + \left[ \varphi
(t=0)-\varphi_{Max}\right] exp\left( \frac{{a^2 M_{pl} }}{{\sqrt
{24\pi V_0 } }}t\right) ~ , \end{aligned}$$ where the second time derivative is neglected as is usually done at the inflation stage. The initial field value $\varphi (t=0)\approx \varphi _{Max}+\Delta\varphi_{fluct}/2$ and the condition of quantum fluctuation dominance is easily found to be $$\label{Cond}
\eta \equiv \frac{\Delta \varphi_{fluct}}{\Delta
\varphi_{cl}}\approx H\frac{{2\sqrt {24\pi V_0 } }}{{a^2 M_{pl}
}}>1.$$ The number of fractals increases with the parameter the $\eta$. For an estimate let us take the Planck scale: $V_0 = M_{pl}^{4},
a=M_{pl}$. It leads to the value $\eta \approx 16\pi$ and hence to a rich fractal structure in the final stage.
It is well known that two domains with field values separated by a potential maximum, are separated by a wall [@Raja82]. Classically, fields in such domains tend to various (neighboring) minima, and hence the energy density of the wall grows relative to the rest of the space. We come to the conclusion that neighbor universes are separated by field walls with large energy density.
Thus, quantum fluctuations continuously produce spatial domains with various values of the field $\varphi $. Among these set of domains it is always possible to find a sequence of domains with monotonously growing field inside them. The fields in such domains will consistently pass all minima and maxima on its way. Eventually, a minimum with energy density suitable for life of our type will be found.
Fractal structures in our universe
==================================
Let us consider in more detail the process of production of the closed walls. As was already discussed above, if a causally connected area is placed near a maximum of the potential, for example $\varphi \geq \varphi_
{max}$, then several subdomains with average field value $\varphi
\leq \varphi_{max}$ will appear inside during the time $1/H$. Moving along any line, connecting internal and external points of a subdomain, we necessarily pass through the maximum of the potential. Therefore, this subdomain is limited by the surface where the potential has the maximal value, i.e., by the closed field wall with definite surface energy density. Just after formation the subdomain is placed near the potential maximum, which allows to repeat the process. Hence, closed walls of smaller scale will appear already inside this subdomain. Below it will be shown that this process results in the formation of fractal structures.
Suppose for a characteristic time $1/H$ several closed walls appear in a causally connected area of size $R$ near a maximum of the potential. Denote the number of walls by $N$ and its average size by $\xi R$, $\xi > 1/e$ ($ \xi \neq 1/e$ due to a possible merging of causally disconnected subdomains with one common wall). In each of these subdomains, $N$ new smaller closed walls of size $\xi^{2}
R$ arise during the next time step. Denote by $"a"$ the minimal size of such a wall that we are able to distinguish. This means that we may terminate the process after a step $n$ such that $a
\equiv \xi^n R$. The total area of the closed walls in the initial volume is the sum of areas with closed walls of size greater than $a$. The simple summation leads to the following result $$\label {Frac1}
S\approx R ^ 2 q (q ^ n -1) / (q-1),\quad q\equiv \xi ^ 2 N ~ .$$ This expression can be written in the form $$\label {frac2}
S\approx (R/a) ^ D ~ ,$$ where $D$ is the fractal dimension. Equating these two expressions, one obtains $$\label {Fracdim}
D = 2 + \frac {{\ln \left ({q\frac {{q ^ {\frac {{\ln \left ({a/R}
\right)}} {{\ln \xi}}} - 1}} {{q - 1}}} \right)}} {{\ln (R/a)}} ~ .$$ This quantity is constant only when the ratio $R/a$ is large, it is different for $ q < 1 $ and $ q> 1 $. It can be easily verified that $D\rightarrow 2$ for $ q < 1$, while for $ q> 1 $, $D\rightarrow 2 + 3ln (q) /ln(4N)$. To get an estimate, suppose that the number of closed domains is $ N\approx 4$, and $\xi
\approx 1/e$. The value of the parameter $q$ can be easily calculated, $q\approx 0.5$. Hence, the fractal dimension of the system of closed walls $D\approx 2$.
So, if quantum fluctuations lead to the formation of spatial areas with the field taking a value near a potential maximum, its further evolution results in a system of enclosing walls. The characteristic size of the next generations of walls differs from the previous one approximately by a factor of $e$. The fractal dimension of such system is $D\approx 2$. The analytical calculations were done using approximations and hence the expression (\[Fracdim\]) has to be considered as an estimate.
According to the above postulates and based on the framework of chaotic inflation, our universe is a part of a meta-universe which was formed from one domain surrounded by a closed wall. The inflationary mechanism provided an exponential increase of its size from the point of view of an internal observer. The size of the universe, as presently observed, is estimated to be $\sim 10^{28}
cm$, being smaller by many orders than the characteristic scale of the meta-universe $\sim 10^{10^{12}}cm$, [@Linde91]. Hence, the walls surrounding our meta-universe are not observable. Nevertheless, it turns out that the mechanism of generation of fractal structures appears in a natural way in many models of inflation. Below three different models which could give rise to observable consequences are considered.
The first mechanism of the formation of the observable structure is based on the main postulates of Section 2. Suppose that the potential $V(\varphi)$ has a local minimum, which is placed close to the main minimum, as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\], point D. The potential can be approximated as follows $$\label {Vfrac}
V\left( \varphi \right) = \left\{ \begin {array} {llr} &
\frac{1}{2} m^2 \left( {\varphi - \varphi _ m} \right) ^2;& \left|
{\varphi - \varphi _D} \right| > > \Delta \varphi _D \\
&\frac{1}{2} m^2 \left( {\varphi _ D - \varphi _ m} \right) ^2 +
\frac{1}{2}M^2 \left( {\varphi - \varphi _ D} \right) ^ 2;&\left|
{\varphi - \varphi _D} \right| < < \Delta \varphi _D \\
\end {array} \right. ,$$ where $\varphi _ {D}$ is field value at the local minimum. Inflation takes place when $H >> m$ which is supposed to hold in this case.
In the vicinity of the local minimum, the equation of motion (\[Ecl\]) becomes simpler, $$\label {Diss}
\ddot \varphi + 3H(\varphi_{D})\dot \varphi + M ^ 2 \left ({\varphi
- \varphi _ D} \right) \approx 0 ~ .$$ If $H(\varphi _D)>>M$, dissipation of energy is large and the field could be located in the local minimum for a long time. We encounter serious problems, which were discussed in connection with first inflationary models [@Kolb91] where our universe is formed from the domain in a local potential minimum.
In the case $H(\varphi _D )\leq M$ the situation differs from the previous one. The field slowly decreases, according to equation (\[Diss\]) until it appears in the vicinity of the local minimum $\varphi = \varphi_{D}$, where the equation of motion can be reduced to $$\label {Osc}
\ddot \varphi + M ^ 2 \left ({\varphi - \varphi _ D} \right) \approx 0 ~ ,$$ and the total energy of the field is approximately conserved. In this case the value of the classical field could overcome the local maximum and approach the nearest deeper minimum of the potential. In the meantime, the fluctuations described in previous section, occur in some domains near the local maximum, which leads to the formation of fractal structure. If this local maximum is deep enough, the expansion of space increases their sizes not very much. These fractal structures being small in comparison with the size of our universe could result in observable consequences.
Let us consider briefly other mechanisms of formation of similar fractal structures. They are based on a multicomponent or a complex field instead of a scalar one, which was studied so far. In this case the mechanism of closed wall production is the same as discussed above. The only difference is that fluctuations ought to be investigated near saddle points of the potential rather than near maxima.
To be specific, let us choose a complex field and, following Ref.[@Freese90] consider the process of formation of our universe in the framework of natural inflation on the basis of the Lagrangian $$\label {Vcompl}
L = \partial _ \mu \Phi ^ * \partial ^ \mu \Phi - \lambda \left (
{ \left | \Phi \right | ^ 2 - f/2} \right) ^ 2 - \Lambda ^ 4 \left ({1 -
\cos \theta} \right) ~ ,$$ where $\theta$ is a phase of the complex field $\Phi$. The last term is an approximation of rather complex expression for the contribution of quantum corrections.
The complex field moves, according to the equations of motion, to a minimum of the potential at a point $\theta = 0$. At the same time, due to quantum fluctuations, some part of causally disconnected domains appears to contain the field value at a saddle point $\theta
= \pi$. In these domains the mechanism of the formation of the fractal structures sets in. If $\Lambda$ is not very large, then inflation has no time for a strong increase of the size of the produced closed walls and we have the opportunity of observation of fractal structures in our universe.
The last example is based on hybrid inflation, one of the most promising models of inflation [@Linde91a; @Dvali94; @Luth99]. In the standard version of hybrid inflation the potential contains two fields $$\label{}
V = V_0 + \frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2 \varphi ^2 + \frac{1}{2}\lambda
_1 \varphi ^2 \psi ^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_\psi ^2 \psi ^2 +
\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2 \psi ^4 ~ .$$ During inflation, the field $\varphi$ rolls down along a valley $\psi =0$. Just after passing the critical point $\varphi
=m_{\psi}^2/\lambda _1$ the state $\psi =0$ becomes unstable and field $\psi$ moves (in average) to one of the new stable minima. In the meantime field fluctuations around the critical point $\psi =0,
\varphi = m_\psi^2 /\lambda_1$ lead to the formation of fractal structure.
The inflationary mechanisms described above lead to the occurrence of fractal structure of the closed walls. After the end of inflation, as soon as the size of horizon becomes larger than the characteristic size of closed walls, the walls begin to shrink. The energy of each wall is proportional to the area of their surface and concentrates in small spatial domains (in the following they are considered as pointlike objects)[@Ru1]. These high density clots of energy could serve in the following for star and/or galaxy formation [@Khlopov]. Hence, according to the given models, the distribution of stars and galaxies should carry fractal character as well. It is important to note that the total surface of walls in specific volume is proportional to the total energy within the volume, while the number of walls is equal to the number of dense clots.
According to this scenario, it is interesting to find the number of walls inside a sphere of radius $R$ given by $$\label {Ntot}
N _ {tot} = \sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} N ^ {i} = N\frac {N ^ n -1} {N-1}
\approx
\frac {N ^ {n + 1}} {N-1} ~ .$$ By analogy with the previous calculations and using Eq.(\[Ntot\]), one obtains the distribution of pointlike dense objects with fractal dimension $D' \approx lnN/ln (1/\xi)$. For realistic values $N\approx 4, \quad \xi \approx 1/e$ we find $D'
\approx 1.4$ which differs somewhat from the value $D \approx 2$ previously obtained. This is not surprising because in the first case we measure the area of surfaces of walls within a certain volume while in second case we measure the number of walls.
Let us compare our calculations with observational data of spatial distribution of galaxies and of stars in those galaxies. Recent data indicate that the distribution of stars and galaxies really carries fractal character. So, the number of galaxies inside a sphere of radius $R$ is $N(R)\sim (R)^{2.2\pm 0.2}$ up to the sizes of 200 Mpc [@Labini].
The distribution of stars inside galaxies also carries fractal character. In Ref.[@FractStar] this fractal dimension was determined by averaging observational data of ten galaxies and was found to be equal to $D \sim 2.3$.
Evidently, the observable fractal dimension $D$ in distributions of stars and galaxies are in agreement with predictions of the given model. Of course, other mechanisms at a later stage may contribute to the distribution and change the fractal dimension somewhat, but the model discussed gives a primordial reason of fractality in the galaxy and star distribution.
For the sake of completeness it is worth to note another observational consequence following from the assumption of the existence of closed walls at an early stage of formation of the universe. If the mass of a wall is rather large, it can collapse into a black hole, when shrinking. This process was studied in Ref.[@Ru1]. Hence, the considered model predicts existence of massive black holes at the centers of galaxies. This conclusion is in good agreement with observations. The presence of black holes with masses of order $10^7 M_{\bigodot}$ at the centers of galaxies is an established fact by now [@Rosen].
Interaction with fermions
=========================
The interaction of a scalar field with fermions is usually considered in the form of Yukawa coupling $$\label {f}
V _ F = g\varphi \bar \psi \psi$$ In this case we arrive at a serious problem. The minimum of the potential, guaranteeing conditions suitable for life, can appear far from the value $\varphi = 0$. Hence, the term contributing to the fermion mass $M_F = g \varphi_m $ will be huge comparing with experimentally observed fermion masses. The problem can be solved by noticing that the choice (\[f\]) selects the field value $\varphi = 0$ which contradicts the main postulates of Section 2. Let us suppose the interaction has the form $$\label {f2}
V_F = G (\varphi) \bar \psi \psi,$$ which is a generalization of expression (\[f\]). The function $G
(\varphi)$ is chosen to be a polynomial with random factors in analogy with the scalar potential $V(\varphi)$. In this case the fermion mass $M_{F}$ and the constant $g$ of interaction with the field $\phi = \varphi - \varphi _ {m}$ depend on the number $m$ of the universe, $$\label {mF} M _ {F} = G (\varphi _ {m}); \quad
\quad g = G ' _ {\varphi } (\varphi _ {m}) .$$ This expression is obtained by expansion of Eq.(\[f2\]) in a power series around the minimum $\varphi_m$. Because we have an infinite number of universes, it is obvious that for any given interval of fermion mass $(\mu _ F; \mu _ F + \delta )$ and function $G (\varphi)$, one can find an appropriate universe such that the value of the potential at the minimum $V (\varphi _ {m})$ satisfies the equality $\mu _ {F}\cong G(\varphi _ {m})$ with desired accuracy.
It becomes now possible to use this mechanism for fine tuning of another parameters of a universe, but not only vacuum energy density. For example, the existence of life is possible if the fermion mass lies in an interval $(\mu _{life} , \mu _{life} +
\delta m)$. Then from an infinite set of universes with energy density suitable for life, one can always choose universes with suitable values $G(\varphi _{m})$, such that the fermion mass appears in the given interval. Moreover, this new restricted set of universes still contains an infinite number of universes and we can choose a subset of universes with other parameters suitable for life. Let us introduce a finite set of physical parameters ${\ell
_k}$ which are necessary for creation life in a universe and enumerable set of universes $\Re (\{ \ell \} _n)$. Here $\{ \ell \}
_n$ is a set of $n$ parameters $\ell _1 ,\ell _2,...,\ell _n$. Then the process of finding of suitable universe looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\Re(\{ \ell \} _0)\Rightarrow \Re(\{ \ell \} _1)\Rightarrow
\Re(\{ \ell \} _2)\Rightarrow ...\Rightarrow \Re(\{ \ell \}
_{N_{life}}) ~ .\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{life}$ is a minimal number of parameters which leads to conditions suitable for life in the universe. Thus, quantum fluctuations supply a permanent “search” of universes, suitable for life by all parameters.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper the mechanism of creation of universes with given set of microscopic parameters is developed. The process of formations of each universe is unique, because the form of potential is unique in the vicinity of each minimum. The formation of universes is described by different types of inflationary models. Presently, a large number of models with a wide range of different potentials are considered as potentially realistic. Apparently, each of them describes some subset of the universes of our type. It is shown, that at an early stage of formation of our universe primordial fractal structures are created in natural way. Three different scenarios of fractal creation are considered here. Two of them are based on the well known natural and hybrid models of inflation. These structures could be the germs of galaxies and stars. The fractal dimension ($ D\approx 2 $) of galaxy distribution calculated in the paper is in agreement with observations.
Acknowledgments
===============
The author is grateful to Professor H. Kröger for his interest and constant encouragement throughout the work. This work was partly performed in the framework of Section “Cosmoparticle physics” of Russian State Scientific Technological Programme " Astronomy.
[10]{}
V.Sahny and A.Starobinsky, astro-ph/, astro-ph/9904398 (1999).
A.G.Riess et al., Astron. Journ. [**116**]{}, 1009 (1998).
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2607 (1987).
A.H.Guth, astro-ph/0002188 (2000).
A. D. Linde, [*The Large-scale Structure of the Universe*]{} (Harwood Academic Publishers, London, 1990).
S. Coleman, in [*Laws of Hadronic Matter*]{} ([*Ed.:*]{} A. Zichichi, Academic Press, NY, 1975), p. 186.
D.H.Luth, hep-ph/990471 (1999).
A.H.Guth, Phys. Rev.D [**23**]{}, 347 (1981).
S.-J. Rey, Nucl. Phys. [**B284**]{}, 706 (1987).
R. Rajaraman, [*Solitons and Instantons*]{} (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam – New-York – Oxford, 1982).
A. D. Linde, Physica Scripta [**T36**]{}, 35 (1991).
E. W. Kolb, Physica Scripta [**T36**]{}, 199 (1991).
K. Freese, J.A.Frieman, and A.V.Olinto, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**65**]{}, 3233 (1990).
A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. [**B259**]{}, 38 (1991).
G.Dvali, Q.Shafi, and R.Schaefer, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**73**]{}, 1886 (1994) .
M.Yu. Khlopov, [*Cosmoparticle Physics*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong, 1999).
R.H.Brandenberger, hep-ph/0101119 (2001)
S. Labini, M. Montouri, and L. Pietronero, Phys.Rep. [**293**]{}, 61 (1998).
B.G. Elmegreen and D.M. Elmegreen, astro-ph/0012184 (2000).
S.G. Rubin, M.Yu. Khlopov, and A.S. Sakharov, Gravitation & Cosmology, Supplement [**6**]{}, 51 (2000).
D.E. Rosenberg and J.R. Rutgers, astro-ph/0012023 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Previous estimates of the surface temperature of Jupiter’s moon, Europa, neglected the effect of the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit around the Sun, the effect of the emissivity of Europa’s ice, the effect of the eclipse of Europa (i.e., the relative time that Europa is within the shadow of Jupiter), and the effect of Europa’s internal heating. Here we estimate the surface temperature of Europa, when Europa’s obliquity, emissivity, eclipse and internal heating, as well as the eccentricity of Jupiter, are all taken into account. For a typical internal heating rate of 0.05 Wm$^{-2}$, the equator, pole, and global mean surface temperatures are 103, 46, and 96, respectively. We found that the temperature at the high latitudes is significantly affected by the internal heating, especially during the solstice, suggesting that measurements of high latitude surface temperatures can be used to constrain the internal heating. Based on the surface temperature, we provide a rough estimate for the ice thickness of Europa. We also estimate the incoming solar radiation to Enceladus, the moon of Saturn. Our approach and formalism can be implemented to estimate the surface temperature of other moons in the solar system.'
author:
- Yosef Ashkenazy
title: The surface temperature of Europa
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Jupiter’s moon, Europa, and Saturn’s moon, Enceladus, are two of only a few moons in the solar system that bear the possibility of extraterrestrial life [e.g., @Chyba-Phillips-2001:possible; @Pappalardo-Vance-Bagenal-et-al-2013:science]. Europa has a deep ($\sim$100 km) ocean that underlies an icy shell, more than ten kilometers deep [e.g., @Cassen-Reynolds-Peale-1979:there; @Carr-Belton-Chapman-et-al-1998:evidence; @Kivelson-Khurana-Russell-et-al-2000:galileo], where chemical interactions at the rocky bottom of the ocean may enable the existence of a habitable environment [e.g., @Chyba-Phillips-2001:possible; @Chyba-Phillips-2002:europa]. The Voyager and Galileo (and to a lesser extent, the Cassini-Huygens and New Horizons) spacecrafts/missions discovered many interesting features of Europa including chaos terrains [@Schmidt-Blankenship-Patterson-et-al-2011:active] and craters [@Lucchitta-Soderblom-1982:geology]. More recently, based on the Hubble telescope observations, scientists raised the possibility of water vapor plumes at Europa’s south pole [@Roth-Saur-Retherford-et-al-2014:transient; @Sparks-Hand-McGrath-et-al-2016:probing]. Europa is one of the youngest, largest, and brightest moons in the solar system [@Pappalardo-McKinnon-Khurana-2009:europa]. A basic property of Europa is its surface temperature; surface temperature is needed to calculate the properties of its icy shell and ocean dynamics. Thus, an accurate estimation of Europa’s surface temperature is required.
The surface temperature of Europa was previously estimated by [@Ojakangas-Stevenson-1989:thermal]. These authors took into account the obliquity of Europa with respect to the plane of rotation of Jupiter around the Sun. Using a surface albedo of 0.5, they found that the temperature varies from $\sim$110 at the equator to $\sim$52 at the poles; the mean surface temperature was found to be $\sim$100. However, this calculation of surface temperature was based on the annual mean black-body radiation such that the annual mean temperature was estimated as $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$ instead of $\langle T_s\rangle$ where $T_s$ indicates the daily temperature and $\langle \cdot\rangle$ the annual mean. We show below that the polar $\langle T_s\rangle$ is lower by more than 7 than $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$. In addition, the following factors were not taken into account: the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit around the Sun, the effect of the emissivity of Europa’s ice, the effect of Europa’s eclipse (i.e., the time that Europa is within the shadow of Jupiter), and Europa’s internal heating. The eccentricity \[see Eqs. (\[eq:Wmean\]) and (\[eq:Wmeanp\]) below\], emissivity, and internal heating factors increase the incoming radiation to Europa’s surface from above and below, while the eclipse factor reduces the incoming solar radiation. In addition, a more realistic surface bolometric Bond albedo of 0.62$\pm$0.14 [@Buratti-Veverka-1983:voyager; @Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures] should be considered; this by itself reduces the incoming solar radiation by more than 20%. The goal of this study is to develop a more accurate estimation of the surface temperature of Europa, taking all the above factors into account. In addition, the analytic approximation developed here may be used to estimate the surface temperature of other moons in the solar system.
The brightness temperature of Europa was estimated by [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures], based on measurements performed by the Galileo spacecraft. This study estimated the diurnal temperature cycle at the low latitudes to be between 86 and 132 and also provided spatial snapshots of surface temperatures up to, roughly, 70 latitude. Still, the diurnal mean temperature for latitudes poleward of 15 and the temperatures at the high latitudes were not estimated. The polar region temperatures are important as in these regions, the internal heating significantly affects the surface temperatures, and measurements of surface temperatures in these regions may help to estimate the internal heating rate and, consequently, the thickness of the ice. The dependence of surface temperature on the internal heating is studied here.
Below we first present our approximation for the incoming solar radiation to Europa (Section \[sec:solar\]). We then quantify the effect of Europa’s eclipse, i.e., the relative time that Europa is within the shadow of Jupiter (Section \[sec:eclipse\]). Next we calculate the surface temperature of Europa (Section \[sec:surfT\]). A summary and discussion close the paper (Section \[sec:summary\]). A very rough estimation of the mean thickness of Europa’s icy shell as a function of the internal heating rate is detailed in Appendix \[sec:ice-depth\]. The parameters that are used in this study are listed in Table \[table:params\].
parameter description value
--------------- ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
$S_0$ Jupiter solar constant 51 Wm$^{-2}$
$e$ eccentricity of Jupiter 0.048
$\varepsilon$ obliquity of Europa 3.7
$\alpha_p$ bolometric Bond albedo of Europa $0.62\pm 0.14$
$p$ Europa eclipse relative time 0.033
$\sigma$ Stefan-Boltzmann constant $5.67\times 10^{-8}$ Wm$^{-2}$ K$^{-4}$
$\epsilon$ emissivity of Europa 0.94
$\rho_i$ density of ice 917 kg m$^{-3}$
$c_{p,i}$ heat capacity of ice 2000 J kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$
$\kappa$ ice heat diffusion constant $1.54\times 10^{-6}$ m$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$
$g$ surface gravity of Europa 1.314 m s$^{-2}$
$r_j$ mean Jupiter-Sun distance $7.785\times 10^{11}$ m
$r_e$ mean Europa-Jupiter distance $6.71 \times 10^{8}$ m
$a_s$ radius of Sun $6.96\times 10^{8}$ m
$a_j$ radius of Jupiter $6.99\times 10^{7}$ m
$a_e$ radius of Europa $1.561\times 10^{6}$ m
: List of parameters.[]{data-label="table:params"}
The incoming solar radiation {#sec:solar}
============================
We first calculate the solar radiation reaching the surface of Europa. The daily mean insolation [@Milankovitch-1941:canon; @Berger-1978:long; @Berger-Loutre-Tricot-1993:insolation; @Hartmann-1994:global; @Ashkenazy-Gildor-2008:timing] is given by $$\label{eq:W}
W=\frac{S_0}{\pi}\frac{[1+e\cos{(\lambda-\omega-\pi)}]^2}{(1-e^2)^2} (H_0\sin\phi\sin\delta+\cos\phi\cos\delta\sin H_0),$$ where $S_0$ is the solar constant of Jupiter, $e$ is the eccentricity of Jupiter, $\omega$ is the precession, $\lambda$ is the longitude of Jupiter with respect to its orbit around the Sun, $\delta$ is the declination angle given by $\sin\delta = \sin \varepsilon \sin\lambda $ where $\varepsilon$ is the obliquity of Europa with respect to the plane of rotation of Jupiter around the Sun (calculated as the sum of the axial tilt of Europa, 0.1, the inclination angle of Europa, 0.47, and the axial tilt of Jupiter, 3.13), and $H_0$ is the hour angle at sunrise and sunset given by $\cos H_0 = -\tan \phi \tan \delta$. Equation (\[eq:W\]) is relevant for latitudes $\phi<|\pi/2-|\delta||$, while outside this latitude range, the insolation during the polar night is zero and during the polar day is equal to $$\label{eq:Wp}
W=S_0\frac{[1+e\cos{(\lambda-\omega-\pi)}]^2}{(1-e^2)^2} \sin\phi\sin\delta.$$ Since the obliquity of Europa is very small, we approximate $H_0\approx \cos^{-1}(-\varepsilon \tan\phi\sin\lambda)$.
Next we focus on the annual mean insolation. For this purpose, one must take into account the derivative of the time lapse, $t$, with respect to the longitude, $\lambda$ [@Milankovitch-1941:canon; @Hartmann-1994:global; @Ashkenazy-Gildor-2008:timing] $$\label{eq:dtdl}
\frac{dt}{d\lambda}=\frac{(1-e^2)^{3/2}}{[1+e\cos{(\lambda-\omega-\pi)}]^2}.$$ Then, the relative time lapse, $T$, of one cycle of Jupiter around the Sun may be approximated as $$\label{eq:T}
T=\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{dt}{d\lambda}d\lambda\approx 2\pi(1-e^2)^{3/2},$$ as the eccentricity is much smaller than one. The annual mean insolation is then approximated by $$\label{eq:Wmean}
\langle W \rangle=\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}W\frac{dt}{d\lambda}d\lambda\approx \frac{S_0}{4\pi (1-e^2)^2}\left( 4\cos \phi +\varepsilon^2\sin\phi\tan\phi-\cos\phi\sin^2\varepsilon \right).$$ The above approximation is not valid for the polar regions, encompassing latitudes that experience polar nights/days. In these regions, the mean annual insolation is approximated by $$\label{eq:Wmeanp}
\langle W \rangle_p\approx \frac{S_0}{\pi (1-e^2)^2}\left( \sin\varepsilon +\frac{\cos^2\phi}{4\sin \varepsilon} \right).$$ In the calculation above, we neglected the effect of Jupiter’s longwave radiation as it is very small compared to the solar radiation. Jupiter’s longwave radiation reaching Europa is approximately 0.2 Wm$^{-2}$, and when taking the effect of the latitude (i.e., the multiplication of the cosine of latitude) into account, this radiation indeed becomes negligible.
In Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]a, we plot the annual mean and solstice incoming solar radiation as a function of latitude. Both the numerically integrated and the analytically approximated annual mean curves are presented, and the two are almost indistinguishable. Note the very small level of incoming solar radiation ($\sim$1 Wm$^{-2}$) that reaches the poles, suggesting that the internal heating cannot be ignored at the high latitudes. No solar radiation reaches the winter pole during the solstice; thus, we expect the internal heating to have a large influence on surface temperature during this time.
![(a) Annual mean (green and blue) and solstice (red) incoming solar radiation as a function of latitude. Both the numerically integrated (blue) and the analytic (green) approximation \[Eqs. (\[eq:Wmean\]), (\[eq:Wmeanp\])\] are shown although the two are almost indistinguishable (the maximal difference between the two is 0.01 Wm$^{-2}$). (b) Annual mean surface temperature based on $\langle T_s\rangle$ for several internal heating rates. (c) Same as b for the solstice temperature ($\degree$K). (d) Same as c but based on $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$. Note that the high latitudes are more affected by the internal heating, especially during the solstice. Also note the large differences between the high latitude temperatures of small internal heating depicted in panels b and d. For simplicity, to estimate the incoming solar radiation during the solstice (panel c), we assume that $e=0$; in panel b, we use $\omega=0$.[]{data-label="fig:incoming-solar-Ts"}](./Fig1.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The approximation we developed above is based on the assumption that the obliquity, $\varepsilon$, is small. This situation, however, is not the case, for example, for Enceladus, the moon of Saturn, whose obliquity with respect to the orbit around the Sun is 27. Enceladus is also a moon with an underlying ocean, and, like Europa, is one of the most probable places in the solar system to have extraterrestrial life. Surprisingly, our approximation for the low and mid-latitudes \[Eq. (\[eq:Wmean\])\] holds also for the relatively large obliquity of Enceladus, while the solar radiation in the polar regions is better approximated using $$\label{eq:Wmeanp1}
\langle W \rangle_p\approx \frac{S_0}{\pi (1-e^2)^2}\left( \sin\varepsilon +\frac{\cos^2\phi}{2\pi\sin \varepsilon} \right).$$ See Fig. \[fig:enceladus\] for the numerically integrated and analytically approximated annual mean \[Eq. (\[eq:Wmeanp1\])\] solar radiation for Enceladus; for reference, we also include the solar radiation during the solstice.
![The incoming solar radiation as a function of latitude for Enceladus, the moon of Saturn. Both the numerically integrated and the analytic approximation are shown, and the two are almost indistinguishable except for the region around latitudes $-\pi/2+\varepsilon$ and $\pi/2-\varepsilon$ (63 and 63), at the transition to the polar regions. The parameter values we used to calculate the incoming solar radiation to Enceladus are: $S_0=15.14$ Wm$^{-2}$, $e=0.055$, $\varepsilon=27\degree{{\rm K}}$, and $\alpha_p=0.8$. For simplicity, to estimate the incoming solar radiation during the solstice, we assume that $e=0$. []{data-label="fig:enceladus"}](./Fig2.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The effect of Europa’s eclipse {#sec:eclipse}
==============================
Since the obliquity of both Jupiter and Europa is very small and since Europa is close to Jupiter (the distance between Europa and Jupiter is about 10 times the radius of Jupiter) but much smaller than Jupiter (the radius of Europa is about 45 times smaller than that of Jupiter), Europa passes in the shadow of Jupiter during each of Europa’s days. This effect reduces the mean solar radiation. The relative time that Europa is within the shadow of Jupiter (eclipse conditions) can be approximated as the ratio between the diameter of Jupiter and the perimeter of Europa’s orbit around Jupiter; it is $p=2a_j/2\pi r_e\approx 0.033$, where $a_j$ is the radius of Jupiter and $r_e$ is the distance of Europa from Jupiter. Here we consider only the umbra effect and ignore the penumbra effect since (i) Jupiter is relatively very far from the Sun and since (ii) Europa is relatively close to Jupiter. See \[sec:accurate-eclipse\] for a more accurate estimation of the eclipse effect.
It is possible to approximate the drop in surface temperature at the end of the eclipse by considering only the internal heating and outgoing longwave radiation, using a time-dependent energy balance equation. The drop in temperature is then less than 0.3.
Calculation of the surface temperature of Europa {#sec:surfT}
================================================
Under the assumptions that Europa has no atmosphere and that there is no heat transport at Europa’s surface, it is possible to calculate the surface temperature of Europa based on the energy balance between the incoming heat fluxes (i.e., shortwave solar radiation and internal heating) and the outgoing longwave radiation. More specifically, $$\label{eq:ebm}
W(1-\alpha_p)(1-p)+Q=\epsilon\sigma T_s^4,$$ where $W$ is the daily mean insolation \[Eqs. (\[eq:W\]),(\[eq:Wp\])\], $\alpha_p$ is the planetary albedo of Europa, $p$ is the relative time that Europa passes through Jupiter’s shadow, $\epsilon$ is the emissivity of Europa [@Spencer-1987:surfaces], and $T_s$ is Europa’s surface temperature. Consequently, Europa’s surface temperature can be expressed as $$\label{eq:Ts}
T_s(\phi)=\left[\frac{W(1-\alpha_p)(1-p)+Q}{\epsilon \sigma}\right]^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$ The annual mean surface temperature, $\langle T_s\rangle$, can be calculated using Eq. (\[eq:Ts\]), (\[eq:dtdl\]),(\[eq:T\]) and is $$\label{eq:Tsa}
\langle T_s\rangle=\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}T_s\frac{dt}{d\lambda}d\lambda.$$ All the parameters in Eq. (\[eq:Ts\]) are well constrained except the internal heating $Q$. The internal heating, most probably, has spatial dependence, due to, for example, tidal heating within the ice. However, due to a lack of knowledge and large uncertainties, we assume that it is spatially constant. In addition, [@Tobie-Choblet-Sotin-2003:tidally] indicated that the heat flux at Europa’s surface is almost constant. \[We note that it is easily possible to use spatially variable internal heating and surface albedo in Eq. (\[eq:Ts\]).\]
A more common way to estimate the surface temperature is using the annual mean insolation, i.e., $$\label{eq:Tsa1}
\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}=\left[\frac{\langle W\rangle (1-\alpha_p)(1-p)+Q}{\epsilon \sigma}\right]^{\frac{1}{4}},$$ where $\langle W\rangle$ is the annual mean insolation given in Eq. (\[eq:Wmean\]). Such an approach was taken by [@Ojakangas-Stevenson-1989:thermal]. Clearly, $\langle T_s\rangle\ne\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$. We discuss the differences between the two approaches below.
In Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]b, we plot the annual mean surface temperature as a function of latitude, $\langle T_s(\phi)\rangle$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Tsa\])\], for several internal heating rates, $Q$. For weak internal heating, the temperature drops sharply toward the high latitudes. This drop can be attributed to the sharply reduced solar radiation at these latitudes. For this reason, the high latitude regions are drastically influenced by the internal heating. The effect of internal heating is very dominant in the polar winter during the solstice (Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]c) when the internal heating can raise the temperature by tens of degrees. The high latitude surface temperatures may be approximated in future missions to Europa, and these can shed important light on the internal heating rate of Europa.
The annual mean surface temperature based on $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Tsa1\])\] is shown in Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]d. There is a large difference between the high latitude temperatures shown in Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]d and the ones shown in Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]b (which is based on $\langle T_s\rangle$), especially for the more realistic small internal heating rates. For $Q=0.05$ Wm$^{-2}$, the annual mean polar temperature based on $\langle T_s\rangle$ is 46.1 compared to 53.4 based on $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$. Thus, the annual mean polar region surface temperatures cannot be accurately approximated using $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$.
![The global mean (blue), minimum (poles, green), and maximum (equator, red) of Europa’s surface temperature (in ) as a function of the internal heating rate, $Q$ (in Wm$^{-2}$). The solid lines indicate temperatures that are based on $\langle T_s\rangle$, while the dashed lines indicate those that are based on $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$. Note the large difference between the two methods for polar temperature when internal heating is less than 0.1 Wm$^{-2}$. Also note that the equatorial and global mean temperatures are almost the same when using both methods.[]{data-label="fig:Ts"}](./Fig3.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The internal heating in Europa is not well constrained. In addition, it may vary spatially due to tidal heating within the ice, in both the meridional and longitudinal directions [e.g., @Ojakangas-Stevenson-1989:thermal; @Tobie-Choblet-Sotin-2003:tidally; @Nimmo-Thomas-Pappalardo-et-al-2007:global]. There are several sources contributing to this heating: rocky mantle (metallic core and silicate mantle) radiogenic heating [6-8 mWm$^{-2}$, @Barr-Showman-2009:heat], tidal heating of Europa’s core [e.g., 30-230 mWm$^{-2}$, @Chen-Nimmo-Glatzmaier-2014:tidal], and tidal heating of the icy shell [@Tobie-Choblet-Sotin-2003:tidally]. The tidal heating of Europa’s ocean is negligible [@Chen-Nimmo-Glatzmaier-2014:tidal]. In addition, when the ice is sufficiently shallow (typically, shallower than 10 km), it has only one conductive layer without a bottom convective layer, and the tidal heating of the icy shell is relatively small [@Nimmo-Thomas-Pappalardo-et-al-2007:global; @Barr-Showman-2009:heat]. Below we assume that the icy shell is only conductive such that the internal heating originates in Europa’s rocky mantle. Yet, it is easy to calculate the surface temperature at least when the latitudinal dependence of the tidal heating is specified.
In Fig. \[fig:Ts\] (solid lines), we plot the global mean, minimum (polar), and maximum (equatorial) surface temperatures as a function of the internal heating, $Q$. The mean and maximal (equator) surface temperatures are not drastically affected by the internal heating as the main heating source is the incoming solar radiation; the mean and maximal surface temperatures increase by $\sim$3 for an increase of internal heating from 0 to 0.5 Wm$^{-2}$. However, the polar temperature is drastically affected by the internal heating as the solar radiation is very weak in these locations. As shown in Fig. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\]c, this increase is much larger during the solstice. Fig. \[fig:Ts\] also depicts the temperatures that are based on $\langle T_s^4\rangle^{1/4}$ (dashed lines). Here the polar temperatures are much warmer than the ones that are based on $\langle T_s\rangle$, especially for small (realistic) internal heating rates. Yet, the equatorial and global mean temperatures are almost the same when using the two methods (solid versus dashed lines), indicating that it is possible to approximate the low latitude and global mean surface temperatures of Europa based on the annual mean insolation given in Eqs. (\[eq:Wmean\]), (\[eq:Wmeanp\]).
The sensitivity of the surface temperature with regards to the different parameters is summarized in Table \[table:sensitivity\]. The equator, pole, global mean, and low latitude (15–15) mean temperatures are given for control values and for specific parameter values that are different from the control values. The parameters include the eccentricity, $e$, obliquity, $\varepsilon$, emissivity, $\epsilon$, surface albedo, $\alpha_p$, relative time of Europa’s eclipse, $p$ (as estimated in Section \[sec:eclipse\]), and internal heating, $Q$. It is clear that changes in the albedo have a profound effect on the low- and mid-latitude temperatures, due to the fact that the albedo directly affects the incoming solar radiation, which more drastically affects the aforementioned latitudes. As shown in Figs. \[fig:incoming-solar-Ts\] and \[fig:Ts\], the internal heating more drastically affects the polar regions, as there the incoming solar radiation heating is relatively small compared to the low latitudes. The effect of the eccentricity is small. This also follows from Eqs. (\[eq:Wmean\]), (\[eq:Wmeanp\]) from which one can see that the annual mean incoming solar radiation is approximately proportional to $1+2e^2$ since $e\ll 1$. Thus, the eccentricity increases the annual mean incoming solar radiation, but since for Europa, $e\approx 0.05$, this increase does not exceed 0.5%. The obliquity has a significant effect on the high latitudes and thus must be taken into account. When ignoring the effect of ice emissivity, the surface temperature decreases by approximately 1. The effect of Europa’s eclipse on surface temperatures reduces the incoming solar radiation by up to 3.3%, and the associated drop in surface temperature does not exceed 1.
parameter equator pole global mean 15-15 mean
------------------- --------- ------ ------------- ------------
control 103.3 46.1 96.2 103.0
$e=0$ 103.0 45.9 95.9 102.7
$\varepsilon=0$ 103.4 31.2 96.3 103.0
$\epsilon=1$ 101.7 45.4 94.8 101.5
$\alpha_p=0.5$ 110.6 48.1 103.0 110.3
$p=0$ 104.2 46.3 97.0 103.9
$Q=0$ 103.1 29.7 95.9 102.8
$Q=0.1$ Wm$^{-2}$ 103.5 49.6 96.5 103.3
$Q=0.5$ Wm$^{-2}$ 105.2 62.5 98.7 104.9
: Sensitivity of surface temperature () of Europa to the different parameters. Control run parameters: eccentricity ($e=0.048$), obliquity ($\varepsilon=3.7\degree{}$), emissivity ($\epsilon=0.94$), albedo ($\alpha_p=0.62$), Europa eclipse relative time ($p=0.033$), and internal heating ($Q=0.05$ Wm$^{-2}$). []{data-label="table:sensitivity"}
Given the above, we conclude that an accurate albedo map is essential in estimating the low and mid-latitude surface temperatures of Europa while the obliquity and internal heating rate are essential in accurately determining the temperature at the high latitudes. To a first approximation, the effects of the eccentricity and Europa’s eclipse may be neglected. It is plausible that the polar regions’ temperatures will be estimated/measured in the future, similar to the estimation of the low and mid-latitude temperatures that followed the Galileo spacecraft’s measurements [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures]. If this occurs, for example during future missions that will examine the water plumes over the south pole of Europa, it will be possible to roughly estimate the internal heating rate based on the surface temperature, especially over the winter pole during the solstice.
It is possible to provide a very rough estimate of Europa’s ice thickness based on the above; see Appendix \[sec:ice-depth\]. This estimate may be a reference thickness for studying the effect of both vertical and horizontal ice flow due to both tidal heating within the ice and ice flow due to pressure gradients that are associated with variations in ice thickness.
Discussion and Summary {#sec:summary}
======================
The Galileo mission triggered many studies regarding the moon Europa [see, @Pappalardo-McKinnon-Khurana-2009:europa]. One of the observations made by the Galileo spacecraft (Photopolarimeter-Radiometer) was used to estimate Europa’s surface temperature [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures]. [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures] concentrated on low latitude temperatures, which were also relatively high, and consequently suggested either a low local albedo [0.5 compared with 0.62$\pm$0.14 of @Buratti-Veverka-1983:voyager] or a very high local endogenic heating (of 1 Wm$^{-2}$). The mean surface temperature estimation of [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures] was limited to latitudes equatorward of $\sim\pm$70, and these approximately correspond to an internal heating of $\sim$0.05 Wm$^{-2}$. The temperature estimations of [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures] are not the annual mean ones. However, since the changes in the low latitude temperatures during the year are relatively small, these temperature estimations approximately represent the annual mean temperature. Still, the temperature estimations of [@Spencer-Tamppari-Martin-et-al-1999:temperatures] are not accurate enough to allow extrapolation to the polar regions. In addition, the polar regions exhibit a large seasonal cycle, and thus, the temperature estimation on a given day is not sufficient to approximate the annual mean polar temperature. See Table \[table:sensitivity\] for the low latitude mean temperatures that exhibit weak sensitivity (less than 1) to almost all the parameters.
Future estimates of Europa’s surface temperature may include the polar regions. Exact polar temperatures may help to better estimate the rate of the internal heating as these regions are only partly affected by the solar radiation and the contribution of the internal heating in these regions is large, especially during the winter solstice. Polar temperatures have hardly any diurnal variations, thus simplifying the estimation of the diurnal mean temperature. Large uncertainties are associated with the internal heating and the ice depth of Europa, and an exact estimation of the polar region temperatures may significantly reduce these uncertainties.
In summary, we developed a mathematical approximation for the global mean incoming solar radiation at Europa’s surface. We used the incoming solar radiation and internal heating rate to estimate the annual mean surface temperature; this estimation takes into account the eccentricity of Jupiter, as well as Europa’s obliquity, emissivity, eclipse, and internal heating. We showed that the temperature varies moderately at the low latitudes and much more drastically at the high latitudes and that the high latitudes are more drastically affected by the internal heating, especially during the solstice. For a typical internal heating rate of 0.05 Wm$^{-2}$ [e.g., @Tobie-Choblet-Sotin-2003:tidally; @Nimmo-Thomas-Pappalardo-et-al-2007:global], the equator, pole, and global mean surface temperatures are 103, 46, and 96, respectively. Based on the internal heating rate, we provide a very rough estimate for the mean thickness of Europa’s icy shell (Appendix \[sec:ice-depth\]). We also estimate the incoming solar radiation to Enceladus, the moon of Saturn. The approach we developed here may be applicable to other moons in the solar system.
We thank Roiy Sayag and Eli Tziperman for helpful discussions.
More accurate estimation for the effect of the eclipse {#sec:accurate-eclipse}
=======================================================
A more accurate estimation is based on Fig. \[fig:eclipse\]. The term $a_{s,j,e}$ indicates the radius of the Sun, Jupiter, and Europa, $r_p$ is the distance between the Sun and point $p$, $r_j$ is the distance of Jupiter from the Sun, $r_e$ is the distance between Europa and Jupiter, $d$ is the segment of the perimeter of Europa around Jupiter that is in Jupiter’s shadow, and $2\alpha$ is the angle between two rays from the Sun that intercept at point $p$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{2}&=&a_s\left(1-\frac{r_j}{r_p}-\frac{r_e}{r_p} \right) \\
\tan \alpha&=&\frac{a_j}{r_p-r_j} \\
r_p&=&\frac{r_ja_s}{a_s-a_j},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$d=2a_j-2r_e(a_s-a_j)/r_j.$$ The relative time that Europa is in the shadow of Jupiter is approximately $$p=\frac{d-a_e}{2\pi r_e}=\frac{a_j-r_e(a_s-a_j)/r_j-a_e/2}{\pi r_e}.$$ For the parameter values listed in Table \[table:params\], $d\approx 2a_j$ and $p\approx a_j/(\pi r_e)=0.033$, as indicated in Section \[sec:eclipse\].
![A drawing depicting the different measures that are used to calculate the time that Europa spends in Jupiter’s shadow. The different measures do not reflect the real relative measures.[]{data-label="fig:eclipse"}](./Fig4.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Ice thickness {#sec:ice-depth}
=============
It is possible to obtain a lower limit estimate for Europa’s ice thickness based on the energy balance between the incoming solar radiation, the outgoing longwave radiation, and the internal heating. This rough estimate may be a reference thickness for studying the effect of both vertical and horizontal ice flow due to both tidal heating within the ice as well as ice flow due to pressure gradients that are associated with variations in ice thickness. Here we assume that (i) the internal heating, $Q$, is uniform in space and time, (ii) the icy shell is conductive but not convective such that the temperature within the ice varies linearly with depth, and (iii) the tidal heating within the ice is negligible. These assumptions are probably valid for relatively shallow ice (shallower than 10 km) when there is only one conductive layer [@Tobie-Choblet-Sotin-2003:tidally]; when there are two layers, an upper conductive layer and a lower convective layer, the temperature is approximately uniform within the convective layer (where the temperature is close to the melting temperature), and tidal heating is not negligible within this layer.
Under the above assumptions, it is possible to calculate the mean thickness of the icy shell as follows: $$\label{eq:h}
h=\rho_ic_{p,i}\kappa \frac{T_f-T_s}{Q},$$ where $\rho_i$ is the ice density, $c_{p,i}$ is the heat capacity of the ice, $\kappa$ is the heat conductance coefficient, $T_f$ is the freezing (or melting) temperature of the ice, and $h$ is the ice thickness. $T_s$ (annual mean) and $h$ depend on latitude and the freezing temperature, and $T_f$, depends on the thickness of the ice (through the pressure at the bottom of the ice) and on the salinity of the water as follows [@Gill-1982:atmosphere; @Losch-2008:modeling]: $$\label{eq:Tf}
T_f=273.16+0.0901-0.0575\times S-7.61\times 10^{-8}\times P_b,$$ where $S$ is the salinity of the ocean water, $P_b$ is the pressure (in Pa) at the bottom of the ice (i.e., $P_b=g\rho_ih$), and $T_f$ is given in . Thus, $T_f$ depends linearly on ice thickness.
The dependence of the thickness of the ice on latitude is not trivial as ice may flow due to gradients in ice thickness [see, for example, @Tziperman-Abbot-Ashkenazy-et-al-2012:continental]. To bypass this complexity, we only estimate the mean ice thickness by performing a spatial mean on Eq. (\[eq:h\]). In addition, since $T_f$ depends on $h$, the global mean thickness of the ice can be estimated iteratively as follows: $$\label{eq:hi}
\langle h\rangle_{j+1}=\rho_ic_{p,i}\kappa \frac{\langle T_f\rangle_j-\langle T_s\rangle}{Q},$$ where $j$ is a counter that indicates the number of the iteration. We start the process from a typical mean freezing temperature (e.g., $T_f\approx 270\degree{{\rm K}}$), find the mean thickness, and then use it to estimate the new mean freezing temperature. Convergence is achieved after a few iterations.
The global mean ice thickness and freezing temperature as a function of internal heating are shown in Fig. \[fig:h-Tf-Q\]. First, as predicted by Eq. (\[eq:hi\]), the mean ice thickness, $\langle h\rangle$, inversely depends on the internal heating, $Q$. Second, the thickness hardly depends on the salinity of the water. Third, the mean freezing temperature converges to a constant value for realistic internal heating values (i.e., $Q> 40$ mWm$^{-2}$). Fourth, an increase of salinity by 100 ppt decreases the freezing temperature by 5.75; this is a direct consequence of Eq. (\[eq:Tf\]).
![(a) Global mean ice thickness as a function of the internal heating rate, $Q$, when the underlying ocean is fresh (blue) and salty (100 and 200 ppt, green and red). The ice thickness is hardly affected by the salinity of the ocean water. The salinity unit is “parts per thousand” (ppt), or grams of salt per kilogram of seawater. (b) Global mean freezing temperature of seawater as a function of the internal heating rate, $Q$, for fresh (blue) and salty (100 and 200 ppt, green and red) water. (c) Ice thickness (in km), $h$, and freezing temperature (in ), $T_f$, as a function of latitude for internal heating of $Q$=0.05, 0.1 Wm$^{-2}$. As mentioned in the text, this is a very rough estimate of the ice thickness as our underlying assumption is that the ice is stagnant and that the tidal heating is negligible. []{data-label="fig:h-Tf-Q"}](./Fig5.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
A mean ice thickness of $\langle h\rangle=10$ km was obtained for an internal heating of $Q\approx 50$ mWm$^{-2}$. Below this value, the estimated mean ice thickness should be regarded as a lower limit, as an almost uniform temperature bottom convective layer may be formed, violating our assumption of a linear increase of temperature within the ice with depth. For a mean ice thickness shallower than $\sim$10 km, we expect one conductive layer, and the estimated mean ice thickness is more accurate.
It is possible to calculate the ice thickness and the freezing temperature as a function of latitude under the assumption that the ice does not flow and is stagnant. In this case, there is a simple energy balance between the internal heating, the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing longwave radiation at each latitude. Fig. \[fig:h-Tf-Q\]c depicts the ice thickness as a function of latitude for different internal heating rates, using Eq. (\[eq:h\]). As expected, the ice thickness increases poleward and the equator to pole gradient becomes smaller as the internal heating increases. The gradient in thickness is on the order of a few kilometers. The freezing temperature as a function of latitude is shown in Fig. \[fig:h-Tf-Q\]c. As expected, the freezing temperature is higher for shallower ice, and the thickness increases toward the poles. The typical equator to pole freezing temperature gradient is about 0.2 and is larger for thicker ice and a smaller internal heating rate.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{}
Ashkenazy, Y., & Gildor, H. 2008, Paleoceanography, 23, PA1206
Barr, A. C., & Showman, A. P. 2009, in Europa, ed. R. T. Pappalardo, W. B. McKinnon, & K. Khurana (The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ), 405–430
Berger, A. 1978, J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 2362
Berger, A., Loutre, M. F., & Tricot, C. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 10,341
Buratti, B., & Veverka, J. 1983, Icarus, 55, 93
Carr, M. H., Belton, M. J., Chapman, C. R., [et al.]{} 1998, Nature, 391, 363
Cassen, P., Reynolds, R. T., & Peale, S. 1979, Geophys. Res. Lett., 6, 731
Chen, E. M. A., Nimmo, F., & Glatzmaier, G. A. 2014, Icarus, 229, 11
Chyba, C. F., & Phillips, C. B. 2001, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 98, 801
—. 2002, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 32, 47
Gill, A. E. 1982, Atmosphere–ocean dynamics (Academic Press, London), 662
Hartmann, D. 1994, Global Physical Climatology (Academic Press, San Diego), 409
Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., Russell, C. T., [et al.]{} 2000, Science, 289, 1340
Losch, M. 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C08043
Lucchitta, B., & Soderblom, L. 1982, in Satellites of Jupiter, Vol. 1, 521–555
Milankovitch, M. 1941, R. Serb. Acad. Spec. Publ., 132, translated from German, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1969
Nimmo, F., Thomas, P., Pappalardo, R., & Moore, W. 2007, Icarus, 191, 183
Ojakangas, G. W., & Stevenson, D. J. 1989, Icarus, 81, 220
Pappalardo, R., Vance, S., Bagenal, F., [et al.]{} 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 740
Pappalardo, R. T., McKinnon, W. B., & Khurana, K. 2009, Europa (The University of Arizona Press)
Roth, L., Saur, J., Retherford, K. D., [et al.]{} 2014, Science, 343, 171
Schmidt, B., Blankenship, D., Patterson, G., & Schenk, P. 2011, Nature, 479, 502
Sparks, W., Hand, K., McGrath, M., [et al.]{} 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 121
Spencer, J. R. 1987, PhD thesis, Arizona Univ., Tucson (USA)
Spencer, J. R., Tamppari, L. K., Martin, T. Z., & Travis, L. D. 1999, Science, 284, 1514
Tobie, G., Choblet, G., & Sotin, C. 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 5124
Tziperman, E., Abbot, D. S., Ashkenazy, Y., [et al.]{} 2012, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 10.1029/2011JC007730
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider Thompson’s groups from the perspective of mapping class groups of surfaces of infinite type. This point of view leads us to the braided Thompson groups, which are extensions of Thompson’s groups by infinite (spherical) braid groups. We will outline the main features of these groups and some applications to the quantization of Teichmüller spaces. The chapter provides an introduction to the subject with an emphasis on some of the authors results.
2000 MSC Classification: 57 M 07, 20 F 36, 20 F 38, 57 N 05.
Keywords: mapping class group, Thompson group, Ptolemy groupoid, infinite braid group, quantization, Teichmüller space, braided Thompson group, Euler class, discrete Godbillon-Vey class, Hatcher-Thurston complex, combable group, finitely presented group, central extension, Grothendieck-Teichmüller group.
address: |
Institut Fourier BP 74, UMR 5582\
University of Grenoble I\
38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères cedex, France\
e-mail: [{funar,sergiesc}@fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr]{}\
\[4pt\] Laboratoire Emile Picard, UMR 5580\
University of Toulouse III\
31062 Toulouse cedex 4, France\
e-mail: [[email protected]]{}\
author:
- 'Louis Funar, Christophe Kapoudjian and Vlad Sergiescu'
title: 'Asymptotically rigid mapping class groups and Thompson’s groups'
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this chapter is to present the recently developed interaction between mapping class groups of surfaces, including braid groups, and Richard J. Thompson’s groups $F,T$ and $V$. We follow here the present authors’ geometrical approach, while giving some hints to the algebraic developments of Brin and Dehornoy and the quasi-conformal approach of de Faria, Gardiner and Harvey.
When compared to mapping-class groups, already thoroughly studied by Dehn and Nielsen, Thompson’s groups appear quite recent. Introduced by Richard J. Thompson in the middle of the 1960s, they originally developed from algebraic logic; however, a PL representation of them was immediately obtained.
Recall that Thompson’s group $F$ is the group of PL homeomorphisms of $[0,1]$ which locally are of the form $2^n+\frac{p}{2^q}$, with breaks in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right]$. The group $T$ acts in a similar way on the unit circle $S^1$. The group $V$ acts by left continuous bijections on $[0,1]$ as a group of affine interval exchanges. This action may be lifted to a continous one on the triadic Cantor set.
By conjugating these groups via the Farey map sending the rationals to the dyadics, one obtains a similar definition as groups of piecewise ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ maps with rational breakpoints; this definition already has a certain 2-dimensional flavour. Observe that Thompson’s groups act near the boundary of the hyperbolic disk and thus near the boundary of the infinite binary tree. This observation played a basic role in the beginning of the material discussed here. From this point of view Thompson’s group $T$ is a piecewise generalisation of ${\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$; the mapping class group is a multi-handle generalisation of ${\rm SL}(2, {{\mathbb{Z}}})$. In the same vein ${\rm SL}(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ is an arithmetic generalization and ${\rm Aut}(F_n)$ is a non-commutative one. We also note that, following Thurston, the mapping class group $\Gamma_g$ acts on the boundary of the Teichmüller space and preserves its piecewise projective integral structure.
Another way to encode these groups is to consider pairs of binary trees which represent dyadic subdivisions. Dually, this data gives a simplicial bijection of the complementary forests, called partial automorphism of the infinite binary tree $\tau_2$. Of course this does not extend as an automorphism of $\tau_2$. However, one observes the following simple but essential fact: if one thickens the infinite tree $\tau_2$ to a surface ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$, then the corresponding partial homeomorphisms extend to the entire surface ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$. Thus, two objects appear here: the surface ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$ and the mapping class group which lifts the elements of a Thompson group.
To make definitions precise, we are forced to endow the surface ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$ with a rigid structure which encodes its tree-like aspect. The homeomorphisms we consider are asymptotically rigid, i.e. they preserve the rigid structure outside a compact sub-surface. These homeomorphisms give rise to the asymptotically rigid mapping class groups.
We now give some details on the structure of this chapter. We present in Section 1 various constructions of groups and spaces and explain how the group $T$ itself is a mapping class group of ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$. Next, we introduce the (historically) first relation between Thompson groups and braid groups, namely the extension: $$1\to B_{\infty}\to A_T \to T \to 1$$ In order to avoid working with non-finitely supported braids, the authors chose to build $A_T$ from a convenient geometric homomorphism $$T\to {\rm Out}(B_{\infty})$$ However, retrospectively, while having definite advantages, this choice may not have been the best. The main theorem of [@gr-se] says that the group $A_T$ is almost acyclic – the corresponding group $A_{F'}$ being acyclic. The proofs of these theorems are quite involved and far from the geometric-combinatorial topics discussed in the rest of this chapter; this is why we shall present them rather sketchyly. However, we do describe the group $A_T$ as a mapping class group. It is actually while trying to extend the Burau representation from $B_{\infty}$ to $A_T$ that the notion of asymptotically rigid mapping class group was formulated.
The next two sections, 2 and 3, are of central importance. We show that a group ${{{\cal B}}}$ which is an asymptotically rigid mapping class group of ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$ and surjects onto $V$ is finitely presented. While the acyclicity theorem mentioned above was formulated on the basis of homotopy-theoretic evidence, the group ${{{\cal B}}}$ and its finite presentability came largely from conformal field theory evidence. The Moore-Seiberg duality groupoid is finitely presented, a fact mathematically established in [@ba-ki1; @ba-ki2; @fu-ge].
We begin by introducing Penner’s Ptolemy groupoid, partly issued from the conformal field theory work of Friedan and Shenker. Its objects are ideal tesselations and its morphisms are compositions of flips. We then explain how Thompson’s groups fit into this setting. A basic observation here is that the Ptolemy groupoid is isomorphic to a sub-groupoid of the Moore-Seiberg stable duality groupoid. This duality groupoid is related in turn to a Hatcher-Thurston type complex for the surface ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$. One main result is that this complex is simply connected.
Section 3 applies all this to the asymptotically rigid mapping class group ${{{\cal B}}}$ of ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$.
Let us emphasize here that our notion of asymptotically rigid mapping class group is different from the asymptotic mapping class group considered recently by various authors (see the chapter written by Matsuzaki in volume IV of this handbook).
The kernel of the morphism from ${{{\cal B}}}$ onto $V$ is the compactly supported mapping class group of ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$. Let us note that the group ${{{\cal B}}}$ contains all genus zero mapping class groups as well as the braid groups. The main theorem states that ${{{\cal B}}}$ is a finitely presented group. A quite compact symmetric set of relations is produced as well.
Section 4 is dedicated to the braided Ptolemy-Thompson group $T^*$. This is an extension of $T$ by the braid group $B_{\infty}$. It is an asymptotically rigid mapping class group of ${{\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}}$ of a special kind. It is a simpler group than $A_T$ and will be used in Sections 5 and 6. We prove that $T^*$, like ${{{\cal B}}}$, is a finitely presented group. We note that so far, $A_T$ is only known to be finitely generated.
In Section 5, we consider a relative abelianisation of $T^*$: $$1\to {{\mathbb{Z}}}=B_{\infty}/[B_{\infty}, B_{\infty}]\to T^*/[B_{\infty}, B_{\infty}]\to T\to 1$$ We prove that this central extension is classified by a multiple of the Euler class of $T$ that we detect to be $12\chi$, where $\chi$ is the Euler class pulled-back to $T$. This fact eventually allows us to classify the dilogarithmic projective extension of $T$ which arises in the quantization of the Teichmüller theory, as we explain as well.
In Section 6 we discuss an infinite genus mapping class group that maps onto $V$ which is proved to be (at least) finitely generated. It also has the property of being homologically equivalent to the stable mapping class group. As already mentioned, the proofs involve as a key ingredient the group $T^*$.
In Section 7 we introduce a simplicial unified approach to the various extensions of the group $V$. This includes the extension $BV$ of Matt Brin and Patrick Dehornoy coming from categories with multiplication and from the geometry of algebraic laws, respectively. Moreover, one can approach in this way the action of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group on a $V$-completion $\widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$ of ${{{\cal B}}}$, thus getting a quite neat presentation of the entire setting.
A sample of open questions is contained in the final section.
We would like to dedicate these notes to the memory of Peter Greenberg and of Alexander Reznikov. Their work is inspiring us forever.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors are indebted to L. Bartholdi, M. Bridson, M. Brin, J. Burillo, D. Calegari, F. Cohen, P. Dehornoy, D. Epstein, V. Fock, R. Geogheghan, E. Ghys, S. Goncharov, F. González-Acuña, V. Guba, P. Haissinsky, B. Harvey, V. Jones, R. Kashaev, F. Labourie, P. Lochak, J. Morava, H. Moriyoshi, P. Pansu, A. Papadopolous, B. Penner, C. Pittet, M. Sapir, L. Schneps and H. Short for useful discussions and suggestions concerning this subject during the last few years.
From Thompson’s groups to mapping class groups of surfaces
==========================================================
Three equivalent definitions of the Thompson groups
---------------------------------------------------
### Groups of piecewise affine bijections {#groups-of-piecewise-affine-bijections .unnumbered}
[*Thompson’s group $F$*]{} is the group of continuous and nondecreasing bijections of the interval $[0,1]$ which are piecewise dyadic affine. In other words, for each $f\in F$, there exist two subdivisions of $[0,1]$, $a_0=0<a_1<\ldots<a_n=1$ and $b_0=0<b_1\ldots<b_n$, with $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, such that :
1. $a_{i+1}-a_i$ and $b_{i+1}-b_i$ belong to $\{\frac{1}{2^k},\; k\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$;
2. the restriction of $f$ to $[a_i,a_{i+1}]$ is the unique nondecreasing affine map onto $[b_i, b_{i+1}]$.
Therefore, an element of $F$ is completely determined by the data of two dyadic subdivisions of $[0,1]$ having the same cardinality.
Let us identify the circle to the quotient space $[0,1]/0\sim 1$. [*Thompson’s group $T$*]{} is the group of continuous and nondecreasing bijections of the circle which are piecewise dyadic affine. In other words, for each $g\in T$, there exist two subdivisions of $[0,1]$, $a_0=0<a_1<\ldots<a_n=1$ and $b_0=0<b_1\ldots<b_n$, with $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, such that :
1. $a_{i+1}-a_i$ and $b_{i+1}-b_i$ belong to $\{\frac{1}{2^k},\; k\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$.
2. There exists $i_0\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$, such that, pour each $i\in \{0,\ldots, n-1\}$, the restriction of $g$ to $[a_i,a_{i+1}]$ is the unique nondecreasing map onto $[b_{i+i_0}, b_{i+i_0+1}]$. The indices must be understood modulo $n$.
Therefore, an element of $T$ is completely determined by the data of two dyadic subdivisions of $[0,1]$ having the same cardinality, say $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, plus an integer $i_{0}$ mod $n$.
Finally, [*Thompson’s group $V$*]{} is the group of bijections of $[0,1[$, which are right-continuous at each point, piecewise nondecreasing and dyadic affine. In other words, for each $h\in V$, there exist two subdivisions of $[0,1]$, $a_0=0<a_1<\ldots<a_n=1$ and $b_0=0<b_1\ldots<b_n$, with $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, such that :
1. $a_{i+1}-a_i$ and $b_{i+1}-b_i$ belong to $\{\frac{1}{2^k},\; k\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$;
2. there exists a permutation $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$, such that, for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, the restriction of $h$ to $[a_{i-1},a_i[$ is the unique nondecreasing affine map onto $[b_{\sigma(i)-1}, b_{\sigma(i)}[$.
It follows that an element $h$ of $V$ is completely determined by the data of two dyadic subdivisions of $[0,1]$ having the same cardinality, say $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, plus a permutation $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$. Denoting $I_{i}=[a_{i-1},a_i]$ and $J_i= [b_{i-1}, b_i]$, these data can be summarized into a triple $((J_i)_{1\leq i\leq n},(I_i)_{1\leq i\leq n},\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n)$.
Such a triple is not uniquely determined by the element $h$. Indeed, a refinement of the subdivisions gives rise to a new triple defining the same $h$. This remark also applies to elements of $F$ and $T$.
The inclusion $F\subset T$ is obvious. The identification of the integer $i_{0}$ mod $n$ to the cyclic permutation $\sigma: k\mapsto k+i_{0}$ yields the inclusion $T\subset V$.
R. Thompson proved that $F,T$ and $V$ are finitely presented groups and that $T$ and $V$ are simple (cf. [@ca-fl-pa]). The group $F$ is not perfect ($F/[F,F]$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^ 2$), but $F'=[F,F]$ is simple. However, $F'$ is not finitely generated (this is related to the fact that an element $f$ of $F$ lies in $F'$ if and only if its support is included in $]0,1[$).
Historically, Thompson’s groups $T$ and $V$ are the first examples of infinite simple and finitely presented groups. Unlike $F$, they are not torsion-free.
### Groups of diagrams of finite binary trees {#groups-of-diagrams-of-finite-binary-trees .unnumbered}
A [*finite binary rooted planar tree*]{} is a finite planar tree having a unique 2-valent vertex, called the [*root*]{}, a set of monovalent vertices called the [*leaves*]{}, and whose other vertices are 3-valent. The planarity of the tree provides a canonical labelling of its leaves, in the following way. Assuming that the plane is oriented, the leaves are labelled from 1 to $n$, from left to right, the root being at the top and the leaves at the bottom.
There exists a bijection between the set of dyadic subdivisions of $[0,1]$ and the set of finite binary rooted planar trees. Indeed, given such a tree, one may label its vertices by dyadic intervals in the following way. First, the root is labelled by $[0,1]$. Suppose that a vertex is labelled by $I=[\frac{k}{2^n}, \frac{k+1}{2^n}]$, then its two descendant vertices are labelled by the two halves $I$: $[\frac{k}{2^n}, \frac{2k+1}{2^{n+1}}]$ for the left one and $[\frac{2k+1}{2^{n+1}},\frac{k+1}{2^n}]$ for the right one. Finally, the dyadic subdivision associated to the tree is the sequence of intervals which label its leaves.
As we have just seen, an element of Thompson’s group $V$ is defined by the data of two dyadic subdivisions of $[0,1]$, with the same cardinality $n$, plus a permutation $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$. This amounts to encoding it by a pair of finite binary rooted trees with the same number of leaves $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, plus a permutation $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$.
Thus, an element $h$ of $V$ is represented by a triple $(\tau_1,\tau_0,\sigma)$, where $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$ have the same number of leaves $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, and $\sigma$ belongs to the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$. Such a triple will be called a [*symbol*]{} for $h$. It is convenient to interpret the permutation $\sigma$ as the bijection $\varphi_{\sigma}$ which maps the $i$-th leaf of the source tree $\tau_0$ to the $\sigma(i)$-th leaf of the target tree $\tau_1$. When $h$ belongs to $F$, the permutation $\sigma$, which is the identity, is not represented, and the symbol reduces to a pair of trees $(\tau_{1},\tau_{0})$. When $h$ belongs to $T$, the cyclic permutation is graphically materialized by a small circle surrounding the leaf number $\sigma(1)$ of $\tau_1$.
One introduces the following equivalence relation on the set of symbols : two symbols are equivalent if they represent the same element of $V$. One denotes by $[\tau_1,\tau_0,\sigma]$ the equivalence class of the symbol. Therefore, $V$ is (in bijection with) the set of equivalence classes of symbols. The composition law of piecewise dyadic affine bijections is pushed out on the set of equivalence classes of symbols in the following way. In order to define $[\tau_1',\tau_0',\sigma']\cdot[\tau_1,\tau_0,\sigma]$, one may suppose, at the price of refining both symbols, that the tree $\tau_1$ coincides with the tree $\tau_0'$. The the product of the two symbols is
$$[\tau_1',\tau_1,\sigma']\cdot[\tau_1,\tau_0,\sigma]= [\tau_1',\tau_0,\sigma'\circ\sigma].$$ The neutral element is represented by any symbol $(\tau, \tau, 1)$, for any finite binary rooted planar tree $\tau$. The inverse of $[\tau_1,\tau_0,\sigma]$ is $[\tau_0,\tau_1,\sigma^{-1}]$.
It follows that $V$ is isomorphic to the group of equivalence classes of symbols endowed with this internal law.
### Partial automorphisms of trees ([@ka-se]) {#partial-automorphisms-of-trees .unnumbered}
The beginning of the article [@ka-se] formalizes a change of point of view, consisting in considering, not the finite binary trees, but their complements in the infinite binary tree.
Let ${\cal T}_2$ be the infinite binary rooted planar tree (all its vertices other than the root are 3-valent). Each finite binary rooted planar tree $\tau$ can be embedded in a unique way into ${\cal T}_2$, assuming that the embedding maps the root of $\tau$ onto the root of ${\cal T}_2$, and respects the orientation. Therefore, $\tau$ may be identified with a subtree ${\cal T}_2$, whose root coincides with that of ${\cal T}_2$.
A [*partial isomorphism*]{} of ${\cal T}_2$ consists of the data of two finite binary rooted subtrees $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$ of ${\cal T}_{2}$ having the same number of leaves $n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, and an isomorphism $q: {\cal T}_2\setminus \tau_0\rightarrow {\cal T}_2\setminus \tau_1$. The complements of $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$ have $n$ components, each one isomorphic to ${\cal T}_2$, which are enumerated from 1 to $n$ according to the labelling of the leaves of the trees $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$. Thus, $ {\cal T}_2\setminus \tau_0=T^1_0\cup\ldots\cup T^n_0$ and $ {\cal T}_2\setminus \tau_1=T^1_1\cup\ldots\cup T^n_1$ where the $T^i_j$’s are the connected components. Equivalently, the partial isomorphism of ${\cal T}_2$ is given by a permutation $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$ and, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, an isomorphism $q_i: T^i_0\rightarrow T^{\sigma(i)}_1$.
Two partial automorphisms $q$ and $r$ can be composed if and only if the target of $r$ coincides with the source of $r$. One gets the partial automorphism $q\circ r$. The composition provides a structure of inverse monoid on the set of partial automorphisms, which is denoted ${\rm Fred}({\cal T}_2)$.
One may construct a group from ${\rm Fred}({\cal T}_2)$. Let $\partial {\cal T}_2$ be the boundary of ${\cal T}_2$ (also called the set of “ends” of ${\cal T}_2$) endowed with its usual topology, for which it is a Cantor set.
The point is that a partial automorphism does not act (globally) on the tree, but does act on its boundary. One has therefore a morphism ${\rm Fred}({\cal T}_2)\rightarrow {\rm Homeo}(\partial{\cal T}_2)$, whose image $N$ is the [*spheromorphism group of Neretin*]{}.
Let now ${\rm Fred}^+({\cal T}_2)$ be the sub-monoid of ${\rm Fred}({\cal T}_2)$, whose elements are the partial automorphisms which respect the local orientation of the edges. Thompson’s group $V$ can be viewed as the subgroup of $N$ which is the image of ${\rm Fred}^+({\cal T}_2)$ by the above morphism.
There exists a Neretin group $N_{p}$ for each integer $p\geq 2$, as introduced in [@ne] (with different notation). They are constructed in a similar way as $N$, by replacing the dyadic complete (rooted or unrooted) tree by the p-adic complete (rooted or unrooted) tree. They are proposed as combinatorial or $p$-adic analogues of the diffeomorphism group of the circle. Some aspects of this analogy have been studied in [@ka0].
Some properties of Thompson’s groups
------------------------------------
Most readers of this section are probably more comfortable with the mapping class group than with Thompson’s groups. Therefore, we think that it will be useful to gather here some of the classical and less classical properties of Thompson’s groups. There is a fair amount of randomness in our choices and the only thing we would really like to emphasize is their ubiquity. Thompson’s groups became known in algebra because $T$ and $V$ were the first infinite finitely presented simple groups. They were preceded by Higman’s example of an infinite finitely generated simple group in 1951. More recently, Burger and Mozes (see [@burg-mozes]) constructed an example which is also without torsion.
Thompson used $F$ and $V$ to give new examples of groups with an unsolvable word problem and also in his algebraic characterisation of groups with a solvable word problem (see [@T]) as being those which embed in a finitely generated simple subgroup of a finitely presented group. The group $F$ was rediscovered in homotopy theory, as a universal conjugacy idempotent, and later in universal algebra. We refer to [@ca-fl-pa] for an introduction from scratch to several aspects of Thompson’s groups, including their presentations, and also their piecewise linear and projective representations. One can find as well an introduction to the amenability problem for $F$, including a proof of the Brin-Squier-Thompson theorem that $F$ does not contain a free group of rank 2. Last but not least, one can find a list of the merely 25 notations in the literature for $F$, $T$ and $V$. Fortunately, after [@ca-fl-pa] appeared, the notation has almost stabilized.
We also mention the survey [@ser] for various other aspects and [@Gh] and [@navas] for the general topic of homeomorphisms of the circle.
The groups $F$, $T$ and $V$ are actually ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$, i.e. they have classifying spaces with finite skeleton in each dimension; this was first proved by Brown and Geoghegan (see [@BrGe; @br1]). Let us mention what is the rational cohomology of these groups, computed by Ghys and Sergiescu in [@gh-se] and Brown in [@br2]. First, $H^*(F;{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ is the product between the divided powers algebra on one generator of degree 2 and the cohomology algebra of the 2-torus.
The cohomology of $T$ is the quotient ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\chi,\alpha)/\chi\cdot \alpha$, where $\chi$ is the Euler class and $\alpha$ a (discrete) Godbillon-Vey class. In what concerns the group $V$ its rational cohomology vanishes in each dimension. See [@ser] for more results with either ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ or with twisted coefficients.
Here are other properties of these groups involving cohomology. Using a smoothening of Thompson’s group it is proved in [@gh-se] that there is a representation $\pi_1(\Sigma_{12})\to {\rm Diff}(S^1)$ having Euler number $1$ and an invariant Cantor set.
Reznikov showed that the group $T$ does not have Kazhdan’s property $T$ (see [@reznikov]), and later Farley [@farley] proved that it has Haagerup property AT (also called a-T-menability). Therefore it verifies the Baum-Connes conjecture (see also [@Fa]). Napier and Ramachandran proved that $F$ is not a Kähler group [@rama]. Cyclic cocycles on $T$ were introduced in [@oyko]. The group $T$ in relation with the symplectic automorphisms of $\mathbb C\mathbb P^2$ was considered by Usnich in [@usnich].
A theorem of Brin [@brin-ihes] states that the group of outer automorphisms of $T$ is ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/2{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Furthermore, in [@BCR] the authors computed the abstract commensurator of $F$. Using the above mentioned smoothening, it is proved in [@gh-se] that all rotation numbers of elements in $T$ are rational. New direct proofs were given by Calegari ([@calegari]), Liousse ([@liousse]) and Kleptsyn (unpublished).
For the connection of $F$ and $T$ with the piecewise projective $C^1$-homeomorphisms, see for instance [@Gr; @gr] and [@ma]. The group $F$ is naturally connected to associativity in various frameworks [@de2; @GeGu; @FL]. See also [@bri1; @bri2] for the group $V$.
Brin proved that the rank 2 free group is a limit of Thompson’s group $F$ ([@brin3]). Complexity aspects were considered in [@birget]. Guba ([@Gu2]) showed that the Dehn function for $F$ is quadratic. The group $F$ was studied in cryptography in [@RST; @matucci; @BT]. Thompson’s groups were studied from the viewpoint of ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$-algebras and von Neumann algebras; see for instance Jolissaint ([@Joli]) and Haagerup-Picioroaga [@HaagPi].
On the edge of logic and group theory, the interpretation of arithmetic in Thompson’s groups was investigated by Bardakov-Tolstykh ([@BT]) and Altinel-Muranov ([@AM]). Let us finally mention the work of Guba and Sapir on Thompson’s groups as diagram groups; see for instance [@GuS].
Let us emphasize here that we avoided to speak on generalisations of Thompson’s groups: this topic is pretty large and we think it would not be at its place here. Let us close this section by mentioning again that our choice was just to mention some developments related to Thompson’s groups from the unique angle of ubiquity.
Thompson’s group $T$ as a mapping class group of a surface {#thommcg}
----------------------------------------------------------
The article [@ka-se] is partly devoted to developing the notion of an asymptotically rigid homeomorphism.
1. Let $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ be the oriented surface of genus zero, which is the following inductive limit of compact oriented genus zero surfaces with boundary $\mathscr{S}_{n}$ : Starting with a cylinder $\mathscr{S}_{1}$, one gets $\mathscr{S}_{n+1}$ from $\mathscr{S}_{n}$ by gluing a pair of pants (i.e. a three-holed sphere) along each boundary circle of $\mathscr{S}_{n}$. This construction yields, for each $n\geq 1$, an embedding $\mathscr{S}_{n}\hookrightarrow \mathscr{S}_{n+1}$, with an orientation on $\mathscr{S}_{n+1}$ compatible with that of $\mathscr{S}_{n}$. The resulting inductive limit (in the topological category) of the $\mathscr{S}_{n}$’s is the surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$: $$\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}={\displaystyle \lim_{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{n}} \mathscr{S}_{n}}$$
2. By the above construction, the surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ is the union of a cylinder and of countably many pairs of pants. This topological decomposition of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ will be called the [*canonical pair of pants decomposition*]{}.
The set of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ is an uncountable group. The group operation is map composition. By restricting to a certain type of homeomorphisms (called asymptotically rigid), we shall obtain countable subgroups. We first need to complete the canonical decomposition to a richer structure.
Let us choose an involutive homeomorphism $j$ of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ which reverses the orientation, stabilizes each pair of pants of its canonical decomposition, and has fixed points along lines which decompose the pairs of pants into hexagons. The surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ can be disconnected along those lines into two planar surfaces with boundary, one of which is called the [*visible side*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, while the other is the [*hidden side*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. The involution $j$ maps the visible side of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ onto the hidden side, and vice versa.
From now on, we assume that such an involution $j$ is chosen, hence a decomposition of the surface into a “visible" and a “hidden” side.
The data consisting of the canonical pants decomposition of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ together with the above decomposition into a visible and a hidden side is called the [*canonical rigid structure*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$.
The tree ${\cal T}_2$ may be embedded into the visible side of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, as the dual tree to the pants decomposition. This set of data is represented in Figure \[surfinfcyl\].
![Surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ with its canonical rigid structure[]{data-label="surfinfcyl"}](surfinfcylindre.eps)
The surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ appears already in [@fu-ka1], endowed with a pants decomposition (with no cylinder), dual to the regular unrooted dyadic tree.
In [@ka-se], the notion of [*asymptotically rigid homeomorphism*]{} is defined. It plays a key role in [@fu-ka1], [@fu-ka2] and [@fu-ka3].
Let us introduce some more terminology. Any connected and compact subsurface of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ which is the union of the cylinder and finitely many pairs of pants of the canonical decomposition will be called an [*admissible subsurface*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. The [*type*]{} of such a subsurface $S$ is the number of connected components in its boundary. The [*tree of $S$*]{} is the trace of ${\cal T}_2$ on $S$. Clearly, the type of $S$ is equal to the number of leaves of its tree.
\[asy\] A homeomorphism $\varphi$ of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ is [*asymptotically rigid*]{} if there exist two admissible subsurfaces $S_0$ and $S_1$ having the same type, such that $\varphi(S_{0})=S_{1}$ and whose restriction $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}\setminus{S_0}\rightarrow \mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}\setminus{S_1}$ is rigid, meaning that it maps each pants (of the canonical pants decomposition) onto a pants.
The [*asymptotically rigid mapping class group*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ is the group of isotopy classes of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms.
Though the proof of the following theorem is easy, this theorem is seminal as it is the starting point of a deeper study of the links between Thompson’s groups and mapping class groups.
\[mcg\] Thompson’s group $T$ can be embedded into the group of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. An isotopy class belongs to the image of the embedding if it may be represented by an asymptotically rigid homeomorphism of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ which globally preserves the decomposition into visible/hidden sides.
We denote by $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}^+$ the visible side of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. This is a planar surface which inherits from the canonical decomposition of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ a decomposition into hexagons (and one rectangle, corresponding to the visible side of the cylinder). We could restate the above definitions by replacing pairs of pants by hexagons and the surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ by its visible side $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}^+$. Then Theorem \[mcg\] states that $T$ can be embedded into the mapping class group of the [*planar*]{} surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}^+$. In fact $T$ is the [*asymptotically rigid mapping class group*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}^+$, namely the group of mapping classes of those homeomorphisms of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}^+$ which map all but finitely many hexagons onto hexagons.
Braid groups and Thompson groups
--------------------------------
A seminal result, which is the starting point of the article [@ka-se], is a theorem of P. Greenberg and the third author ([@gr-se]). It states that there exists an extension of the derived subgroup $F'$ of Thompson’s group $F$ by the stable braid group $B_{\infty}$ (i.e. the braid group on a countable set of strands) $$1\rightarrow B_{\infty}\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow F'\rightarrow 1\;\;\; (Gr-Se),$$ where the group $A$ is acyclic, i.e. its integral homology vanishes. The existence of such a relation between Thompson’s group and the braid group was conjectured by comparing their homology types. On the one hand, it is proved in [@gh-se] that $F'$ has the homology of $\Omega S^3$, the space of based loops on the three-dimensional sphere. More precisely, the +-construction of the classifying space $BF'$ is homotopically equivalent to $\Omega S^3$. On the other hand, F. Cohen proved that $B_{\infty}$ has the homology of $\Omega^2 S^3$, the double loop space of $S^3$. It turns out that both spaces ($\Omega S^3$ and $\Omega^2 S^3$) are related by the path fibration
$$\Omega^2 S^3\hookrightarrow P(\Omega S^3)\rightarrow \Omega S^3,$$ where $P(\Omega S^3)$ denotes the space of based paths on $\Omega S^3$. The total space of this fibration, $P(\Omega S^3)$, is contractible. Therefore, the existence of this natural fibration has led the authors of [@gr-se] to conjecture the existence of the short exact sequence $(Gr-Se)$.
The construction of $A$ amounts to giving a morphism $F'\to {\rm Out}(B_{\infty})$. In [@gr-se] one is lead to consider an extended binary tree and the braid group relative to its vertices. The group $F'$ acts on that tree by partial automorphisms and therefore induces the desired morphism.
Let us give a hint on how the acyclicity of $A$ is proved in [@gr-se]. Via direct computations, one shows that $H_1(A)=0$. One then proves that the fibration $${BB_{\infty}}_+ \to BA_+ \to BF'_+$$ can be delooped to a fibration $$\Omega S^3 \to E \to S^3$$ Using the fact that $A$ is perfect one concludes that the space $E$ is contractible and so $A$ is acyclic.
As a matter of fact, it is also proved in [@gr-se] that the short exact sequence $(Gr-Se)$ extends to the Thompson group $T$. Indeed, there exists a short exact sequence $$1\rightarrow B_{\infty}\longrightarrow A_T\longrightarrow T\rightarrow 1$$ whose pull-back via the embedding $F'\hookrightarrow T$ is $(Gr-Se)$. At the homology level, it corresponds to a fibration $$\Omega^2 S^3 \to S^3\times {{\mathbb{C}}}P^{\infty} \to {\mathcal L}S^3$$ where ${\mathcal L}S^3$ denotes the free non-parametrized loop space of $S^3$. This fact should not to be considered as anecdotical for the following reason. Let us divide the groups $B_{\infty}$ and $A_T$ by the derived subgroup of $B_{\infty}$. One obtains a central extension of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}=H_1(B_{\infty})$, which may be identified in the second cohomology group $H^2(T,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ to the [*discrete Godbillon-Vey class*]{} of Thompson’s group $T$.
Let us emphasize that a simpler version of $A_T$, namely the braided Ptolemy-Thompson group $T^*$, will be presented later. Retrospectively, $A_T$ could be called then the marked braided Ptolemy-Thompson group.
One of the motivations of [@ka-se] is to pursue the investigations about the analogies between the diffeomorphism group of the circle ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ and Thompson’s group $T$. A remarkable aspect of this analogy concerns the Bott-Virasoro-Godbillon-Vey class. The latter is a differentiable cohomology class of degree 2. Recall that the Lie algebra of the group ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ is the algebra ${\rm Vect}(S^1)$ of vector fields on the circle. There is a map $H^*({\rm Diff}(S^1),{{\mathbb{R}}})\rightarrow H^*({\rm Vect}(S^1),{{\mathbb{R}}})$, where the right hand-side denotes the Gelfand-Fuchs cohomology of ${\rm Vect}(S^1)$, which is simply induced by the differentiation of cocycles. The image of the Bott-Virasoro-Godbillon-Vey class is a generator of $H^2({\rm Vect}(S^1),{{\mathbb{R}}})$ corresponding to the universal central extension of ${\rm Vect}(S^1)$, known by the physicists as the [*Virasoro Algebra*]{}.
Let us explain the analogies between the cohomologies of $T$ and ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$. By the cohomology of $T$ we mean Eilenberg-McLane cohomology, while the cohomology under consideration on ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ is the differentiable one (as very little is known about its Eilenberg-McLane cohomology). The striking result is the following: the ring of cohomology of $T$ (with real coefficients) and the ring of differentiable cohomology of ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ are isomorphic. Both are generated by two classes of degree 2: the Euler class (coming from the action on the circle), and the Bott-Virasoro-Godbillon-Vey class. In the cohomology ring of $T$, the Bott-Virasoro-Godbillon-Vey class is called the [*discrete Godbillon-Vey class*]{}. The isomorphism between the two cohomology rings does not seem to be induced by known embeddings of $T$ into ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ (such embeddings have been constructed in [@gh-se]).
A fundamental aspect of the Godbillon-Vey class concerns its relations with the projective representations of ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$, especially those which may be derived into highest weight modules of the Virasoro Algebra. Pressley and Segal ([@pr-se]) introduced some representations $\rho$ of ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ in the [*restricted*]{} linear group ${\rm GL}_{res}$ of the Hilbert space $L^2(S^1)$. Pulling back by $\rho$ a certain cohomology class (which we refer to as the [*Pressley-Segal*]{} class) of ${\rm GL}_{res}$, one obtains on ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$ some multiples of the Godbillon-Vey class (cf. [@ka-se], §4.1.3 for a precise statement).
Extending the Burau representation
----------------------------------
In [@ka-se], we show that an analogous scenario exists for the discrete Godbillon-Vey class $\bar{gv}$ of $T$. We first remark that the Pressley-Segal extension of ${\rm GL}_{res}$ is itself a pull-back of $$1\rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}^*\longrightarrow \frac{{\rm GL}(\mathfrak{H})}{\mathfrak{T}_1}\longrightarrow \frac{{\rm GL}(\mathfrak{H})}{\mathfrak{T}}\rightarrow 1$$ where ${\rm GL}(\mathfrak{H})$ denotes the group of bounded invertible operators of the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}$, $\mathfrak{T}$ the group of operators having a determinant, and $\mathfrak{T}_1$ the subgroup of operators having determinant 1.
The first step is to reconstruct the group $A_T$, not in a combinatorial way as in [@gr-se], but as a mapping class group of a surface $\mathscr{S}^t_{0,\infty}$. The latter is obtained from $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, by gluing, on each pair of pants of its canonical decomposition, an infinite cylinder or “tube”, marked with countably many punctures (cf. Figure \[pantsurf2\]). The precise definition of the group $A_{T}$ being rather technical, we refer for that the reader to [@ka-se].
(0,0)
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4270,2967)(2988,-2473) (5176,-196)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5041,389)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4996,-286)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5096,-286)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
This new approach provides a setting that is convenient for an easy extension of the Burau representation of the braid group to $A_{T}$. We proceed as follows. The group $A_T$ acts on the fundamental group of the punctured surface ${\mathscr{S}}^t_{0,\infty}$, which is a free group of infinite countable rank. Moreover, the action is index-preserving, i.e. it induces the identity on $H_{1}(F_{\infty})$. Let ${\rm Aut}^{ind}(F_{\infty})$ be the group of automorphisms of $F_{\infty}$ which are index-preserving. The Magnus representation of ${\rm Aut}^{ind}(F_{n})$ extends to an infinite dimensional representation of ${\rm Aut}^{ind}(F_{\infty})$ in the Hilbert space $\ell_2$ on the set of punctures of ${\mathscr{S}}^t_{0,\infty}$. Composing with the map $A_{T}\rightarrow {\rm Aut}^{ind}(F_{\infty})$, one obtains a representation $\rho_{\infty}^{\bf t}: A_T
\rightarrow {\rm GL}(\ell^2)$ which extends the classical Burau representation of the braid group $B_{n}$. The scalar $t\in {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ parameterizes a family of such representations.
For each ${\bf t}\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^*$, the Burau representation $\rho^{\bf t}_{\infty}:
B_{\infty}\rightarrow {\mathfrak T}$ extends to a representation $\rho^{\bf t}_{\infty}$ of the mapping class group $A_T$ in the Hilbert space $\ell^2$ on the set of punctures ${\mathscr{S}}^t_{0,\infty}$. There exists a morphism of extensions\
(10,2) (4,2)(1.5,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.5]{}]{} (3.5,1.9)[1]{} (4.7,1.9)[$B_{\infty}$]{} (6.3,1.9)[$ A_T$]{} (7,2)(2,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (8.4,1.9)[$T$]{} (10.2,1.9)[1]{}
(6.5,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{} (4,0.4)(1.2,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.5]{}]{} (3.5,0.3)[1]{} (4.7,0.3)[${\mathfrak T}$]{} (6,0.3)[${\rm GL}({\ell^2})$]{} (7.4,0.4)(2.2,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.4]{}]{} (8.1,0.3)[$\frac{{\rm GL}({\ell^2})}{{\mathfrak T}}$]{} (10.2,0.3)[1]{}
(4.9,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{}
(8.5,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{}
which induces a morphism of central extensions\
(10,2) (3.8,2)(2,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.4]{}]{} (3.5,1.9)[1]{} (4.3,1.9)[$H_1(B_{\infty})$]{} (6.3,1.9)[$\frac{A_T}{[B_{\infty},B_{\infty}]}$]{} (7.8,2)(1.5,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.9]{}]{} (8.9,1.9)[$T$]{} (10.3,1.9)[1]{}
(6.8,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{} (3.9,0.4)(1.4,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.5]{}]{} (3.5,0.3)[1]{} (4.7,0.3)[${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$]{} (6.1,0.3)[$\frac{{\rm GL}({\ell^2})}{{\mathfrak T}_1}$]{} (7.4,0.4)(2.4,0)[2]{}[(1,0)[0.4]{}]{} (8.3,0.3)[$\frac{{\rm GL}({\ell^2})}{{\mathfrak T}}$]{} (10.3,0.3)[1]{}
(4.9,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{}
(9,1.4)[(0,-1)[.6]{}]{}
The vertical arrows are injective if ${\bf t}\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ is not a root of unity.
From the Ptolemy groupoid to the Hatcher-Thurston complex
=========================================================
Universal Teichmüller theory according to Penner
------------------------------------------------
In [@pe0] (see also [@pe]), R. Penner introduced his version of a universal Teichmüller space, together with an associated universal group. Unexpectedly, this group happens to be isomorphic to the Thompson group $T$. This connection between Thompson groups and Teichm" uller theory plays a key role in [@fu-ka1], [@fu-ka2] and [@fu-ka3]. It is therefore appropriate to give some insight into Penner’s approach.
The universal Teichmüller space according to Penner is a set ${\cal T}ess$ of ideal tessellations of the Poincaré disk, modulo the action of ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ (cf. Definition \[mos\] below). The space ${\cal T}ess$ is homogeneous under the action of the group ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle: $${\cal T}ess={\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}}).$$ Denoting by ${\rm Diff}^+(S^1)$ the diffeomorphism group of $S^1$ and ${\rm Homeo}_{qs}(S^1)$ the group of quasi-symmetric homeomorphisms of $S^1$ (a quasi-symmetric homeomorphism of the circle is induced by a quasi-conformal homeomorphism of the disk) one has the following inclusions
$${\rm Diff}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}}) \hookrightarrow {\rm Homeo}_{qs}(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})\hookrightarrow {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}}),$$
which justify that ${\cal T}ess$ is a generalization of the “well known” universal Teichmüller spaces, namely Bers’ space ${\rm Homeo}_{qs}(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, and the physicists’ space ${\rm Diff}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Moreover, Penner introduced some coordinates on ${\cal T}ess$, as well as a “formal” symplectic form, whose pull-back on ${\rm Diff}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ is the Kostant-Kirillov-Souriau form.
\[mos\] Let $\mathbb D$ be the Poincaré disk. A [*tessellation*]{} of $\mathbb D$ is a locally finite and countable set of complete geodesics on $\mathbb D$ whose endpoints lie on the boundary circle $S^1_{\infty}=\partial \mathbb D$ and are called vertices. The geodesics are called [*arcs*]{} or [*edges*]{}, forming a triangulation of $\mathbb D$. A [*marked tessellation*]{} of $\mathbb D$ is a pair made of a tessellation plus a distinguished oriented edge (abbreviated d.o.e.) $\vec{a}$. One denotes by ${\cal T}ess'$ the set of marked tessellations.
Consider the basic ideal triangle having vertices at $1,-1, \sqrt{-1}\in S^1_{\infty}$ in the unit disk model $\mathbb D$. The orbits of its sides by the group ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ is the so-called [*Farey tessellation*]{} $\tau_0$, as drawn in Figure \[farey\]. Its ideal vertices are the rational points of $\partial \mathbb D$. The marked Farey tessellation has its distinguished oriented edge $\vec{a_0}$ joining -1 to 1.\
![Farey tessellation and its dual tree[]{data-label="farey"}](disk.pstex)
The group ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ acts on the left on ${\cal T}ess'$ in the following way. Let $\gamma$ be an arc of a marked tessellation $\tau$, with endpoints $x$ and $y$, and $f$ be an element of ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$; then $f(\gamma)$ is defined as the geodesic with endpoints $f(x)$ and $f(y)$. If $\gamma$ is oriented from $x$ to $y$, then $f(\gamma)$ is oriented from $f(x)$ to $f(y)$. Finally, $f(\tau)$ is the marked tessellation $\{f(\gamma),\gamma \in \tau\}$. Viewing ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ as a subgroup of ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$, one defines ${\cal T}ess$ as the quotient space ${\cal T}ess'/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
For any $\tau\in {\cal T}ess'$, let us denote by $\tau^0$ its set of ideal vertices. It is a countable and dense subset of the boundary circle, so that it may be proved that there exists a unique $f\in {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ such that $f(\tau_0)=\tau$. One denotes this homeomorphism $f_{\tau}$. The resulting map
$${\cal T}ess'\longrightarrow {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1),\;\;\, \tau\mapsto f_{\tau}$$
is a bijection. It follows that ${\cal T}ess={\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Since the action of ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ is 3-transitive, each element of ${\cal T}ess$ can be uniquely represented by its [*normalized marked triangulation*]{} containing the basic ideal triangle and whose d.o.e. is $\vec{a_0}$.
The marked tessellation is of Farey-type if its canonical marked triangulation has the same vertices and all but finitely many triangles (or sides) as the Farey triangulation. Unless explicitly stated otherwise all tessellations considered in the sequel will be Farey-type tessellations. In particular, the ideal triangulations have the same vertices as $\tau_0$ and coincide with $\tau_0$ for all but finitely many ideal triangles.
The isomorphism between Ptolemy and Thompson groups {#IKS}
---------------------------------------------------
The objects of the [*(universal) Ptolemy groupoid*]{} $Pt$ are the marked tessellations of Farey-type. The morphisms are ordered pairs of marked tessellations modulo the common ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ action.
We now define particular elements of $Pt$ called flips. Let $e$ be an edge of the marked tessellation represented by the normalized marked triangulation $(\tau, \vec{a})$. The result of the flip $F_e$ on $\tau$ is the triangulation $F_e(\tau)$ obtained from $\tau$ by changing only the two neighboring triangles containing the edge $e$, according to the picture below:
This means that we remove $e$ from $\tau$ and then add the new edge $e'$ in order to get $F_e(\tau)$. In particular there is a natural correspondence $\phi:\tau\to F_e(\tau)$ sending $e$ to $e'$ and being the identity on all other edges. The result of a flip is the new triangulation together with this edge correspondence.
If $e$ is not the d.o.e. of $\tau$ then $F_e(\vec{a})=\vec{a}$. If $e$ is the d.o.e. of $\tau$ then $F_e(\vec{a})=\vec{e'}$, where the orientation of $\vec{e'}$ is chosen so that the frame $(\vec{e}, \vec{e'})$ is positively oriented.
We define now the flipped tessellation $F_e((\tau, \vec{a}))$ to be the tessellation $(F_e(\tau), F_e(\vec{a}))$. It is proved in [@pe0] that flips generate the Ptolemy groupoid i.e. any element of $Pt$ is a composition of flips.
There is also a slightly different version of the Ptolemy groupoid which is quite useful in the case where we consider Teichmüller theory for surfaces of finite type. Specifically, we should assume that the tessellations are [*labelled*]{}, namely that their edges are indexed by natural numbers.
The objects of the [*labelled (universal) Ptolemy groupoid*]{} $\widetilde{Pt}$ are the labelled marked tessellations. The morphisms between two objects $(\tau_1,\vec{a_1})$ and $(\tau_2,\vec{a_2})$ are [*eventually trivial*]{} permutation maps (at the labels level) $\phi:\tau_1\to \tau_2$ such that $\phi(\vec{a_1})=\vec{a_2}$. When marked tessellations are represented by their normalized tessellations, the latter coincide for all but finitely many triangles. Recall that $\phi$ is said to be eventually trivial if the induced correspondence at the level of the labelled tessellations is the identity for all but finitely many edges.
Now flips make sense as elements of the labelled Ptolemy groupoid $\widetilde{Pt}$. Indeed the flip $F_e$ is endowed with the natural eventually trivial permutation $\phi:\tau\to F_e(\tau)$ sending $e$ to $e'$ and being the identity for all other edges.
There is a standard procedure for converting a groupoid into a group, by using an a priori identification of all objects of the category. Here is how this goes in the case of the Ptolemy groupoid. For any marked tessellation $(\tau, \vec{a})$ there is a characteristic map $Q_{\tau}:{\mathbb Q}-\{-1,1\}\to \tau$. Assume that $\tau$ is the canonical triangulation representing this tessellation. We first label by $\mathbb Q\cup{\infty}$ the vertices of $\tau$, by induction:
1. $-1$ is labelled by $0/1$, $1$ is labelled by $\infty=1/0$ and $\sqrt{-1}$ is labelled by $-1/1$.
2. If we have a triangle in $\tau$ having two vertices already labelled by $a/b$ and $c/d$ then its third vertex is labelled $(a+c)/(b+d)$. Notice that vertices in the upper half-plane are labelled by negative rationals and those from the lower half-plane by positive rationals.
As it is well-known this labeling produces a bijection between the set of vertices of $\tau$ and $\mathbb Q\cup{\infty}$.
Let now $e$ be an edge of $\tau$, which is different from $\vec{a}$. Let $v(e)$ be the vertex opposite to $e$ of the triangle $\Delta$ of $\tau$ containing $e$ in its frontier and lying in the component of ${\mathbb D}-e$ which does not contain $\vec{a}$. We then associate to $e$ the label of $v(e)$. We also give $\vec{a}$ the label $0\in {\mathbb Q}$. In this way one obtains a bijection $Q_{\tau}:{\mathbb Q}-\{-1,1\}\to \tau$.
Remark that if $(\tau_1,\vec{a_1})$ and $(\tau_2,\vec{a_2})$ are marked tessellations then there exists a unique map $f$ between their vertices sending triangles to triangles and marking on marking. Then $f\circ Q_{\tau_1}=Q_{\tau_2}$.
The role played by $Q_{\tau}$ is to allow flips to be indexed by the rationals and not by the edges of $\tau$.
Let ${\mathcal T}$ be the set of marked tessellations of Farey-type. Define the action of the free monoid $M$ generated by ${\mathbb Q}-\{-1,1\}$ on ${\mathcal T}$ by means of: $$q \cdot (\tau, \vec{a}) = F_{Q_{\tau}(q)}(\tau, \vec{a}),\, \mbox{ for } \,
q\in {\mathbb Q}-\{-1,1\}, (\tau, \vec{a})\in {\rm FT}.$$ We set $f\sim f'$ on $M$ if the two actions of $f$ and $f'$ on ${\mathcal T}$ coincide. Then the induced composition law on $M/\sim$ is a monoid structure for which each element has an inverse. This makes $M/\sim$ a group, which is called the Ptolemy group $T$ (see [@pe0] for more details).
In particular it makes sense to speak of flips in the present case. It is clear that flips generate the Ptolemy group.
The notation $T$ for the Ptolemy group is not misleading because this group is isomorphic to the Thompson group $T$ and for this reason, we preferred to call it the Ptolemy-Thompson group.
Given two marked tessellations $(\tau_1,\vec{a_1})$ and $(\tau_2,\vec{a_2})$ the above combinatorial isomorphism $f:\tau_1\to \tau_2$ provides a map between the vertices of the tessellations, which are identified with $P^1(\mathbb Q)\subset S^1_{\infty}$. This map extends continuously to a homeomorphism of $S^1_{\infty}$, which is piecewise-${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. This establishes an isomorphism between the Ptolemy group and the group of piecewise-${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ homeomorphisms of the circle.
An explicit isomorphism with the group $T$ in the form introduced above was provided by Lochak and Schneps (see [@lo-sc]). In order to understand this isomorphism we will need another characterization of the Ptolemy groupoid, as follows.
The universal Ptolemy groupoid $Pt'$ is the category whose objects are the marked tessellations. As for the morphisms, they are composed of morphisms of two types, called [*elementary moves*]{}:
1. A-move: it is the data of a pair of marked tessellations $(\tau_1, \tau_2)$, where $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ only differ by the d.o.e. The d.o.e. $\vec{a_1}$ of $\tau_1$ is one of the two diagonals of a quadrilateral whose 4 sides belong to $\tau_1$. Let us assume that the vertices of this quadrilateral are enumerated in the cyclic direct order by $x,y,z,t$, in such a way that $\vec{a_1}$ is the edge oriented from $z$ to $x$. Let $\vec{a_2}$ be the other diagonal, oriented from $t$ to $y$. Then, $\tau_2$ is defined as the marked tessellation $\tau_1\setminus\{\vec{a_1}\}\cup \{\vec{a_2}\}$, with oriented edge $\vec{a_{2}}$.
2. B-move: it is the data of a pair of marked tessellations $(\tau_1, \tau_2)$, where $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ have the same edges, but only differ by the choice of the d.o.e. The marked edge $\vec{a_1}$ is the side of the unique triangle of the tessellation $\tau_1$ with ideal vertices $x,y,z$, enumerated in the direct order, in such a way that $\vec{a_1}$ is the edge from $x$ to $y$. Let $\vec{a_2}$ be the edge oriented from $y$ to $z$. Then, $\vec{a_2}$ is the d.o.e. of $\tau_2$.
Relations between morphisms: if $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are two marked tessellations such that there exist two sequences of elementary moves $(M_1,\ldots, M_k)$ and $(M'_1,\ldots, M'_{k'})$ connecting $\tau_1$ to $\tau_2$, then the morphisms $M_k \circ \ldots \circ M_1$ and $M'_{k'}\circ \ldots \circ M'_1$ are equal.
Given two marked tessellations $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ with the same sets of endpoints, there is a (non-unique) finite sequence of elementary moves connecting $\tau_{1}$ to $\tau_{2}$ if and only if $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ only differ by a finite number of edges.
From the above remark, it follows that $Pt'$ is not a connected groupoid. Let $Pt=Pt'_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ be the connected component of the Farey tessellation. It is the full sub-groupoid of $Pt'$ obtained by restricting to the tessellations whose set of ideal vertices are the rationals of the boundary circle $\partial \mathbb D$, and which differ from the Farey tessellation by only finitely many edges, namely the Farey-type tessellations. Then it is not difficult to prove that the two definitions of $Pt$ are actually equivalent. However the second definition makes the Lochak-Schneps isomorphism more transparent.\
[*Construction of the universal Ptolemy group*]{}\
Let $W$ be a symbol $A$ or $B$. For any $\tau\in Ob(Pt')$, let us define the object $W(\tau)$, which is the target of the morphism of type $W$, whose source is $\tau$. For any sequence $W_1,\ldots, W_k$ of symbols $A$ or $B$, let us use the notation $W_k\cdots W_2W_1 (\tau)$ for $W_k(...W_2( W_1(\tau))...)$. Let $M$ be the free group on $\{A,B\}$. Let us fix a tessellation $\tau$ (the construction will not depend on this choice). Let $K$ be the subgroup of $M$ made of the elements $W_k\cdots W_2 W_1$ such that $W_k\cdots W_2 W_1(\tau)=\tau$ (it can be easily checked that this implies $W_k\cdots W_2 W_1(\tau')=\tau'$ for any $\tau\in Ob(Pt')$, and that $K$ is a normal subgroup of $M$).
The group $G= M/K$ is called the [*universal Ptolemy group*]{}.
The universal Ptolemy group $G$ is anti-isomorphic to the Thompson group $T$, which will be henceforth also called the Ptolemy-Thompson group in order to emphasize this double origin.
Let us indicate a proof that relies on the definition of $T$ as a group of bijections of the boundary of the dyadic tree. Let $\tau\in Pt$, and let ${\rm T}_{\tau}$ be the regular (unrooted) dyadic tree which is dual to the tessellation $\tau$.
Let $e_{\tau}$ be the edge of ${\rm T}_{\tau}$ which is transverse to the oriented edge $\vec{a}_{\tau}$ of $\tau$. The edge $e_{\tau}$ is oriented in such a way that $(\vec{a}_{\tau},\vec{e}_{\tau})$ is directly oriented in the disk. For each pair ($\tau$, $\tau'$) of marked tessellations of $Pt$, let $\varphi_{\tau,\tau'}\in Isom({\rm T}_{\tau},{\rm T}_{\tau'})$ be the unique isomorphism of planar oriented trees which maps the oriented edge $\vec{e}_{\tau}$ onto the oriented edge $\vec{e}_{\tau'}$. As a matter of fact, the planar trees ${\rm T}_{\tau}$ and ${\rm T}_{\tau'}$ coincide outside two finite subtrees $t_{\tau}$ and $t_{\tau'}$ respectively, so that their boundaries $\partial {\rm T}_{\tau}$ and $\partial {\rm T}_{\tau'}$ may be canonically identified. Therefore, $\varphi_{\tau,\tau'}$ induces a homeomorphism of $\partial {\rm T}_{\tau^*}$, denoted $\partial \varphi_{\tau,\tau'}$. Clearly, $\partial \varphi_{\tau,\tau'}$ belongs to $T$, as it is induced on the boundary of the dyadic planar tree by a partial isomorphism which respects the local orientation of the edges.
The map $g\in G\mapsto \partial\varphi_{\tau_{*}, g(\tau_{*})}\in {\rm Homeo} ( \partial {\rm T}_{\tau^*} )$ has $T$ as image, and is an anti-isomorphism onto $T$.
An explanation for the anti-isomorphy is the following. One has $\varphi_{\tau_{*}, gh(\tau_{*})}= \varphi_{h(\tau_{*}), g(h(\tau_{*}))}\varphi_{\tau_{*}, h(\tau_{*})}$. Now $\varphi_{h(\tau_{*}), g(h(\tau_{*}))}$ is the conjugate of $\varphi_{\tau_{*}, g(\tau_{*})}$ by $\varphi_{\tau_{*}, h(\tau_{*})}$, hence $\varphi_{\tau_{*}, gh(\tau_{*})}=
\varphi_{\tau_{*}, h(\tau_{*})} \varphi_{\tau_{*}, g(\tau_{*})}$.
Following [@im], it is also possible to construct an anti-isomorphism between $G$ and $T$, when the latter is realized as a subgroup of ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$, viewing the circle as the boundary of the Poincaré disk.
For each $g\in G$, there exists a unique $f\in {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ such that $f(\tau_{*})=g(\tau_{*})$. It is denoted by $f_{g}$. This provides a map $f: G\rightarrow {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$, $g\mapsto f_{g}$, which is an anti-isomorphism. Indeed, for all $h$ and $g$ in $G$, the effect of $h$ on $\tau=g(\tau_{*})$ is the same as the effect of the conjugate $f_{g}\circ f_{h}\circ f_{g}^{-1}$, so that $(hg)(\tau_{*})=f_{g}\circ f_{h}\circ f_{g}^{-1}(\tau)=(f_{g}\circ f_{h})(\tau_{*})$. The morphism is injective, since $f_{g}=id$ implies that $g(\tau_{*})=\tau_{*}$, hence $g=1$.
It is worth mentioning that a new presentation of $T$ has been obtained in [@lo-sc], derived from the anti-isomorphism of $G$ and $T$. It uses only two generators $\alpha$ and $\beta$, defined as follows. Let $\alpha\in T$ be the element induced by $\varphi_{\tau_0, A.\tau_0}$, and $\beta\in T$ induced by $\varphi_{\tau_0, B.\tau_0}$.
The Ptolemy-Thompson group $T$ is generated by two elements $\alpha$ and $\beta$, with relations: $${\alpha}^4=1, {\beta}^3=1, (\beta\alpha)^5=1,$$ $$[\beta\alpha\beta,\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2]=1, [\beta\alpha\beta,\alpha^2\beta^2\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2\beta\alpha^2]=1.$$
Let us make explicit the relation between the Cayley graph of $T$, for the above presentation, and the nerve of the category $Pt$.
Let $Gr(Pt)$ be the graph whose vertices are the objects of $Pt$, and whose edges correspond to the elementary moves of type $A$ and $B$.
From the anti-isomorphism between $G=M/K$ and $T$, it follows easily that $Gr(Pt)$ is precisely the Cayley graph of Thompson’s group $T$, for its presentation on the generators $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
We can use the same method to derive a labelled Ptolemy group $\widetilde{T}$ out of the labelled Ptolemy groupoid $\widetilde{Pt}$. It is not difficult to obtain therefore the following:
\[permut\] We have an exact sequence $$1\to S_{\infty} \to \widetilde{T}\to T\to 1$$ where $S_{\infty}$ is the group of eventually trivial permutations of the labels. Moreover, the group $\widetilde{T}$ is generated by the obvious lifts $\widetilde{\alpha}$ and $\widetilde{\beta}$ of the generators $\alpha,\beta$ of $T$. The pentagon relation now reads $(\widetilde{\beta}\widetilde{\alpha})^5=\sigma_{12}$, where $\sigma_{12}$ is the transposition exchanging the labels of the diagonals of the pentagon.
Let us mention that the image of $G$ in ${\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ by the anti-isomorphism $f:g\mapsto f_{g}$ does not correspond to the piecewise dyadic affine version of $T$, as recalled in the preliminaries. Let us view here the circle $S^1$ as the real projective line, and not as the quotient space $[0,1]/0\sim 1$. Under this identification, $f(G)$ is the group $P{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ of orientation preserving homeomorphisms of the projective line, which are piecewise ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, with rational breakpoints. This version of $T$ is the starting point of a detailed study of the piecewise projective geometry of Thompson’s group $T$, led in [@ma] and [@ma1].
A remarkable link between the Ptolemy groupoid and the Hatcher-Thurston complex of ${\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}$, following [@fu-ka1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In [@fu-ka1], we give a generalization of the Ptolemy groupoid which uses pairs of pants decompositions of the surface ${\mathscr{S}}_{0,\infty}$.
The surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ appears in [@ka-se] with its “canonical rigid structure” (see also section \[thommcg\]). The constructions involved in [@fu-ka1] require to handle not only the canonical rigid structure of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, but also a set of rigid structures.
![Surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ with its canonical rigid structure[]{data-label="surfinf0"}](surfinf0.eps)
A [*rigid structure*]{} on $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ consists of the data of a pants decomposition of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ together with a decomposition of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ into two connected components, called the visible and the hidden side, which are compatible in the following sense. The intersection of each pair of pants with the visible or hidden sides of the surface is a hexagon.
The choice of a reference rigid structure defines the [*canonical rigid structure*]{} (cf. Figure \[surfinf0\]). The dyadic regular (unrooted) tree ${\cal T}_{*}$ is embedded onto the visible side of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, as the dual tree to the canonical decomposition (into hexagons).
A rigid structure is [*marked*]{} when one of the circles of the decomposition is endowed with an orientation. The choice of a circle of the canonical decomposition and of an orientation of this circle defines the canonical marked rigid structure.
A rigid structure is [*asymptotically trivial*]{} if it coincides with the canonical rigid structure outside a compact subsurface of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$.
The set of isotopy classes of (resp. marked) asymptotically trivial rigid structures is denoted $Rig(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ (resp. $Rig'(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$).
In [@fu-ka1], we define the [*stable groupoid of duality*]{} ${\mathscr{D}}_0^s$, which generalizes $Pt$, since it contains a full sub-groupoid isomorphic to $Pt$. We first recall the definition of this sub-groupoid, which will be denoted ${{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
The objects of the groupoid ${{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ are the asymptotically rigid marked structures of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ whose underlying decomposition into visible and hidden sides is the canonical one.
The morphisms are composed of [*elementary morphisms*]{}, called [*moves*]{}, of two types, $A$ and $B$.
1. A-move: Let $r_{1}$ be an object of ${{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$. The distinguished oriented circle $\gamma$ separates two adjacent pairs of pants, whose union is a 4-holed sphere $\Sigma_{0,4}$. Up to isotopy, there exists a unique circle contained in $\Sigma_{0,4}$, whose geometric intersection number with $\gamma$ is equal to 2, and which is invariant by the involution $j$ interchanging the visible and hidden sides. Otherwise stated, the circle $\gamma'$ is the image of $\gamma$ by the rotation of angle $+\frac{\pi}{2}$ described in Figure \[pto\] which stabilizes both sides of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ and $\Sigma_{0,4}$. Let $r_{2}=r_{1}\setminus\{\gamma\}\cup \{\gamma'\}$. By definition, the pair $(r_{1},r_{2})$ is the $A$-move on the rigid marked structure $r_{1}$. Its source is $r_{1}$ while $r_{2}$ is its target.
2. $B$-move: Let $r_{1}$ be an object of ${{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$. Let $P$ be the pair of pants of $r_{1}$ bounded by $\gamma$, which is on the left when one moves along $\gamma$ following its orientation. Let $\gamma''$ be the oriented circle of the boundary of $P$, which is the image of the oriented circle $\gamma$ by the rotation of order 3 and angle $+\frac{2\pi}{3}$ described on Figure \[pto\] (it stabilizes both sides of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ and $P$). Let $r_{2}$ be the pants decomposition whose circles are the same as those of $r_{1}$, but whose distinguished oriented circles is $\gamma''$. By definition, the pair $(r_{1},r_{2})$ is the $B$-move on $r_{1}$. Its source is $r_{1}$ while its target is $r_{2}$.
Relations among morphisms: if $r_1$ and $r_2$ are two objects of ${{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ such that there exist two sequences of moves $(M_1,\ldots, M_k)$ and $(M'_1,\ldots, M'_{k'})$ transforming $r_1$ into $r_2$, then $M_k \circ \ldots \circ M_1= M'_{k'}\circ \ldots \circ M'_1$.
![Moves in the groupoid ${\mathscr{D}}_{0,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^s$ []{data-label="pto"}](ptosanstexte.eps)
There is a bijection between the set of objects of $Pt$ and the set of objects of ${\mathscr{D}}_{0,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^s$, which maps the [*marked Farey tessellation*]{} onto the [*canonical marked rigid structure*]{} of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. This bijection extends to a groupoid isomorphism $Pt\rightarrow {{\mathscr{D}}_0^s}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
Via this isomorphism, the generators $\alpha$ and $\beta$ may be viewed as isotopy classes of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms (which preserve the visible/hidden sides decomposition) of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. The generator $\alpha$ corresponds to the mapping class such that $\alpha(r_*)=A(r_*)$, and $\beta$ to the mapping class such that $\beta(r_*)=B(r_*)$. This gives a new proof of the existence of an embedding of $T$ into the mapping class group of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, obtained in [@ka-se].
The Hatcher-Thurston complex of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hatcher-Thurston complex of pants decompositions is first mentioned in the appendix of [@ha-th]. It is defined again in [@ha-lo-sc], for any compact oriented surface, possibly with boundary, where it is proved that it is simply connected. We extend its definition to the non-compact surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$.
The Hatcher-Thurston complex ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ is a cell 2-complex.
1. Its vertices are the asymptotically trivial pants decompositions of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$.
2. Its edges correspond to pairs of decompositions $(p,p')$ such that $p'$ is obtained from $p$ by a local $A$-move, i.e. by replacing a circle $\gamma$ of $p$ by any circle $\gamma'$ whose geometric intersection number with $\gamma$ is equal to 2 (and does not intersect the other circles of $p$).
3. Its 2-cells fill in the cycles of moves of the following types: triangular cycles, pentagonal cycles (cf. Figure \[tr-pe\]), and square cycles corresponding to the commutation of two $A$-moves with disjoint supports.
The Hatcher-Thurston complex ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ is an inductive limit of Hatcher-Thurston complexes of compact subsurfaces of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. It is therefore simply connected.
![Triangular cycle and pentagonal cycle in ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$[]{data-label="tr-pe"}](cell.eps)
The following proposition establishes a fundamental relation between the Cayley graph of Thompson’s group $T$ (generated by $\alpha$ and $\beta$) and the Hatcher-Thurston complex of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. The presentation of $T$ will be exploited to prove some useful properties of the Hatcher-Thurston complex.
The forgetful map $Ob({\mathscr{D}}_{0,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^s )\rightarrow {\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$, which maps an asymptotically rigid marked structure onto the underlying pants decomposition, extends to a cellular map $\nu:Gr({\mathscr{D}}_{0,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^s )\rightarrow {\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ from the graph of the groupoid onto the 1-skeleton of the Hatcher-Thurston complex. It maps an edge corresponding to an $A$-move onto an edge of type $A$ of ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$, and collapses an edge corresponding to a $B$-move onto a vertex.
Under the isomorphisms $Gr({\mathscr{D}}_{0,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^s)\approx Gr(Pt)\approx Cayl(T)$, where $Cayl(T)$ is the Cayley graph of $T$ with generators $\alpha$ and $\beta$, $\nu$ may be identified with a morphism from $Cayl(T)$ to ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$.
One can easily check that:
1. the image by $\nu$ of the cycle of 10 moves associated to the relation $(\alpha\beta)^5=1$ is a pentagonal cycle of the Hatcher-Thurston complex;
2. the image by $\nu$ of the cycle associated to the relation $[\beta\alpha\beta,\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2]=1$ is a square cycle $(DC1)$, corresponding to the commutation of two $A$-moves supported by two adjacent 4-holed spheres;
3. the image by $\nu$ of the cycle associated to the relation $$[\beta\alpha\beta,\alpha^2\beta^2\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2\beta\alpha^2]=1$$ is a square cycle $(DC_2)$, corresponding to the commutation of two $A$-moves supported by two 4-holed spheres separated by a pair of pants.
Let ${\cal HT}_{red}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ be the subcomplex of ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$, which differs from the latter by the set of square 2-cells: a square 2-cell of ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ belongs to ${\cal HT}_{red}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ if and only if it is of type $(DC_1)$ (corresponding to the commutation of $A$-moves supported by two adjacent 4-holed spheres), or of type $(DC_2)$ (corresponding to the commutation of $A$-moves supported by two 4-holed spheres separated by a pair of pants).
The subcomplex ${\cal HT}_{red}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ is simply connected.
We refer to [@fu-ka1] for the proof. It is based on the existence of the morphism of complexes $\nu$, and consists in proving, using the presentation of Thompson’s group $T$, that any square cycle of ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ may be expressed as a product of conjugates of at most three types of cycles: the squares of types $(DC1)$ and $(DC2)$, and the pentagonal cycles.
The universal mapping class group in genus zero
===============================================
Definition of the group ${{{\cal B}}}$
--------------------------------------
We have seen that $T$ is isomorphic to the group of mapping classes of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ which globally preserve the decomposition of the surface into visible/hidden sides. It turns out that if one forgets the last condition, one obtains an interesting larger group, which is the main object of the article [@fu-ka1].
The universal mapping class group in genus zero ${\cal B}$ is the group of isotopy classes of (orientation-preserving) homeomorphisms of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ which are asymptotically rigid, namely the asymptotically rigid mapping class group of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ (see also Definition \[asy\]).
From what precedes, $T$ imbeds into ${{{\cal B}}}$. As a matter of fact, ${{{\cal B}}}$ is an extension of Thompson’s group $V$.
\[[@fu-ka1], Proposition 2.4\] Let $K_{\infty}$ be the pure mapping class group of the surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$, i.e. the group of mapping classes of homeomorphisms which are compactly supported in $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. There exists a short exact sequence $$1\rightarrow K^*_{\infty}\longrightarrow {{{\cal B}}}\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$ Moreover, the extension splits over $T\subset V$.
For the comfort of the reader, we recall the proof given in [@fu-ka1]. Let us define the projection ${{{\cal B}}}\to V$. Consider $\varphi\in {{{\cal B}}}$ and let $\Sigma$ be a support for $\varphi$. We introduce the symbol $(T_{\varphi(\Sigma)},T_{\Sigma},\sigma(\varphi))$, where $T_{\Sigma}$ (resp. $T_{\varphi(\Sigma)}$) denotes the minimal finite binary subtree of ${\cal T}$ which contains ${q}(\Sigma)$ (resp. ${q}(\varphi(\Sigma))$), and $\sigma(\varphi)$ is the bijection induced by $\varphi$ between the set of leaves of both trees. The image of $\varphi$ in $V$ is the class of this triple, and it is easy to check that this correspondence induces a well-defined and surjective morphism ${{{\cal B}}}\rightarrow V$. The kernel is the subgroup of isotopy classes of homeomorphisms inducing the identity outside some compact set, and hence is the direct limit of the pure mapping class groups.
Denote by ${\bf T}$ the subgroup of ${{{\cal B}}}$ consisting of mapping classes represented by asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms preserving the whole visible side of ${{\sigma}}$. The image of ${\bf T}$ in $V$ is the subgroup of elements represented by symbols $(T_1,T_0,\sigma)$, where $\sigma$ is a bijection preserving the cyclic order of the labeling of the leaves of the trees. Thus, the image of ${\bf T}$ is Ptolemy-Thompson’s group $T\subset V$. Finally, the kernel of the epimorphism ${\bf T}\to T$ is trivial. In the following, we shall identify $T$ with ${\bf T}$.
As the kernel of this extension is not finitely generated, there is no evidence that ${\cal B}$ should be finitely generated. The main theorem of [@fu-ka1] asserts a stronger result.
${{{\cal B}}}$ is finitely presented
------------------------------------
The group ${{{\cal B}}}$ is finitely presented.
The proof is geometric, and inspired by the method of Hatcher and Thurston for the presentation of mapping class groups of compact surfaces. It relies on the Bass-Serre theory, as generalized by K. Brown in [@br1], which asserts the following. Let a group $G$ act on a simply connected 2-dimensional complex $X$, whose stabilizers of vertices are finitely presented, and whose stabilizers of edges are finitely generated. If the set of $G$-orbits of cells is finite (otherwise stated, the action is cocompact), then $G$ is finitely presented.
Clearly, the group ${\cal B}$ acts cellularly on the Hatcher-Thurston complex of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$. However, the idea consisting in exploiting this action must be considerably improved if one wishes to prove the above theorem. Indeed, the complex ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ is simply connected, but it has infinitely many orbits of ${{{\cal B}}}$-cells. This is due to the existence of the square cycles, corresponding to the commutation of $A$-moves on disjoint supports. Let $\sigma$ be a 2-cell filling in such a square cycle; the $A$-moves which commute are supported on two 4-holed spheres, separated by a certain number of pairs of pants $n_{\sigma}$. Clearly, this integer is an invariant of the ${{{\cal B}}}$-orbit of $\sigma$, which can be arbitrarily large.\
The interest for the reduced Hatcher-Thurston ${\cal HT}_{red}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ appears now clearly: it is both simply connected and finite modulo ${{{\cal B}}}$. Unfortunately, the stabilizers of the vertices or edges of ${\cal HT}_{red}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ (which are the same as those of ${\cal HT}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$) under the action of ${\cal B}$ are not finitely generated. The idea, in order to overcome this difficulty, is to “rigidify” the pants decompositions so that the size of their stabilizers become more reasonable. This leads us to introduce a complex ${\cal DP}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$, whose definition is rather technical (cf. [@fu-ka1], §5), which is a sort of mixing of the Hatcher-Thurston complex, and a certain $V$-complex, called the “Brown-Stein complex”, defined in [@br2]. The latter has been used in [@br2] to prove that $V$ has the $FP_{\infty}$ property.
Therefore, our ${{{\cal B}}}$-complex ${\cal DP}(\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty})$ encodes simultaneously some finiteness properties of the mapping class groups ${\cal M}(0,n)$ as well as of the Thompson group $V$.
With the right complex in hand it is not difficult to find the explicit presentation for ${{{\cal B}}}$, by following the method described in [@br1].
The braided Ptolemy-Thompson group
==================================
Finite presentation {#ptdef}
-------------------
In the continuity of our investigations on the relations between Thompson groups and mapping class groups of surfaces we introduced and studied a group (in fact two groups which are quite similar) called the braided Ptolemy-Thompson group ([@fu-ka2]) $T^*$, which might appear as a simplified version of the group $A_{T}$ of [@gr-se], and studied from a different point of view in [@ka-se]. Indeed, $T^*$, like $A_{T}$, is an extension of $T$ by the stable braid group $B_{\infty}$. Its definition is simpler than that of $A_{T}$, and is essentially topological.
1. Let $D$ be the planar surface with boundary obtained by thickening the dyadic complete (unrooted) planar tree. The decomposition into hexagons of $D$, which is dual to the tree, is called the [*canonical decomposition*]{}. By a [*separating arc*]{} of the decomposition we mean a connected component of the boundary of a hexagon which is not included in the boundary of $D$.
2. Let $D^{\sharp}$ be the surface $D$ with punctures corresponding to the vertices of the tree, and $D^*$ the surface $D$ whose punctures are the middles of the separating arcs of the canonical decomposition (cf. Figure \[D\]). A connected subsurface of $D^{\sharp}$ or $D^*$ is [*admissible*]{} if it is the union of finitely many hexagons of the canonical decomposition.
3. Let $D^{\diamond}$ denote $D^{\sharp}$ or $D^*$. An orientation-preserving homeomorphism $g$ of $D^{\diamond}$ is [*asymptotically rigid*]{} if it preserves globally the set of punctures, and if there exist two admissible subsurfaces $S_0$ and $S_1$ such that $g$ induces by restriction a “rigid” homeomorphism from $D^{\diamond}\setminus S_0$ onto $D^{\diamond}\setminus S_1$, i.e. a homeomorphism that respects the canonical decomposition and the punctures.
![$D^{\sharp}$ and $D^{*}$ with their canonical rigid structures[]{data-label="D"}](thicktree.eps)
Note that $D$ may be identified with the visible side of the surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ of [@ka-se] and [@fu-ka1]. Its canonical decomposition into hexagons is the trace on the visible side of $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ of the canonical pants decomposition of the latter.
The braided Ptolemy-Thompson group $T^{\diamond}$ (where the symbol $\diamond$ may denote either $*$ or $\sharp$) is the group of isotopy classes of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms of $D^{\diamond}$.
It is not difficult to see that there exists a short exact sequence $$1\rightarrow B_{\infty}\longrightarrow T^{\diamond}\longrightarrow T\rightarrow 1.$$ Unlike the extension of $T$ by $B_{\infty}$ which defines $A_{T}$, the above extensions, producing respectively the groups $T^{\sharp}$ and $T^*$, are not related to the discrete Godbillon-Vey class.
The main result of [@fu-ka2] is a theorem concerning the group presentations.
The groups $T^{\sharp}$ and $T^*$ are finitely presented.
Moreover, an explicit presentation for $T^{\sharp}$ is given, with 3 generators. We show that $T^*$ is generated by 2 elements. By comparing their associated abelianized groups, one proves that $T^{\sharp}$ and $T^*$, though quite similar, are not isomorphic.
As in [@fu-ka1], we prove the above theorem by making $T^{\sharp}$ and $T^*$ act on convenient simply-connected 2-complexes, The results of §4 are used once again, especially the reduced Hatcher-Thurston complex, by introducing braided versions of the Hatcher-Thurston complex of the surface $D^{\sharp}$ and $D^*$ (the pairs of pants being replaced by hexagons).
In short, a vertex of these two complexes is a decomposition into hexagons which coincides with the canonical decomposition outside a compact subsurface $D$, such that:
1. in the $T^{\sharp}$-complex each hexagon contains a puncture of $D^{\sharp}$ in its interior;
2. in the $T^*$-complex each separating arc passes through a puncture of $D^*$.
There are two types of edges: an $A$-move of Hatcher-Thurston, and a braiding move $B$ (cf. [@fu-ka2], §3). Forgetting the punctures, one obtains fibrations from the complexes onto the Hatcher-Thurston complex of $D$, whose fibers over the vertices are isomorphic to the Cayley complex of the stable braid group $B_{\infty}$. The presentation of $B_{\infty}$ that is convenient exploits the distribution of the punctures on a tree or a graph. It is given by a more general theorem of the third author (cf. [@se]).
The groups $T^{\sharp}$ and $T^*$ share a number of properties which makes them quite different from ${{{\cal B}}}$. For instance the cyclic orderability of $T$ together with the left orderability of $B_{\infty}$ leads to a cyclic order on $T^*$. Using a result from [@ca] we obtain:
The group $T^*$ can be embedded into the group of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle.
Adapting one of the Artin solutions of the word problem in the braid group, we also prove
The word problem for the group $T^*$ is solvable.
The group $T^*$ is also used in the study of an asymptotically rigid mapping class group of infinite genus, whose rational homology is isomorphic to the “stable homology of the mapping class group”.
Asynchronous combability
------------------------
The aim of this section is to show that $T^{\star}$ has strong finiteness properties. Although it was known that one can generate Thompson groups using automata ([@GN]), very little was known about the geometry of their Cayley graphs. Recently, D. Farley proved ([@Fa]) that Thompson groups (and more generally picture groups, see [@GuS]) act properly by isometries on CAT(0) cubical complexes (and hence are a-T-menable), and V.Guba (see [@Gu; @Gu2]) obtained that the smallest Thompson group $F$ has quadratic Dehn function while $T$ and $V$ have polynomial Dehn functions. It is known that automatic groups have quadratic Dehn functions on one side and Niblo and Reeves ([@NR]) proved that any group acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly on a CAT(0) cubical complex is automatic. One might therefore wonder whether Thompson groups are automatic.
We approach this problem from the perspective of mapping class groups, since one can view $T$ and $T^*$ as mapping class groups of a surface of infinite type. One of the far reaching results in this respect is the Lee Mosher theorem ([@Mo]) stating that mapping class groups of surfaces of finite type are automatic. Our main result in [@fu-ka4] shows that, when shifting to surfaces of infinite type, a slightly weaker result still holds.
We will follow below the terminology introduced by Bridson in [@A; @Br; @Br2], in particular we allow very general combings. We refer the reader to [@ECHLPT] for a thorough introduction to the subject.
Let $G$ be a finitely generated group with a finite generating set $S$, such that $S$ is closed with respect to taking inverses, and $C(G,S)$ be the corresponding Cayley graph. This graph is endowed with the word metric in which the distance $d(g,g')$ between the vertices associated to the elements $g$ and $g'$ of $G$ is the minimal length of a word in the generators $S$ representing the element $g^{-1}g'$ of $G$.
A [*combing*]{} of the group $G$ with generating set $S$ is a map which associates to any element $g\in G$ a path $\sigma_{g}$ in the Cayley graph associated to $S$ from $1$ to $g$. In other words $\sigma_{g}$ is a word in the free group generated by $S$ that represents the element $g$ in $G$. We can also represent $\sigma_g(t)$ as an infinite edge path in $C(G,S)$ (called combing path) that joins the identity element to $g$, moving at each step to a neighboring vertex and which becomes eventually stationary at $g$. Denote by $|\sigma_g|$ the length of the path $\sigma_g$ i.e. the smallest $t$ for which $\sigma_g(t)$ becomes stationary.
The combing $\sigma$ of the group $G$ is [*synchronously bounded*]{} if it satisfies the synchronous fellow traveler property defined as follows. There exists $K$ such that the combing paths $\sigma_g$ and $\sigma_{g'}$ of any two elements $g$, $g'$ at distance $d(g,g')=1$ are at most distance $K$ apart at each step i.e. $$d(\sigma_g(t),\sigma_{g'}(t))\leq K, \; {\rm for \; any }\; t\in {{\mathbb{R}}}_+.$$ A group $G$ having a synchronously bounded combing is called synchronously combable.
In particular, combings furnish normal forms for group elements. The existence of combings with special properties (like the fellow traveler property) has important consequences for the geometry of the group (see [@A; @Br]).
We will also introduce a slightly weaker condition (after Bridson and Gersten) as follows:
The combing $\sigma$ of the group $G$ is [*asynchronously bounded*]{} if there exists $K$ such that for any two elements $g$, $g'$ at distance $d(g,g')=1$ there exist ways to travel along the combing paths $\sigma_g$ and $\sigma_{g'}$ at possibly different speeds so that corresponding points are at most distance $K$ apart. Thus, there exists continuous increasing functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\varphi'(t)$ going from zero to infinity such that $$d(\sigma_g(\varphi(t)),\sigma_{g'}(\varphi'(t)))\leq K, \; {\rm for \; any }\; t\in {{\mathbb{R}}}_+.$$ A group $G$ having an asynchronously bounded combing is called asynchronously combable.
The asynchronously bounded combing $\sigma$ has [*a departure function*]{} $D:{{\mathbb{R}}}_+\to {{\mathbb{R}}}_+$ if for all $r >0$, $g\in G$ and $0\leq s,t\leq |\sigma_g|$, the assumption $|s-t| > D(r)$ implies that $d(\sigma_g(s),\sigma_g(t)) > r$.
The main result of [@fu-ka4] can be stated as follows:
The group $T^{\star}$ is asynchronously combable.
In particular, in the course of the proof we also prove that:
The Thompson group $T$ is asynchronously combable.
The proof is largely inspired by the methods of L. Mosher. The mapping class group is embedded into the Ptolemy groupoid of some triangulation of the surface, as defined by L. Mosher and R. Penner. It suffices then to provide combings for the latter.
There are known examples of asynchronously combable groups with a departure function: asynchronously automatic groups (see [@ECHLPT]), the fundamental group of a Haken 3-manifold ([@Br]), or of a geometric 3-manifold ([@Br2]), semi-direct products of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ ([@Br]). Gersten ([@Ger]) proved that asynchronously combable groups with a departure function are of type ${\rm FP}_3$ and announced that they should actually be ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$. Recall that a group $G$ is ${\rm FP}_{n}$ if there is a projective ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[G]$-resolution of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ which is finitely generated in dimensions at most $n$ (see [@Geo], Chapter 8 for a thorough discussion on this topic). Notice that there exist asynchronously combable groups (with departure function) which are not asynchronously automatic, for instance the [Sol]{} and [Nil]{} geometry groups of closed 3-manifolds (see [@Bra]); in particular, they are not automatic.
Central extensions of $T$ and quantization
==========================================
Quantum universal Teichmüller space
-----------------------------------
The goal of the quantization is, roughly speaking, to obtain [*non-commutative deformations*]{} of the action of the mapping class group on the Teichmüller space. It appears that the Teichmüller space of a surface has a particularly nice [*global*]{} system of coordinate charts whenever the surface has at least one puncture, the so-called shearing coordinates introduced by Thurston (see [@Fun] for a survey). Each coordinate chart corresponds to fixing the isotopy class of a triangulation of the surface with vertices at the puncture. The mapping class group embeds into the [*labelled*]{} Ptolemy groupoid of the surface and there is a natural extension of the mapping class group action to an action of this groupoid on the set of coordinate charts. The necessity of considering labelled triangulations comes from the existence of triangulations with non-trivial automorphism groups. This theory extends naturally to the universal setting of Farey-type tessellations of the Poincaré disk ${\mathbb D}$, which behaves naturally as an infinitely punctured surface. Since there are no automorphisms of the binary tree which induce eventually trivial permutations it follows that we do not need labelled tessellations. The analogue of the mapping class group is therefore the Ptolemy-Thompson group $T$. We will explain below (see Section \[dilog\]) how one obtains by quantization a projective representation of $T$, namely a representation into the linear group modulo scalars, which is called the dilogarithmic representation. One of the main results of [@fu-se] (see also Sections \[comput\] and \[ident\]) is the fact that the dilogarithmic representation comes from a central extension of $T$ whose class is 12 times the Euler class generator. This result is very similar to the case of a finite type surface where the dilogarithmic representations come from a central extension of the mapping class group of a punctured surface having extension class 12 times the Euler class plus the puncture classes (see [@fu-kas] for details).
Here and henceforth, for the sake of brevity, we will use the term tessellation instead of marked tessellation. For each tessellation $\tau$ let $E(\tau)$ be the set of its edges. We associate further a skew-symmetric matrix $\varepsilon(\tau)$ with entries $\varepsilon_{ef}$, for all $e,f\in E(\tau)$, as follows. If $e$ and $f$ do not belong to the same triangle of $\tau$ or $e=f$ then $\varepsilon_{ef}=0$. Otherwise, $e$ and $f$ are distinct edges belonging to the same triangle of $\tau$ and thus have a common vertex. We obtain $f$ by rotating $e$ in the plane along that vertex such that the moving edge is sweeping out the respective triangle of $\tau$. If we rotate clockwisely then $\varepsilon_{ef}=+1$ and otherwise $\varepsilon_{ef}=-1$.
The pair $(E(\tau), \varepsilon(\tau))$ is called a [*seed*]{} in [@FG]. Observe, that in this particular case seeds are completely determined by tessellations.
Let $(\tau,\tau')$ be a flip $F_e$ in the edge $e\in E(\tau)$. Then the associated seeds $(E(\tau), \varepsilon(\tau))$ and $(E(\tau'), \varepsilon(\tau'))$ are obtained one from another by a [*mutation*]{} in the direction $e$. Specifically, this means that there is an isomorphism $\mu_e:E(\tau)\to E(\tau')$ such that $$\varepsilon(\tau')_{\mu_e(s)\mu_e(t)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\varepsilon_{st}, & \mbox{ \rm if } e=s \mbox{ \rm or } e=t, \\
\varepsilon_{st}, & \mbox{ \rm if } \varepsilon_{se}\varepsilon_{et} \leq 0, \\
\varepsilon_{st} + |\varepsilon_{se}|\varepsilon_{et},
& \mbox{ \rm if } \varepsilon_{se}\varepsilon_{et} >0
\end{array}
\right.$$ The map $\mu_e$ comes from the natural identification of the edges of the two respective tessellations out of $e$ and $F_e(e)$.
This algebraic setting appears in the description of the universal Teichmüller space ${\mathcal T}$. Its formal definition (see [@FG1; @FG2]) is the set of positive real points of the cluster ${\mathcal X}$-space related to the set of seeds above. However, we can give a more intuitive description of it, following [@pe0]. Specifically, this ${\mathcal T}$ is the space of [*all*]{} marked Farey-type tessellations from Section \[IKS\]. Each tessellation $\tau$ gives rise to a coordinate system $\beta_{\tau}:{\mathcal T}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$. The real number $x_e=\beta_{\tau}(e)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ specifies the amount of translation along the geodesic associated to the edge $e$ which is required when gluing together the two ideal triangles sharing that geodesic to obtain a given quadrilateral in the hyperbolic plane. These are called the shearing coordinates (introduced by Thurston and then considered by Bonahon, Fock and Penner) on the universal Teichmüller space and they provide a homeomorphism $\beta_{\tau}:{\mathcal T}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$. There is an explicit geometric formula (see also [@Fo; @Fun]) for the shearing coordinates, as follows. Assume that the union of the two ideal triangles in ${\mathbb H}^2$ is the ideal quadrilateral of vertices $pp_0p_{-1}p_{\infty}$ and the common geodesic is $p_{\infty}p_0$. Then the respective shearing coordinate is the cross-ratio $$x_e=[p,p_0,p_{-1},p_{\infty}]=\log\frac{(p_0-p)(p_{-1}-p_{\infty})}
{(p_{\infty}-p)(p_{-1}-p_0)}.$$
Let $\tau'$ be obtained from $\tau$ by a flip $F_e$ and set $\{x'_f\}$ for the coordinates associated to $\tau'$. The map $\beta_{\tau,\tau'}:R^{E(\tau')}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$ given by $$\beta_{\tau,\tau'}(x'_s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
x_s-\varepsilon(\tau)_{se}\log(1+\exp(-{\rm sgn}(\varepsilon_{se})x_e)), & \mbox{\rm if } s\neq e,\\
-x_e, & \mbox{\rm if } s= e\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ relates the two coordinate systems, namely $\beta_{\tau,\tau'}\circ \beta_{\tau'}=\beta_{\tau}$.
These coordinate systems provide a contravariant functor $\beta: Pt\to {\rm Comm}$ from the Ptolemy groupoid $Pt$ to the category ${\rm Comm}$ of commutative topological $*$-algebras over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$. We associate to a tessellation $\tau$ the algebra $B(\tau)=C^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$ of smooth complex valued functions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$, with the $*$-structure given by $*f=\overline{f}$. Furthermore to any flip $(\tau,\tau')\in Pt$ one associates the map $\beta_{\tau,\tau'}:B(\tau')\to B(\tau)$.
The matrices $\varepsilon(\tau)$ have a deep geometric meaning. In fact the bi-vector field $$P_{\tau}=\sum_{e,f} \varepsilon(\tau)_{ef} \,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_e}\wedge
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_f}$$ written here in the coordinates $\{x_e\}$ associated to $\tau$ defines a Poisson structure on ${\mathcal T}$ which is invariant by the action of the Ptolemy groupoid. The associated Poisson bracket is then given by the formula $$\{x_e,x_f\}=\varepsilon(\tau)_{ef}.$$
Kontsevich proved that there is a canonical formal quantization of a (finite dimensional) Poisson manifold. The universal Teichmüler space is not only a Poisson manifold but also endowed with a group action and our aim will be an equivariant quantization. Chekhov, Fock and Kashaev (see [@CF; @CP; @K; @K2]) constructed an equivariant quantization by means of explicit formulas. There are two ingredients in their approach. First, the Poisson bracket is given by constant coefficients, in any coordinate charts and second, the quantum (di)logarithm.
To any category $C$ whose morphisms are ${{\mathbb{C}}}$-vector spaces one associates its projectivisation $PC$ having the same objects and new morphisms given by ${\rm Hom}_{PC}(C_1,C_2)={\rm Hom}_C(C_1,C_2)/U(1)$, for any two objects $C_1,C_2$ of $C$. Here $U(1)\subset {{\mathbb{C}}}$ acts by scalar multiplication. A projective functor into $C$ is actually a functor into $PC$.
Now let ${\rm A}^*$ be the category of topological $*$-algebras. Two functors $F_1, F_2:C\to {\rm A}^*$ essentially coincide if there exists a third functor $F$ and natural transformations $F_1\to F$, $F_2\to F$ providing dense inclusions $F_1(O)\hookrightarrow F(O)$ and $F_2(O)\hookrightarrow F(O)$, for any object $O$ of $C$.
\[quant\] A [*quantization*]{} ${\mathcal T}^h$ of the universal Teichmüller space is a family of contravariant projective functors $\beta^h:Pt\to {\rm A}^*$ depending smoothly on the real parameter $h$ such that:
1. The limit $\lim_{h\to 0} \beta^h= \beta^0$ exists and essentially coincides with the functor $\beta$.
2. The limit $\lim_{h\to 0}[f_1,f_2]/h$ is defined and coincides with the Poisson bracket on ${\mathcal T}$. Alternatively, for each $\tau$ we have a ${{\mathbb{C}}}(h)$-linear (non-commutative) product structure $\star$ on the vector space $C^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)},{{\mathbb{C}}}(h))$ such that $$f\star g= fg + h \{f,g\} + {o}(h)$$ where $\{f,g\}$ is the Poisson bracket on functions on ${\mathcal T}$ and ${{\mathbb{C}}}(h)$ denotes the algebra of smooth ${{\mathbb{C}}}$-valued functions on the real parameter $h$.
We associate to each tessellation $\tau$ the [*Heisenberg algebra*]{} $H_{\tau}^h$ which is the topological $*$-algebra over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ generated by the elements $x_e, e\in E(\tau)$ subject to the relations $$[x_e,x_f]=2\pi i h \varepsilon(\tau)_{ef}, \;\,\; x_e^*=x_e.$$ We then define $\beta^h(\tau)=H_{\tau}^h$.
Quantization should associate a homomorphism $\beta^h((\tau,\tau')): H_{\tau'}^h\to H_{\tau}^h$ to each element $(\tau,\tau')\in Pt$. It actually suffices to consider the case where $(\tau,\tau')$ is the flip $F_e$ in the edge $e\in E(\tau)$. Let $\{x'_s\}$, $s\in E(\tau')$ be the generators of $H_{\tau'}^h$. We then set $$\beta^h((\tau,\tau'))(x'_s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
x_s -\varepsilon(\tau)_{se}\; \phi^h(-{\rm sgn}\left(\varepsilon(\tau)_{se})x_e\right), & \mbox{\rm if }
s\neq e, \\
-x_s, & \mbox{\rm if } s= e \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $\phi^h$ is the [*quantum logarithm*]{} function, namely $$\phi^h(z) = -\frac{\pi h}{2}\int_{\Omega}
\frac{\exp(-it z)}{{\rm sh}(\pi t) \, {\rm sh }(\pi h t)} dt$$ where the contour $\Omega$ goes along the real axes from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ bypassing the origin from above.
Some properties of the quantum logarithm are collected below: $$\lim_{h\to 0}\phi^h(z)=\log\left(1+\exp(z)\right), \;\; \phi^h(z)-\phi^h(-z)=z,$$ $$\overline{\phi^h(z)}=\phi^h\left(\overline{z}\right), \;\;
\frac{\phi^h(z)}{h}=\phi^{1/h}\left(\frac{z}{h}\right)$$
A convenient way to represent this transformation graphically is to associate to a tessellation its dual binary tree embedded in ${\mathbb H}^2$ and to assign to each edge $e$ the respective generator $x_e$. Then the action of a flip reads as follows:
We then have:
The projective functor $\beta^h$ is well-defined and it is a quantization of the universal Teichmüller space $\mathcal T$.
One proves that $\beta^h((\tau,\tau'))$ is independent of the decomposition of the element $(\tau,\tau')$ as a product of flips. In the classical limit $h\to 0$ the quantum flip tends to the usual formula of the coordinate change induced by a flip. Thus the first requirement in Definition \[quant\] is fulfilled, and the second one is obvious, from the defining relations in the Heisenberg algebra $H_{\tau}^h$.
The dilogarithmic representation of $T$ {#dilog}
---------------------------------------
The subject of this section is to give a somewhat self-contained definition of the dilogarithmic representation of the group $T$. The case of general cluster modular groupoids is developed in full detail in [@FG; @FG3] and the group $T$ as a cluster modular groupoid is explained in [@FG2].
The quantization of a physical system in quantum mechanics should provide a Hilbert space and the usual procedure is to consider a Hilbert space representation of the algebra from Definition \[quant\]. This is formalized in the notion of representation of a quantum space.
\[repre\] A projective $*$-representation of the quantized universal Teichmüller space ${\mathcal T}^h$, specified by the functor $\beta^h:Pt\to {\rm A}^*$, consists of the following data:
1. A projective functor $Pt\to {\rm Hilb}$ to the category of Hilbert spaces. In particular, one associates a Hilbert space ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$ to each tessellation $\tau$ and a unitary operator $K_{(\tau,\tau')}:{\mathcal L}_{\tau}\to {\mathcal L}_{\tau'}$, defined up to a scalar of absolute value 1.
2. A $*$-representation $\rho_{\tau}$ of the Heisenberg algebra $H_{\tau}^h$ in the Hilbert space ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$, such that the operators ${\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')}$ intertwine the representations $\rho_{\tau}$ and $\rho_{\tau'}$ i.e. $$\rho_{\tau}(w)= {\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')}^{-1} \rho_{\tau'}\left(\beta^h((\tau,\tau'))(w)\right)
{\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')}, \,\,\, w\in H_{\tau}^h.$$
[*The classical Heisenberg $*$-algebra*]{} $H$ is generated by $2n$ elements $x_s,y_s$, $1\leq s\leq n$ and relations $$[x_s, y_s]=2\pi i \, h, \;\; [x_s,y_t]=0, \mbox{\rm if } s\neq t, \;\; [x_s, x_t]=[y_s,y_t]=0, \mbox{\rm for all } s, t$$ with the obvious $*$-structure. The single irreducible integrable $*$-representation $\rho$ of $H$ makes it act on the Hilbert space $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)$ by means of the operators: $$\rho(x_s)f(z_1,\ldots,z_n)= z_sf(z_1,\ldots,z_n) , \;\;\, \rho(y_s)=-2\pi i \, h \frac{\partial f}{\partial z_s}.$$ [*The Heisenberg algebras*]{} $H_{\tau}^h$ are defined by commutation relations with constant coefficients and hence their representations can be constructed by selecting a Lagrangian subspace in the generators $x_s$ – called a polarization – and letting the generators act as linear combinations in the above operators $\rho(x_s)$ and $\rho(y_s)$.
The Stone-von Neumann theorem holds then for these algebras. Specifically, there exists a unique unitary irreducible Hilbert space representation of given central character that is integrable i.e. which can be integrated to the corresponding Lie group. Notice that there exist in general also non-integrable unitary representations.
In particular we obtain representations of $H_{\tau}^h$ and $H_{\tau'}^h$. The uniqueness of the representation yields the existence of an intertwiner ${\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')}$ (defined up to a scalar) between the two representations. However, neither the Hilbert spaces nor the representations $\rho_{\tau}$ are canonical, as they depend on the choice of the polarization.
We will give below [*the construction of a canonical representation*]{} when the quantized Teichmüller space is replaced by its double. We need first to switch to another system of coordinates, coming from the cluster ${\mathcal A}$-varieties. Define, after Penner (see [@pe0]), the [*universal decorated Teichmüller space*]{} ${\mathcal A}$ to be the space of all marked tessellations endowed with one horocycle for each vertex (decoration). Alternatively (see [@FG1]), ${\mathcal A}$ is the set of positive real points of the cluster ${\mathcal A}$-space related to the previous set of seeds.
Each tessellation $\tau$ yields a coordinate system $\alpha_{\tau}:{\mathcal A}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$ which associates to the edge $e$ of $\tau$ the coordinate $a_e=\alpha_{\tau}(e)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. The number $\alpha_{\tau}(e)$ is the algebraic distance between the two horocycles on ${\mathbb H}^2$ centered at vertices of $e$, measured along the geodesic associated to $e$. These are the so-called [*lambda-length*]{} coordinates of Penner.
There is a canonical map $p:{\mathcal A}\to {\mathcal T}$ (see [@pe0], Proposition 3.7 and [@FG1]) such that, in the coordinate systems induced by a tessellation $\tau$, the corresponding map $p_{\tau} :{{\mathbb{R}}}^{(E(\tau)}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$ is given by $$p_{\tau}\left(\sum_{t\in E(\tau)} \varepsilon(\tau)_{st}a_t\right)=x_s.$$
Let $(\tau,\tau')$ be the flip on the edge $e$ and set $a'_s$ be the coordinates system associated to $\tau'$. Then the flip induces the following change of coordinates: $$\alpha_{\tau,\tau'}(a_s)=
a_s, \: \mbox{\rm if }\: s\neq e$$ $$\alpha_{\tau,\tau'}(a_e)=
-a_e + \log\left(\exp\left(\sum_{t;\varepsilon(\tau)_{et}>0}
\varepsilon(\tau)_{et} a_t\right)+ \exp\left(-\sum_{t;\varepsilon(\tau)_{et}<0}
\varepsilon(\tau)_{et} a_t\right)\right).$$ It can be verified that $p_{\tau}$ are compatible with the action of the Ptolemy groupoid on the respective coordinates.
[*The vector space*]{} ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$ is defined as the space of square integrable functions with finite dimensional support on ${\mathcal A}$ with respect to the $\alpha_{\tau}$ coordinates i.e. the functions $f:{{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}\to {{\mathbb{C}}}$, with support contained in some $R^F\times \{0\}\subset R^{E(\tau)}$, for some finite subset $F\subset E(\tau)$. The coordinates on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{E(\tau)}$ are the $a_e, e\in E(\tau)$. The function $f$ is square integrable if $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^F} |f|^2 \bigwedge _{e\in F}da_e < \infty$$ for any such $F$ as above. Let $f, g \in {\mathcal L}_{\tau}$. Then let ${{\mathbb{R}}}^F\times \{0\}$ contain the intersection of their supports. Choose $F$ minimal with this property. Then the scalar product $$\langle f, g \rangle= \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^F} f(a)\overline{g(a)} \bigwedge _{e\in F}da_e$$ makes ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$ a Hilbert space.
To define the intertwining operator ${\mathbf K}$ we set now: $$\begin{aligned}
G_e((a_s)_{s\in F}) &=
\int \exp\left(\int_{\Omega}
\frac{\exp(it \sum_{s\in F}\varepsilon(\tau)_{es}a_s) \sin(tc)}
{2i {\rm sh}(\pi t){\rm sh}(\pi h t)} \frac{dt}{t} + \right. \\
&
\left.\frac{c}{\pi i h}\left(\sum_{s; \varepsilon(\tau)_{es}<0}\varepsilon(\tau)_{es}a_s
+a_e\right)\right) dc. \end{aligned}$$ The key ingredient in the construction of this function is the [*quantum dilogarithm*]{} (going back to Barnes ([@Bar]) and used by Baxter ([@Bax]) and Faddeev ([@Fad])): $$\Phi^h(z) = \exp\left(-\frac{1}{4}\int_{\Omega}
\frac{\exp(-it z)}{{\rm sh}(\pi t) \, {\rm sh }(\pi h t)} \frac{dt}{t} \right)$$ where the contour $\Omega$ goes along the real axes from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ bypassing the origin from above.
Some properties of the quantum dilogarithm are collected below: $$2\pi i h d \log \Phi^h(z)=\phi^h(z), \; \; \lim_{\Re z\to -\infty}\Phi^h(z)=1$$ $$\lim_{h\to 0}\Phi^h(z)/\exp(-{\rm Li}_2(-\exp(z)))=2\pi i h, \, \, \mbox{\rm where }
{\rm Li}_2(z)=\int_0^z\log(1-t)dt$$ $$\Phi^h(z)\Phi^h(-z)=\exp\left(\frac{z^2}{4\pi i h}\right) \exp\left(-\frac{\pi i}{12}(h+h^{-1})\right)$$ $$\overline{\Phi^h(z))}=\left(\Phi^h\left(\overline{z}\right)\right)^{-1}, \;\; \Phi^h(z)=\Phi^{1/h}\left(\frac{z}{h}\right).$$
Now let $f\in {\mathcal L}_{\tau}$, namely $f:{{\mathbb{R}}}^F\times \{0\}\to {{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let $(\tau,\tau')$ be the flip $F_e$ on the edge $e$. Let $a_s, s\in F$ be the coordinates in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^F$. If $e\not\in F$ then we set $${\bf K}_{(\tau,\tau')}=1.$$ If $e\in F$ then the coordinates associated to $\tau'$ are $a_s, s\neq e$ and $a'_e$. Set then $$({\bf K}_{(\tau,\tau')} f)(a_s, _{s\in F, f\neq e}, a'_e)=
\int G_e((a_s)_{s\in F, s\neq e}, a_e+a'_e) f((a_s)_{s\in F}) da_s.$$
The last piece of data is [*the representation of the Heisenberg algebra*]{} $H_{\tau}^h$ in the Hilbert space ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$. We can actually do better, namely enhance the space with a bimodule structure. Set $$\rho^-_{\tau} (x_s) =-\pi i h \frac{\partial}{\partial a_s} + \sum_{t}\varepsilon(\tau)_{st} a_t$$ and $$\rho^+_{\tau} (x_s)=\pi i h \frac{\partial}{\partial a_s} + \sum_{t}\varepsilon(\tau)_{st} a_t.$$ Then $\rho^-_{\tau} $ gives a left module and $\rho^+_{\tau} $ a right module structure on ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$ and the two actions commute. We have then:
The data $({\mathcal L}_{\tau}, \rho^{\pm}_{\tau}, {\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')})$ is a projective $*$-representation of the quantized universal Teichmüller space.
The data $({\mathcal L}_{\tau}, \rho^{\pm}_{\tau}, {\mathbf K}_{(\tau,\tau')})$ is called the dilogarithmic representation of the Ptolemy groupoid. The proof of this result is given in [@FG] and a particular case is explained with lots of details in [@Go].
The last step in our construction is to observe that a representation of the Ptolemy groupoid $Pt$ [*induces a representation of the Ptolemy-Thompson group*]{} $T$ by means of an identification of the Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal L}_{\tau}$ for all $\tau$.
Projective representations are equivalent to representations of central extensions by means of the following well-known procedure. To a general group $G$, Hilbert space $V$ and homomorphism $A:G\to {\rm PGL}(V)$ we can associate a central extension $\widetilde{G}$ of $G$ by ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ which resolves the projective representation $A$ to a linear representation $\widetilde{A}:\widetilde{G}\to {\rm GL}(V)$. The extension $\widetilde{G}$ is the pull-back on $G$ of the canonical central ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$-extension ${\rm GL}(V)\to {\rm PGL}(V)$.
However the central extension which we consider here is a subgroup of the ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$-extension defined above, obtained by using a particular section over $G$. Let us write $G=F/R$ as the quotient of the free group $F$ by the normal subgroup $R$ generated by the relations. Then our data consists in a homomorphism $\overline{A}:F\to {\rm GL}(V)$ with the property that $\overline{A}(r)\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^*$, for each relation $r\in R$, so that $\overline{A}$ induces $A:G\to {\rm PGL}(V)$. This data will be called [*an almost-linear representation*]{}, in order to distinguish it from a projective representation of $G$.
The [*central extension $\widehat{G}$ of $G$ associated to $\overline{A}$*]{} is $\widehat{G}=F/(\ker \overline{A}\cap R)$, namely the smallest central extension of $S$ resolving the projective representation $A$ to a linear representation compatible with $\overline{A}$. Then $\widehat{G}$ is a central extension of $G$ by the subgroup $\overline{A}(R)\subset {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ and hence it is naturally a subgroup of $\widetilde{G}$. In other terms $\overline{A}$ determines a projective representation $A$ and a section over $G$ whose associated 2-cocycle takes values in $\overline{A}(R)$ and which describes the central extension $\widehat{G}$.
Now, the intertwiner functor $\mathbf K$ is actually an almost-linear representation (in the obvious sense) of the Ptolemy groupoid and thus induces an almost-linear representation of the Ptolemy-Thompson group $T$ into the unitary group. We can extract from [@FG] the following results (see also the equivalent construction at the level of Heisenberg algebras in [@BBL]):
\[dilogcar\] The dilogarithmic almost-linear representation $\mathbf K$ has the following properties:
1. images of disjoint flips in $\widehat{T}$ commute with each other;
2. the square of a flip is the identity;
3. the composition of the lifts of the five flips from the pentagon relation below is $\exp(2\pi i h)$ times the identity.
The first condition is that images by $K$ of flips on disjoint edges should commute. This is obvious by the explicit formula for $K$. The second and third conditions are proved in [@FG].
In [@fu-se] we considered the action of labelled flips in the pentagon relation. The composition of labelled flips is then the transposition of the labels of the two diagonals (see Proposition \[permut\]).
Therefore the image by $\mathbf K$ of relations of the Ptolemy groupoid into ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ is the subgroup $U$ generated by $\exp(2\pi i h)$. We can view the pentagon relation in the Ptolemy-Thompson group $T$ as a pentagon relation in the Ptolemy groupoid $Pt$. Thus the image by $\mathbf K$ of relations of the Ptolemy-Thompson group $T$ into ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ is also the subgroup $U$. In particular the associated 2-cocycle takes values in $U$. If $h$ is a formal parameter or an irrational real number we obtain then a 2-cocycle with values in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
The dilogarithmic central extension $\widehat{T}$ is the central extension of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ associated to the dilogarithmic almost-linear representation $\mathbf K$ of $T$, or equivalently, to the previous 2-cocycle.
The relative abelianization of the braided Ptolemy-Thompson group $T^*$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall from [@fu-ka2; @fu-ka4] (see also \[ptdef\]) that there exists a natural surjective homomorphism $T^*\to T$ which is obtained by [*forgetting the punctures*]{} once these groups are considered as mapping class groups. Its kernel is the infinite braid group $B_{\infty}$ consisting of those braids in the punctures of $D^*$ that move non-trivially only finitely many punctures. In other words $B_{\infty}$ is the direct limit of an ascending sequence of braid groups associated to an exhaustion of $D^*$ by punctured disks. This yields the following exact sequence description of $T^*$: $$1 \to B_{\infty} \to {T^{*}}\to T \to 1.$$
Observe that $H_1(B_{\infty})={{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Thus, the abelianization homomorphism $B_{\infty}\to H_1(B_{\infty})={{\mathbb{Z}}}$ induces a central extension $T^*_{\rm ab}$ of $T$, where one replaces $B_{\infty}$ by its abelianization $H_1(B_{\infty})$, as in the diagram below:
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 \to & B_{\infty} & \to & {T^{*}}& \to & T & \to 1 \\
& \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \parallel & \\
1 \to & {{\mathbb{Z}}}& \to & T^*_{\rm ab} & \to & T & \to 1
\end{array}$$
Then $T^*_{\rm ab}$ is the relative abelianization of $T^*$ over $T$. We are not only able to make computations in the mapping class group $T^*$ and thus in $T^*_{\rm ab}$, but also to interpret the algebraic relations in $T^*_{\rm ab}$ in geometric terms.
\[abelcar\] The group $T^*_{\rm ab}$ has the presentation with three generators $\alpha^*_{\rm ab}$, $\beta^*_{\rm ab}$ and $z$ and the relations $${\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^4={\beta^*_{\rm ab}}^3=1, (\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab})^5=z,
[\alpha^*_{\rm ab}, z]=1, [\beta^*_{\rm ab}, z]=1$$ $$[\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab} \, , \, {\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab}{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2]=1$$ $$[\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab} \, , \, {\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2{\beta^*_{\rm ab}}^2
{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab}{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2{\beta^*_{\rm ab}}
{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2]=1$$ Moreover the projection map $T^*_{\rm ab}\to T$ sends $\alpha^*_{\rm ab}$ to $\alpha$, $\beta^*_{\rm ab}$ to $\beta$ and $z$ to the identity.
Recall from [@fu-ka2] that $T^*$ is generated by the two elements $\alpha^*$ and $\beta^*$ below.
- The support of the element $\beta^{*}$ of $T^{*}$ is the central hexagon. Furthermore $\beta^{*}$ acts as the counterclockwise rotation of order three which permutes cyclically the punctures. One has ${\beta^{*}}^{3}=1$.
- The support of the element $\alpha^{*}$ of $T^{*}$ is the union of two adjacent hexagons, one of them being the support of $\beta^{*}$. Then $\alpha^{*}$ rotates counterclockwise the support of angle $\frac{\pi}{2}$, by keeping fixed the central puncture. One has ${\alpha^{*}}^4=1$.
Let now $e$ be a simple arc in $D^{*}$ which connects two punctures. We associate a braiding $\sigma_e\in B_{\infty}$ to $e$ by considering the homeomorphism that moves clockwise the punctures at the endpoints of the edge $e$ in a small neighborhood of the edge, in order to interchange their positions. This means that if $\gamma$ is an arc transverse to $e$, then the braiding $\sigma_{e}$ moves $\gamma$ to the left when it approaches $e$. Such a braiding will be called [*positive*]{}, while $\sigma_{e}^{-1}$ is [*negative*]{}.
It is known that $B_{\infty}$ is generated by the braids $\sigma_e$ where $e$ runs over the edges of the binary tree with vertices at the punctures. Let $\iota:B_{\infty}\to T^*$ be the inclusion. It is proved in [@fu-ka2] that the braid generator $\sigma_{[02]}$ associated to the edge joining the punctures numbered $0$ and $2$ has image $$\iota(\sigma_{[02]})=({{{\beta^{*}}}}{{{\alpha^{*}}}})^5$$ because we have
Recall next that all braid generators $\sigma_e$ are conjugate and call $z$ their image in $T^*_{\rm ab}$. It follows that $T^*_{\rm ab}$ is an extension of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Moreover, it is simple to check that ${{{\alpha^{*}}}}\sigma_{[02]}\alpha^{-1}$ is also a braid generator, namely $\sigma_{[{{{\alpha^{*}}}}(0){{{\alpha^{*}}}}(2)]}$. The same holds for ${{{\beta^{*}}}}\sigma_{[02]}{{{\beta^{*}}}}^{-1}=\sigma_{[{{{\beta^{*}}}}(0){{{\beta^{*}}}}(2)]}$. This implies that the extension $T^*_{\rm ab}$ is central.
In particular, a presentation of $T^*_{\rm ab}$ can be obtained by looking at the lifts of relations in $T$, together with those coming from the fact that $z$ is central.
The first set of relations above are obviously satisfied by $T^*_{\rm ab}$. Finally recall from [@fu-ka2] that $T^*$ splits over the smaller Thompson group $F$ and thus the following relations hold true in $T^*$: $$[\beta^*\alpha^*\beta^* \, , \, {\alpha^*}^2\beta^*\alpha^*\beta^*{\alpha^*}^2]=
[\beta^*\alpha^*\beta^* \, , \, {\alpha^*}^2{\beta^*}^2
{\alpha^*}^2\beta^*\alpha^*\beta^*{\alpha^*}^2{\beta^*}
{\alpha^*}^2]=1.$$ Thus relations from the second set are automatically verified in $T^*_{\rm ab}$. Since these relations form a complete set of lifts of relations presenting $T$ and since $z$ is central, then they represent a complete system of relations in $T^*_{\rm ab}$. This ends the proof.
Computing the class of $T^*_{\rm ab}$ {#comput}
-------------------------------------
\[multiple\] The class $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}$ is a multiple of the Euler class.
Since $T^*$ splits over the Thompson group $F\subset T$ (see [@fu-ka2]) it follows that $T^*_{\rm ab}$ also splits over $F$. Therefore the extension class $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}$ lies in the kernel of the restriction map $H^2(T)\to H^2(F)$. According to [@gh-se] the kernel is generated by the Euler class.
Let us introduce the group $T_{n,p,q}$ presented by the generators ${{\overline{\alpha}}}, {{\overline{\beta}}}, z$ and the relations: $$({{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}})^5=z^n$$ $${{\overline{\alpha}}}^4=z^p$$ $${{\overline{\beta}}}^3=z^q$$ $$[{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}, {{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2]=1$$ $$[{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}, {{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}^2{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2]=1$$ and $$[{{\overline{\alpha}}},z]=[{{\overline{\beta}}},z]=1.$$ Recall from Proposition \[abelcar\] that $T^*_{\rm ab}=T_{1,0,0}$. It is easy to see that $T_{n,p,q}$ are central extensions of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Because of the last two commutation relations the extension $T_{n,p,q}$ splits over the Thompson group $F$. Thus the restriction of $c_{T_{n,p,q}}$ to $F$ vanishes and a fortiori the restriction to the commutator subgroup $F'\subset F$. According to [@gh-se] we have $H^2(F')={{\mathbb{Z}}}\alpha$ where $\alpha$ is the discrete Godbillon-Vey class. Thus the map $H^2(T)\to H^2(F')$ is the projection ${{\mathbb{Z}}}\alpha\oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}}\chi\to {{\mathbb{Z}}}\alpha$. Since $c_{\widehat{T}}$ belongs to the kernel of $H^2(T)\to H^2(F')$ we derive that $c_{T_{n,p,q}}\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}\chi$. Set $c_{T_{n,p,q}}=\chi(n,p,q) \chi$.
\[linearform\] We have $\chi(n,p,q)= 12n-15p-20q$.
\[12\] We have $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}=12\chi$.
The extension $T^*\to T$ splits also over the subgroup $\langle \alpha^2,\beta\rangle$ which is isomorphic to ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ (see [@fu-ka2]). This implies that $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}$ is a multiple of $6\chi$.
The following refinement of the above argument shows that $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}$ is a multiple of $12\chi$. Consider the element $\gamma=\alpha\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2$ in $T$. Then $\gamma^3=\alpha^2$ so that $\gamma^6=\alpha^4=1$. Let then $\gamma^*_{\rm ab}=\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab}
{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2\beta^*_{\rm ab}\alpha^*_{\rm ab}\beta^*_{\rm ab}{\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2$ be a lift of $\gamma$ to $T^*_{\rm ab}$. One can show that $(z^{-1}\gamma^*_{\rm ab})^3={\alpha^*_{\rm ab}}^2$. The elements $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ of orders 6 and 4 respectively determine an embedding of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/6{{\mathbb{Z}}}*_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}/2{{\mathbb{Z}}}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}/4{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ into $T$. The relation from above shows that one can lift this embedding to an embedding of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/6{{\mathbb{Z}}}*_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}/2{{\mathbb{Z}}}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}/4{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ into $T^*_{\rm ab}$ by using the lifts $z^{-1}\gamma^*_{\rm ab}$ and $\alpha^*_{\rm ab}$. Now we know that ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/6{{\mathbb{Z}}}*_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}/2{{\mathbb{Z}}}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}/4{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is isomorphic to ${\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ and $H^2({\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}}),{{\mathbb{Z}}})={{\mathbb{Z}}}/12{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Moreover the pull-back of the Euler class on ${\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}}) \subset T\subset {\rm Homeo}^+(S^1)$ is the generator of $Z/12{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. This implies that $c_{T^*_{\rm ab}}$ is a multiple of $12\chi$.
Identifying the two central extensions of $T$ {#ident}
---------------------------------------------
The main result of this section is the following:
The dilogarithmic extension $\widehat{T}$ is identified to $T^*_{\rm ab}$.
The main step is to translate the properties of the dilogarithmic representation of the Ptolemy groupoid in terms of the Ptolemy-Thompson group. Since $\widehat{T}$ is a central extension of $T$ it is generated by the lifts ${\widehat{\alpha}},{\widehat{\beta}}$ of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ together with the generator $z$ of the center. Let us see what are the relations arising in the group $\widehat{T}$. According to Proposition \[dilogcar\] lifts of disjoint flips should commute. By a simple computation we can show that the elements $\beta\alpha\beta$, $\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2$ and $\alpha^2\beta\alpha^2\beta\alpha\beta\alpha^2\beta^2\alpha^2$ act as disjoint flips on the Farey triangulation. In particular we have the relations $$[{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}{\widehat{\beta}},{\widehat{\alpha}}^2{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}^2]=
[{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}{\widehat{\beta}},{\widehat{\alpha}}^2{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}^2{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}{\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}}^2{\widehat{\beta}}^2{\widehat{\alpha}}^2]=1$$ satisfied in $\widehat{T}$. Moreover, by construction we also have $${\widehat{\beta}}^3={\widehat{\alpha}}^4=1$$ meaning that the ${\widehat{\alpha}}$ is still periodic of order $4$ while ${\widehat{\beta}}$ is not deformed.
Eventually the only non-trivial lift of relations comes from the pentagon relation $({\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}})^5$. The element $({\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}})^5$ is actually the permutation of the two edges in the pentagon times the composition of the five flips. The pentagon equation is not anymore satisfied but Proposition \[dilogcar\] shows that the dilogarithmic image of $({\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}})^5$ is a scalar operator. Since $z$ is the generator of the kernel ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ of $\widehat{T}\to T$ it follows that the lift of the pentagon equation from $T$ to $\widehat{T}$ is given by $$({\widehat{\beta}}{\widehat{\alpha}})^5=z.$$ According to Proposition \[abelcar\] all relations presenting $T^*_{\rm ab}$ are satisfied in $\widehat{T}$. Since $\widehat{T}$ is a nontrivial central extension of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ it follows that the groups are isomorphic.
The key point in the above proof is that all pentagon relations in $Pt$ are transformed in a single pentagon relation in $T$ and thus the scalars associated to the pentagons in $Pt$ should be the same.
The dilogarithmic representation of $T$ induces a projective representation of the smaller Thompson group $F\subset T$. The latter is equivalent to a linear representation since the braided Ptolemy-Thompson group splits over $F$. It is presently unknown whether the dilogarithmic representation can be extended to one of the groups $V$ or $\mathcal B$.
Classification of central extensions of the group $T$
-----------------------------------------------------
Our main concern here is to identify the cohomology classes of all central extensions of $T$ in $H^2(T)$. Before doing that we consider a series of central extensions $T_{n,p,q,r,s}$ of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$, having properties similar to those of $\widehat{T}$.
The group $T_{n,p,q,r,s}$, is presented by the generators ${{\overline{\alpha}}}, {{\overline{\beta}}}, z$ and the relations: $$({{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}})^5=z^n$$ $${{\overline{\alpha}}}^4=z^p$$ $${{\overline{\beta}}}^3=z^q$$ $$[{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}, {{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2]=z^r$$ $$[{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}, {{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}{{\overline{\beta}}}{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2{{\overline{\beta}}}^2{{\overline{\alpha}}}^2]=z^s$$ $$[{{\overline{\alpha}}},z]=[{{\overline{\beta}}},z]=1.$$ Let us denote $T_{n,p,q,r}=T_{n,p,q,r,0}$ and $T_{n,p,q}=T_{n,p,q,0,0}$.
According to [@fu-ka2] we can identify $\widehat{T}$ with $T_{1,0,0}$. In fact the group $T^*$ is split over the smaller Thompson group $F\subset T$ and thus $\widehat{T}$ is split over $F$. Furthermore $F$ is generated by the elements $\beta^2\alpha$ and $\beta\alpha^2$ and thus relations of $F$ are precisely given by the above commutation relations. Thus the last two relations hold, while $z$ is central and thus $\widehat{T}$ is given by the above presentation.
We considered in [@fu-ka2] the twin group $T^{\sharp}$ and gave a presentation of it. Then, using a similar procedure there is a group obtained from $T^{\sharp}$ by abelianizing the kernel $B_{\infty}$, which is identified to $T_{3,1,0}$.
\[exte0\] Every central extension of $T$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is of the form $T_{n,p,q,r}$. Moreover, the class $c_{T_{n,p,q,r}}\in H^2(T)$ of the extension $T_{n,p,q,r}$ is given by: $$c_{T_{n,p,q,r}}= (12n-15p-20q-60r) \chi + r \alpha.$$ Moreover the central $T_{n,p,q}$ are precisely those central extensions whose restrictions on $F\subset T$ splits.
More asymptotically rigid mapping class groups
==============================================
Other planar surfaces and braided Houghton groups
-------------------------------------------------
The aim of this section is to use the previous methods in order to recover the braided Houghton groups as mapping class groups of surfaces of infinite type. In particular the braid group on infinitely many strands is realized as the commutator subgroup of an explicit finitely presented group. This has been done previously by Dynnikov who used the so-called three pages representations of braids and links in ([@Dy]). Our groups are slightly different from those considered by Dynnikov and their presentation is of a different nature, because it comes from a geometric description in terms of mapping classes. Moreover, we obtain that the word problem of the braided Houghton groups is solvable. A version of our construction was used by Degenhardt, who introduced the braided Houghton groups $BH_n$ in his (unpublished) thesis [@Deg]. Then Kai-Uwe Bux described a conjectural approach to the finiteness properties of these groups in [@Bux].
In order to define the mapping class group of a surface of infinite type we need to fix the behavior of homeomorphisms at infinity. The main ingredient used in [@fu-ka2] consists of adjoining rigid structures, as defined below in a slightly more general context:
A [*rigid structure*]{} $d$ on the surface $\Sigma$ is a decomposition of $\Sigma$ into 2-disks with disjoint interiors, called elementary pieces. We suppose that the closures of the elementary pieces are still 2-disks.
We assume that we are given a family $F$ of compact subsurfaces of $\Sigma$ such that each member of $F$ is a finite union of elementary pieces, and called the family of admissible subsurfaces of $\Sigma$.
To the data $(\Sigma, d, F)$ we can associate an asymptotically rigid mapping class group ${\cal M}(\Sigma, d, F)$ as follows. We first restrict to those homeomorphisms that act in the simplest possible way at infinity.
A homeomorphism $\varphi$ between two surfaces endowed with rigid structures is [*rigid*]{} if it sends the rigid structure of one surface onto the rigid structure of the other.
The homeomorphism $\varphi:\Sigma\to \Sigma$ is said to be [*asymptotically rigid*]{} if there exists some admissible subsurface $C\subset \Sigma$, called a support for $\varphi$, such that $\varphi(C)\subset \Sigma$ is also an admissible subsurface of $\Sigma$ and the restriction $\varphi|_{\Sigma-C}:\Sigma-C\to \Sigma-\varphi(C)$ is rigid.
As it is customary when studying mapping class groups we now consider isotopy classes of such homeomorphisms.
The group ${\cal M}(\Sigma, d, F)$ of isotopy classes of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms is called the [*asymptotically rigid mapping class group*]{} of $\Sigma$ corresponding to the rigid structure $d$ and family of admissible subsurfaces $F$.
Two asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms that are isotopic are isotopic among asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms.
The ribbon tree $D$ and punctured ribbon trees $D^*$ and $D^{\sharp}$ are particular examples of surfaces of infinite type with rigid structures. We want to turn to even simpler examples obtained from thickening trees in the plane and show that interesting groups could be obtained in this way. Consider the planar ribbon $Y_n$, which is a 2-dimensional neighborhood of the wedge of $n$ half-lines (or rays) in the plane that intersect at the origin. Assume that every half-line is endowed with a linear coordinates system in which the origin corresponds to $0$ and that the rotation of order $n$ sends them isometrically one into the other.
Let $Y_n^*$ (respectively $Y_n^{\sharp}$) be the punctured ribbon obtained from $Y_n$ by puncturing it along the set of points of positive (respectively nonnegative) integer coordinates on each half-line. Punctures are therefore identified with nonnegative integers along each ray. The origin has coordinates $0$ on all half-lines and does appear only in $Y_n^{\sharp}$.
There is a family of parallel arcs associated to each ray, obtained by drawing a properly embedded segment orthogonal to the respective half-line and passing through the puncture labelled $n$, for every $n\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_+-\{0\}$.
The surface $Y_n$ (respectively $Y_n^*$, $Y_n^{\sharp}$) is then divided by these arcs into elementary pieces, which are of two types: one central (respectively punctured for $Y_n^*$) $2n$-gon containing the origin and infinitely many (respectively punctured) squares which sit along the half-lines. One defines the admissible subsurfaces of $Y_n$ (respectively $Y_n^*$, $Y_n^{\sharp}$) to be those (punctured) $2n$-gons which contain the (punctured) central $2n$-gon and are made of finitely many elementary pieces.
Let ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ (respectively ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^*)$, ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^{\sharp})$) denote the asymptotically rigid mapping class group of $Y_n$ (respectively $Y_n^*$, $Y_n^{\sharp}$) with the above rigid structure. We also suppose that each element $\varphi$ of ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ (respectively ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^*)$, ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^{\sharp})$) is associated with pairs of admissible subsurfaces $C$ and $\varphi(C)$ containing [*the same number*]{} of punctures. This additional condition was automatically verified by pairs of admissible subsurfaces of the ribbon tree $D^*$ with homeomorphic complements.
The group ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ has a particularly simple form. In fact any element of ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ corresponds to a triple $((P,Q), r)$, where $P$ and $Q$ are admissible $2n$-gons and $r$ is an order $n$ rotation that gives the recipe for identifying the boundary arcs of $P$ and $Q$. Moreover, an admissible $2n$-gon $P\subset Y_n$ is completely determined by the vector $v_P\in ({{\mathbb{Z}}}_+-\{0\})^n$ recording the coordinates of those punctures that lie on the boundary arcs of $P$, one coordinate for each ray. The cyclic group of rotations ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ acts on ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$ by permuting the coordinates and preserves the subgroup ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}\subset {{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$ of the vectors having the sum of their coordinates zero. The map that sends the pair $((P,Q),r)$ into $(v_Q-r(v_P), r)\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}^n\rtimes {{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ induces an isomorphism of ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ onto the subgroup ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}\rtimes {{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
One expects ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^*)$ and ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ to be extensions of ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ by an infinite braid group $B_{\infty}$. If ${\mathcal M}(Y_n)$ were abelian then the infinite braid group $B_{\infty}$ would be the commutator subgroup of the extension group. However the semi-direct product ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}\rtimes {{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is not direct for $n\geq 3$, and hence it is convenient to restrict to those mapping classes in the above groups coming from end preserving homeomorphisms.
Consider therefore the subgroups ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n)$ (respectively ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)$, ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$) generated by those homeomorphisms which are end preserving i.e. inducing a trivial automorphism of the ends of $Y_n$. Alternatively, the homeomorphisms should send each ray into itself, at least outside a large enough compact set.
It follows from above that ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n)$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}$.
The groups ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)$ are isomorphic to the braided Houghton groups considered by Degenhardt ([@Deg]) and Dynnikov ([@Dy]). It is known that these are finitely presented groups for all $n\geq 3$. The same result holds for the larger related groups ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$, as it is proved in [@fu]:
([@fu]) The groups ${\mathcal M}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ and ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ are finitely presented for $n\geq 3$. The commutator subgroup of ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ is the infinite braid group $B_{\infty}$ in the punctures of $Y_n^{\sharp}$. Moreover, the groups ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ (and their versions) have solvable word problem.
Let us outline the proof. First, we can express these groups as extensions by the infinite braid group, by means of the following exact sequence: $$1\to B_{\infty}\to {\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})\to {{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}\to 1$$ where $B_{\infty}=\lim_{k\to\infty} B_{kn+1}$ is the limit of the braid groups of an exhausting sequence of admissible subsurfaces of $Y_n^{\sharp}$. In fact, a mapping class $\varphi\in {\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ sends a support $2n$-gon into another support $2n$-gon, by translating the arc on the half-line $l_j$ of $k_j$ units towards the center. Since the support hexagons should contain the same number of punctures we have $k_1+k_2+\cdots +k_n=0$. The map sending $\varphi$ to $(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_n)$ is a surjection onto ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}$. The claim follows.
Let the line $l_j$ be punctured along the points $p_j(i)$ at distance $i$ from the origin. Consider the mapping class of the homeomorphism $d_j$ which translates all punctures of the line $l_{j} \cup l_{j+1}$ one unit in the counterclockwise direction, as in the figure below:
We use the convention that the groups act on the right: thus the composition $ab$ denotes $a$ followed by $b$. Moreover, the set of subscripts corresponding to the rays is $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, which is naturally identified to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$; let then $<$ denote the cyclic order on ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/n{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. An explicit presentation is then provided in [@fu]:
Set $u_i=d_{i}d_{i+1}d_{i}^{-1}d_{i+1}^{-1}$. Then the group ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ is generated by the $d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_n$ and admits the presentation: $$d_nd_{n-1}d_{n-2}\cdots d_1=1$$ $$u_{i_1}u_{i_2}u_{i_3}u_{i_1}=u_{i_2}u_{i_3}u_{i_1}u_{i_2}=
u_{i_3}u_{i_1}u_{i_2}u_{i_3}, {\rm \, if \,}\, i_1 <i_2 <i_3$$ $$d_{i-1}^{-1}u_id_{i-1}=d_{i}u_id_{i}^{-1} \, {\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i$$ $$u_iu_ju_i=u_ju_iu_j, \,{\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i,j$$ $$d_{i-1}^{-1}u_id_{i-1} u_i d_{i-1}^{-1}u_id_{i-1}=
u_id_{i-1}^{-1}u_id_{i-1} u_i, \,{\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i$$ $$[d_{i}u_id_{i}^{-1}, u_j]= 1, \,{\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i\neq j$$ $$[d_{i}u_id_{i}^{-1}, d_j]= 1, \,{\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i <j< i-1$$ $$d_ju_id_j^{-1}=u_iu_ju_j^{-1}, \,{\rm for \,\, all }\,\, i <j< i-1.$$
Finally the group ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ (and its versions) has solvable word problem. In fact, for any word $w$ in the generators $d_i$ there exists a support of $w$ made of elementary pieces not farther than $|w|+1$ units apart from the central $2n$-gon. Then the proof given in [@fu-ka2] can be adapted to our situation. Observe that we actually use the fact that the word problem is solvable in braid groups.
Let $S_{\infty}$ denote the infinite permutation group of punctures of $Y_n^*$ obtained as the direct limit of finite permutation groups of punctures in an ascending sequence of admissible subsurfaces.
The Houghton groups $H_n$ considered by Brown ([@br1]) are quotients of ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)$ induced from the obvious homomorphism $B_{\infty}\to S_{\infty}$ sending braids into the associated permutations. This means that we have natural exact sequences
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 \to & B_{\infty} &\to& {\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})&\to &{{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}&\to 1\\
& \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & \\
1 \to & S_{\infty} &\to& H_n&\to &{{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}&\to 1
\end{array}$$
The group ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^{\sharp})$ (and its variants) is generated by two elements, namely $d=d_1=d_2^{-1}$ and $u_1=\sigma_{0p_1(1)}$. However, ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^{\sharp})$ is not finitely presented since the commutativity relations coming from the braid group are independent, namely we have infinitely many relations of the form $[d^kud^{-k},d^mud^{-m}]=1$, for all integers $m,k$ with $|m-k|\geq 1$. Also ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^{\sharp})$ surjects onto the Houghton group $H_2$ which is known to be infinitely presented. In some sense ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^{\sharp})$ is similar to the lamplighter groups.
Since all generators of $B_{\infty}$ are conjugate the abelianization of $B_{\infty}$ is ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The abelianization homomorphism $B_{\infty}\to {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ induces an extension ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})^{ab}$ as follows:
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 \to & B_{\infty} &\to& {\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)&\to &{{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}&\to 1\\
& \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & \\
1 \to & {{\mathbb{Z}}}&\to& {\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)^{ab} &\to &{{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}&\to 1
\end{array}$$
For $n=2$ it follows that ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^*)^{ab}$ is abelian, generated by the images of $d$ and $u$. In particular, we obtain that ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^*)^{ab}\cong H_1({\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_2^*))=
{{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$.
For $n\geq 3$ the group ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^*)^{ab}$ is a nontrivial (non-abelian) extension of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}$ by ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Given three rays in the binary tree we can associate an embedding of $Y_3^{*}$ into $D^*$ that induces injective compatible homomorphisms ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2\rtimes {{\mathbb{Z}}}/3{{\mathbb{Z}}}\to T$ and ${\mathcal M}(Y_3^*)\to T^*$.
Infinite genus surfaces and mapping class groups
------------------------------------------------
In [@fu-ka1], we proved that the Teichm" uller tower of groupoids in genus zero may be embodied in a very concrete group, the universal mapping class group in genus zero ${{{\cal B}}}$. Not only does ${{{\cal B}}}$ contain the tower, but its remarkable property of being finitely presented also realizes, in the category of groups, the analogous property for the tower of groupoids.
We give a partial solution of the problem of realizing the higher genus Teichmüller tower in the category of groups. We construct a [*finitely generated*]{} group ${\cal M}$ that contains all the pure mapping class groups $P{\cal M}(g,n)$ (with $n>0$). The solution is partial as ${\cal M}$ does not contain all the (non-pure) mapping class groups ${\cal M}(g,n)$.
Let ${\cal T}_{\infty}$ be the graph obtained from the planar dyadic tree by attaching a loop on each edge, based on its middle point. The three-dimensional thickening of ${\cal T}_{\infty}$ is a handlebody, whose boundary is an orientable surface ${\mathscr S}_{\infty}$ of infinite genus.
1. An orientation-preserving homeomorphism $g$ of ${\mathscr S}_{\infty}$ is [*asymptotically rigid*]{} if there exist two connected subsurfaces $S_0$ and $S_1$ of ${\mathscr S}_{\infty}$ such that $g$ induces, by restriction on each connected component of ${\cal T}_{\infty}\cap ({\mathscr S}_{\infty}\setminus S_0)$, an isomorphism (of graphs) onto a connected component of ${\cal T}_{\infty}\cap ({\mathscr S}_{\infty}\setminus S_1)$, which respects the local orientation of the edges (coming from the planarity of the dyadic tree).
2. The [*asymptotically rigid mapping class group of infinite genus*]{} ${\cal M}$ is the group of mapping classes of isotopies of asymptotically rigid homeomorphisms of the surface $\mathscr{S}_{\infty}$.
Forgetting the loops of ${\cal T}_{\infty}$, one obtains a morphism from ${\cal M}$ to ${\rm Homeo}(\partial {\cal T})$, whose image is Thompson’s group $V$. It follows easily, as for ${\cal B}$, that ${\cal M}$ is an extension of Thompson’s group $V$ by the pure mapping class group of the surface: $$1\rightarrow P{\cal M}\longrightarrow {\cal M}\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$
The pure mapping class group $P{\cal M}$ is countable, and generated by the Dehn twists around the closed simple curves embedded into ${\cal S}_{\infty}$, and is not finitely generated.
The first result of [@fu-ka3] is:
The group ${\cal M}$ is finitely generated.
The proof is based on a convenient presentation due to S. Gervais of the mapping class groups $P{\cal M}(g,n)$ ([@ge]), from which we deduce that $P{\cal M}$ is generated by a set of Dehn twists around some curves of ${\mathscr{S}}_{\infty}$ forming a certain set $\mathscr{F}$. By collapsing the handles of the surface ${\mathscr{S}}_{\infty}$ onto punctures, those curves may be identified with paths on $D^*$ – the planar surface we have introduced for $T^*$ – joining two punctures. Exploiting the action of $T^*$ on the homotopy classes of those paths, one shows that almost all of them are equivalent modulo $T^*$. It is possible to “lift” this result to ${\mathscr{S}}_{\infty}$, and this enables us to prove that the family $\mathscr{F}$ is finite modulo the action of a finitely generated subgroup of ${\cal M}$. It follows easily that ${\cal M}$ is generated by a finite number of Dehn twists and by the lifts to ${\cal M}$ of generators of $V$.
Using the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence associated to the short exact sequence $$1\rightarrow P{\cal M}\longrightarrow {\cal M}\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$ and a theorem of Brown asserting that the rational homology of $V$ is trivial ([@br2]), we prove that the group ${\cal M}$ has the same rational homology as $P{\cal M}$. Describing $P{\cal M}$ as a direct limit of groups $P{\cal M}(g,n)$, it follows from Harer’s stability theorem ([@ha]) that the homology of $P{\cal M}$ is the stable homology of the mapping class group.
The rational homology of the group ${\cal M}$ is isomorphic to the rational stable homology of the mapping class group.
Our result proves, therefore, that there exists a finitely generated group whose rational homology is isomorphic to that of $BU$, the universal classifying space of complex fibre bundles. We compute that $H^2({\cal M},{{\mathbb{Z}}})={{\mathbb{Z}}}$, and show that the generator of this second cohomology group may be identified with the first universal Chern class.
As a corollary of the argument of the proof the group ${{{\cal M}}}$ is perfect and $H_2({{{\cal M}}},{{\mathbb{Z}}})={{\mathbb{Z}}}$. For a reason that will become clear in what follows, the generator of $H^2({{{\cal M}}},{{\mathbb{Z}}})\cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is called [*the first universal Chern class*]{} of ${{{\cal M}}}$, and is denoted $c_1({{{\cal M}}})$.
Let ${\cal M}_g$ be the mapping class group of a closed surface $\Sigma_g$ of genus $g$. We show that the standard representation $\rho_g: {\cal M}_g\rightarrow {\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ in the symplectic group, deduced from the action of ${\cal M}_g$ on $H_1(\Sigma_g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, extends to the infinite genus case, by replacing the finite dimensional setting by concepts of Hilbert analysis. In particular, a key role is played by Shale’s [*restricted symplectic group*]{} ${\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$ on the real Hilbert space ${\cal
H}_r$ generated by the homology classes of non-separating closed curves of ${\cal
S}_{\infty}$. We then have:
\[metab\] The action of ${{{\cal M}}}$ on $H_1({\cal S}_{\infty},{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ induces a representation $\rho:{{{\cal M}}}\rightarrow {\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$.
The generator $c_1$ of $H^2({\cal M}_g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ is called the first Chern class, since it may be obtained as follows (see, e.g., [@mo]). The group ${\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ is contained in the symplectic group ${\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, whose maximal compact subgroup is the unitary group $U(g)$. Thus, the first Chern class may be viewed in $H^2(B {\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}}),{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. It can be first pulled-back on $H^2(B{\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}})^{\delta},{{\mathbb{Z}}})=H^2({\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}}),{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ and then on $H^2({\cal M}_g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ via $\rho_g$. This is the generator of $H^2({\cal M}_g,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Here $B{\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}})^{\delta}$ denotes the classifying space of the group ${\rm Sp}(2g,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ endowed with the discrete topology.
The restricted symplectic group ${\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$ has a well-known 2-cocycle, which measures the projectivity of the [*Berezin-Segal-Shale-Weil metaplectic representation*]{} in the bosonic Fock space (see [@ne], Chapter 6 and Notes p. 171). Unlike the finite dimensional case, this cocycle is not directly related to the topology of ${\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$, since the latter is a contractible Banach-Lie group. However, ${\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$ admits an embedding into the restricted linear group of Pressley-Segal ${\rm {\rm GL}^0_{res}}({\cal H})$ (see [@pr-se]), where ${\cal
H}$ is the complexification of ${\cal H}_r$, which possesses a cohomology class of degree 2: the Pressley-Segal class $PS\in H^2({\rm {\rm GL}^0_{res}}({\cal H}),{{\mathbb{C}}}^*)$. The group ${\rm {\rm GL}^0_{res}}({\cal H})$ is a homotopic model of the classifying space $BU$, where $U=\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to \infty} U(n,{{\mathbb{C}}})}$, and the class $PS$ does correspond to the universal first Chern class. Its restriction on ${\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r)$ is closely related to the Berezin-Segal-Shale-Weil cocycle, and reveals the topological origin of the latter. Via the composition of morphisms $${{{\cal M}}}\longrightarrow {\rm Sp_{res}}({\cal H}_r) \hookrightarrow
{\rm {\rm GL}^0_{res}}({\cal
H}),$$ we then derive from $PS$ an [*integral*]{} cohomology class on ${{{\cal M}}}$:
\[chern\] The Pressley-Segal class $PS\in H^2({\rm {\rm GL}^0_{res}}({\cal H}),{{\mathbb{C}}}^*)$ induces the first universal Chern class $c_1({{{\cal M}}})\in H^2({\cal M},{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
Cosimplicial extensions for the Thompson group $V$
===================================================
Various extensions of Thompson’s group $V$ have been encountered in what precedes.
1. The extension $1\rightarrow P_{\infty}\longrightarrow BV\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$, where $BV$ is the braided Thompson group of Brin-Dehornoy ([@bri1], [@bri2], [@de1], [@de2]).
2. The extension $1\rightarrow K^*_{\infty}\longrightarrow {{{\cal B}}}\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$, where ${{{\cal B}}}$ is the universal mapping class group of ([@fu-ka1]).
3. The extension $1\rightarrow P{\cal M}\longrightarrow {\cal M}\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$, where ${\cal M}$ is the asymptotically rigid mapping class group of infinite genus ([@fu-ka3]).
Each one appears in a specific context. It turns out that it is possible to recover all of them by means of a very general and algebraic formalism. More precisely, one may describe a functorial construction which produces this type of extensions for $V$. It is defined on a category whose objects are called [*cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extensions*]{}, where the letter $\mathfrak{S}$ stands for the “symmetric group”. This formalism, which is inspired from a non-simplicial construction in [@FiLo], seems to be quite useful when the appropriate language of the problem is algebraic. This is the case when one wishes to define a convenient profinite completion of the groups $BV$ or ${{{\cal B}}}$.
Strand doubling maps
--------------------
For $n\geq1$, let $S_n$ denote the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and $\mathfrak S_{n}$ denote the symmetric group acting on $S_n$.
For each integer $n\geq 1$ and each $i=1,\ldots,n$, the $i^{th}$ strand doubling map $\partial^{i}_{n}:\mathfrak{S}_{n}\rightarrow \mathfrak{S}_{n+1}$ is defined as follows. For any $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_{n}$, $\partial^{i}_{n}(\sigma)$ is the natural extension of $\sigma$ as a permutation of $S_{n+1}$ when one simultaneously duplicates $i$ at the source and the $\sigma(i)$ at the target. More precisely, let $\Omega^{i}_n$ be the set ${\bf n}\setminus\{i\}\cup \{i_l,i_r\}$, whose elements are those of $S_{n}$ except $i$, which is replaced by two elements, $i_{l}$ and $i_{r}$ (where the index $l$ stands for “left", and $r$ for “right"). It is ordered by\
$$1<2<\ldots<i-1<i_l<i_r<i+1<\ldots<n.$$ If $j=\sigma(i)$, let $\tau:\Omega^{i}_n\rightarrow \Omega^{j}_n$ be the bijection which is the natural extension of $\sigma$: $\tau(k)=k$ if $k\notin \{i_{l}, i_{r}\}$, $\tau(i_{l})=j_{l}$ and $\tau(i_{r})=j_{r}$.
The permutation $\partial^{i}_{n}(\sigma)\in \mathfrak{S}_{n+1}$ is the bijection $f^j_n\circ \tau\circ {(f^{i}_n)}^{-1}$, where $f^{k}_n:\Omega_{n}^k\rightarrow S_{n+1}$, for $k=i$ or $j$, is the unique isomorphism between the ordered sets $\Omega^{k}_n$ and $ S_{n+1}$.\
The maps $\pa^{i}_{n}$ are not homomorphisms in the category of groups. Nevertheless, they verify the coherence relations: $$\pa^{i}_{n}({{\sigma}}\circ \tau)=\pa^{\tau(i)}_{n}({{\sigma}})\pa^{i}_{n}(\tau).$$
Let ${{\sigma}}_{i}\in \mathfrak{S}_{n}$ be the transposition $(i, i+1)$. Then $\partial^{i}_{n}({{\sigma}}_{i})={{\sigma}}_{i} {{\sigma}}_{i+1}$, $\partial^{i}_{n}({{\sigma}}_{i-1})={{\sigma}}_{i} {{\sigma}}_{i-1}$, $\partial^{i}_{n}({{\sigma}}_{j})={{\sigma}}_{j+1}$ if $i<j$ and $\partial^{i}_{n}({{\sigma}}_{j})={{\sigma}}_{j}$ if $j<i-1$.
Cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extensions
--------------------------------------
\[cosimpl\] A cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension is a family of group extensions $$1\rightarrow K_{n}\longrightarrow G_{n}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_{n}\rightarrow 1$$ indexed by $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^*$, such that:
1. For all $i=1,\ldots, n$, the strand doubling map $\partial^{i}_{n}:\mathfrak{S}_{n}\rightarrow \mathfrak{S}_{n+1}$ admits a lift, still denoted $\partial^{i}_{n}: G_{n}\rightarrow G_{n+1}$, which verifies, for all $g,h\in G_n$: $$\pa^{i}_{n} (gh)=\pa^{\bar{h}(i)}_{n}(g )\pa^{i}_{n}(h),$$ where $\bar{h}$ denotes the image of $h\in G_{n}$ in $\mathfrak{S}_{n}$.
In particular, each $\pa^{i}_{n}$ restricts to a morphism of groups $\pa^{i}_{n}:K_{n}\rightarrow K_{n+1}$.
2. There exist morphisms (called codegeneracy morphisms) $\varepsilon^{i}_{n}: K_n\rightarrow K_{n-1}$, for $i=1,\ldots, n$, such that $(K_{n}, \pa^{i}, \varepsilon^{i},n\geq 1)$ is a cosimplicial group.
Since $\varepsilon^{i}_{n+1}\circ \partial^{i}_{n}=id$, the morphisms $\partial ^{i}_{n}:K_{n}\rightarrow K_{n+1}$ are injective.
Dyadic trees and the functor $\bf{K}$
-------------------------------------
1. Let ${\cal T}_0$ be the planar rooted dyadic tree, whose vertices except the root are 3-valent. Let also ${\cal T}$ be the planar unrooted regular tree, whose vertices are all 3-valent. One may view ${\cal T}_0$ as a subtree of ${\cal T}$. The edge $e$ of ${\cal T}$ which is not contained in ${\cal T}_0$ but is incident to the root of ${\cal T}_0$ is called the reference edge of ${\cal T}$.
2. A planar rooted finite dyadic $n$-tree is a finite subtree of ${\cal T}_0$ which contains the root, has $n$ leaves, and whose vertices, other than the root and the leaves, are 3-valent. The leaves of such a tree are canonically labelled by $1,\ldots,n$ from left to right, according to the given orientation of the plane.
3. A planar unrooted finite dyadic $n$-tree is a finite subtree of ${\cal T}$ which contains the reference edge $e$, has $n$ leaves, and whose vertices, other than leaves, are 3-valent. The leaves of such a tree are canonically labelled by $1,\ldots,n$ from left to right, according to the given orientation of the plane, assuming that its leftmost leaf belonging to ${\cal T}_0$ is labelled 1.\
In short, a planar rooted or unrooted finite dyadic $n$-tree will be called a (rooted or unrooted) labelled tree.
4. If $\tau$ is a rooted or unrooted finite $n$-tree, then $\mid \tau\mid$ will denote the number of its leaves.
Let $\bf T_0$ (resp. $\bf T$) be the small category of rooted (resp. unrooted) finite dyadic labelled trees defined as follows.\
$\bullet$ Its objects are the rooted (resp. unrooted) finite dyadic labelled trees.\
$\bullet$ Let $\tau$ be an object of $\bf T_0$ (resp. $\bf T$) with $n$ leaves. If $1\leq i\leq n$, let $\partial^{i}_{n}(\tau)$ be the dyadic tree obtained from $\tau$ by grafting two edges at its $i$-th leaf (such a pair of grafted edges is sometimes called a carret). Since $\partial^{i}_{n}(\tau)$ is planar, it inherits a canonical labelling. The tree $\partial^{i}_{n}(\tau)$ is called a simple expansion of $\tau$.\
Let now $\tau$ and $\tau'$ be two rooted (resp. unrooted) finite dyadic labelled trees. One says that $\tau'$ is an expansion of $\tau$ if there exits a chain of simple expansions connecting $\tau$ to $\tau'$. This means that $n=\mid \tau\mid \leq m=\mid \tau' \mid$, and either $\tau=\tau'$, or $\tau'=\partial^{i_{k+1}}_{n+k}\cdots \partial^{i_2}_{n+1} \partial^{i_1}_{n}(\tau)$, for some $i_{1},\ldots, i_{k+1}$, with $m=n+k+1$.\
By definition, ${\rm Hom}(\tau,\tau')$ is nonempty if and only if $\tau'$ is an expansion of $\tau$, in which case it has a single element. Therefore, the set of all morphisms is the set of pairs $(\tau,\tau')$, where $\tau'$ is an expansion of $\tau$.
\[presque\]
1. $Ob(\bf T_0)$ and $Ob(\bf T)$ are partially ordered sets by setting $\tau\leq \tau'$ if and only if $\tau'$ is an expansion of $\tau$. They are directed ordered sets, since any two trees have a common expansion.
2. The categories $\bf T$ and $\bf T_0$ are “almost” isomorphic in the following sense. Let ${\bf \tau_3}\in Ob({\bf T})$ be the tripod whose three edges are incident to the root of ${\cal T}_0$. Let $\tau_0\in Ob({\bf T_0})$ be one of the two rooted 3-trees in $\bf T_{0}$. Denote by $\bf T_{\tau\geq \tau_3 }$ the full sub-category of $\bf T$ whose objects are the $n$-trees which contain $\tau_3$, and denote similarly by $\bf T_{\tau\geq \tau_0 }$ the full sub-category of $\bf T_0$ whose objects are the $n$-trees which contain $\tau_0$. Plainly, the sub-categories $\bf T_{\tau\geq \tau_3 }$ and ${\bf T_0}_{\tau\geq \tau_0 }$ are isomorphic.
Let $\bf G$ be the category of groups, and ${\bf T}_*$ stand for the category ${\bf T_0}$ or ${\bf T}$. Let $(K_{n},\pa^{i}_{n}, \varepsilon^{i}_{n},n\geq 1)$ be a cosimplicial group. The functor $\bf K:\bf T_*\rightarrow \bf G$ is defined as follows:
- Let $\tau\in Ob(\bf T_*)$. Set ${\bf K}(\tau)=K_{\mid \tau\mid}$.\
- Let $\varphi\in {\rm Hom}(\tau,\tau')$. Then $n=\mid \tau\mid \leq m=\mid \tau' \mid$. Either $\tau=\tau'$, in which case one sets ${\bf K}(\varphi)=1$, the neutral element of $K_{n}$. Or $\tau'=\partial^{i_{k+1}}_{n+k}\cdots \partial^{i_2}_{n+1} \partial^{i_1}_{n}(\tau)$, for some $i_{1},\ldots, i_{k+1}$, with $m=n+k+1$. In that case, one sets ${\bf K}(\varphi)=\partial^{i_{k+1}}_{n+k}\circ\cdots \circ\partial^{i_2}_{n+1} \circ\partial^{i_1}_{n}\in {\rm Hom} (K_{n}, K_{m})$, and this does not depend on the choice of simple expansions which connect $\tau$ to $\tau'$. The functor $\bf K$ yields a group ${\bf K}_{\infty}[\bf T_*]$ which is the colimit $$K_{\infty}[\bf T_*]=\displaystyle \lim_{\stackrel{\longrightarrow}{\tau \in {\bf T_*}}} {\bf K}(\tau).$$
The groups $K_{\infty}[\bf T]$ and $K_{\infty}[\bf T_0]$ are isomorphic. We denote them by the same symbol $K_{\infty}$.
Two chains of simple expansions between two trees $\tau$ and $\tau'$ such that $\tau\leq \tau'$ may only differ by a repetition of the relation $\partial^j_{N+1}\circ \partial^{i}_{N}(\tau)=
\partial^{i+1}_{N+1}\circ \partial ^{j}_{N}(\tau)$, where $\tau$ is a tree such that $\mid \tau \mid=N$, and $1\leq j<i\leq N$. Since $(K_{n}, \pa^{i}_{n}, \varepsilon^{i}_{n},n\geq 1)$ is a cosimplicial group, one has $\partial^j_{N+1}\circ \partial^{i}_{N}=
\partial^{i+1}_{N+1}\circ \partial ^{j}_{N}$ in ${\rm Hom}(K_{N},K_{N+1})$. This proves that ${\bf K}(\varphi)$ is well defined.\
The isomorphism between $K_{\infty}[\bf T]$ and $K_{\infty}[\bf T_0]$ is a consequence of the second remark of \[presque\].
Extensions of Thompson’s group $V$
----------------------------------
Let $VExt$ be the category of extensions of Thompson’s group $V$. An object is therefore a short exact sequence of groups $1\rightarrow K\longrightarrow G\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1.$ A morphism between to objects is a commutative diagram of short exact sequences.
\[construction\] There exists a functor from the category $\mathfrak{S}Ext$ to the category $VExt$, which maps a cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension $(1\rightarrow K_{n}\longrightarrow G_{n}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_{n}\rightarrow 1)$ to an extension of Thompson’s group $V$ by $K_{\infty}$:\
$$1\rightarrow K_{\infty}\longrightarrow G[V]\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$ which is split over Thompson’s group $F$.
In particular, the correspondence which associates the group $G[V]$ to the cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension is a functor from $\mathfrak{S}Ext$ to the category of groups.
In the following, ${\bf T}_{*}$ will equally denote the category ${\bf T}_{0}$ or the category ${\bf T}$ . The isomorphism classes of groups or short exact sequence of groups constructed below will not depend on the choice for ${\bf T}_{*}$.
Let $\mathscr{S}(G)$ be the following set, whose elements are called $G$-symbols. A $G$-symbol is a triple $(\tau_{1},\tau_{0}, g)$, where $\tau_{0}$ and $\tau_{1}$ are two objects of $\bf T$ with the same number of leaves, say $n\geq 1$, and $g$ is an element of the group $G_{n}$. The integer $n$ is called the level of the $G$-symbol $(\tau_{1},\tau_{0}, g)$.
One defines a set of binary relations denoted $\sim_{n,i}$, for each integer $n\geq 1$ and $1\leq i\leq n$. By definition, $\sim_{n,i}$ relates a symbol $(\tau_{1},\tau_{0}, g)$ of level $n$ to the symbol $(\partial^{\bar{g}(i)}_{n}(\tau_{1}),\partial^{i}_{n}(\tau_{0}), \partial^{i}_{n}(g))$ of level $n+1$.
Let now $\mathscr{R}$ be the equivalence relation generated by the set of relations $\sim_{n,i}$ on $\mathscr{S}(G)$. An equivalence class is denoted $[\tau_{1},\tau_{0}, g]$.
The group $G[V]$ is defined as follows. Its elements are the equivalence classes of symbols $\mathscr{S}(G)/\mathscr{R}$. Let $[\tau_{1},\tau_{0},h]$ and $[\tau_{2},\tau_{1}',g]$ be two elements. At the price of replacing both symbols by equivalent ones, one may assume that $\tau_{1}'=\tau_{1}$. Set $$[\tau_{2},\tau_{1},g]\cdot [\tau_{1},\tau_{0},h]=[\tau_{2},\tau_{0}, gh].$$ The point is that the above definition of a product of two elements of $\mathscr{S}(G)/\mathscr{R}$ only depends on the equivalence classes, not on the choice of the symbols.\
The neutral element is the class of any symbol $(\tau,\tau, 1_{n})$, where $\tau$ is any tree, $n$ is its level, and $1_{n}\in G_{n}$ is the neutral element of $G_{n}$.
For each $\tau\in Ob({\bf T}_{*})$, there is a morphism $\iota_{\tau}:{\bf K}(\tau)\rightarrow G[V]$, $k\mapsto [\tau,\tau, k]$. If $\tau\leq \tau'$ and $\varphi$ is the unique morphism from $\tau$ to $\tau'$, then $\iota_{\tau}=\iota_{\tau'}\circ {\bf K}(\varphi)$. This implies the existence of a morphism $\iota_{\infty}:K_{\infty}\rightarrow G[V]$ induced by the $\iota_{\tau}$’s. Since the morphisms $\partial^{i}_{n}$ are injective, so is the morphism $\iota_{\infty}$.
When $G_{n}=\mathfrak{S}_{n}$ (hence $K_{n}=\{1\}$), the group $G[V]$ is denoted $V$, and is the Thompson group acting on the Cantor set. The subgroup of $V$ whose elements are of the form $[\tau_{1},\tau_{0},1_{n}]$, for any pair of $n$-trees $(\tau_{1},\tau_{0})$, and any $n\geq 1$, is Thompson’s group $F$.
The morphism $G[V]\rightarrow V$ is defined by $[\tau_{1},\tau_{0},g]\rightarrow [\tau_{1},\tau_{0},\bar{g}]$. It is surjective, and its kernel is $K_{\infty}$. The splitting over Thompson’s group $F$ is the morphism $[\tau_{1},\tau_{0},1_{n}]\in F\mapsto [\tau_{1},\tau_{0},1_{n}]\in G[V]$ (where $1_{n}$ denotes the neutral element of $\mathfrak{S}_{n}$ in the left symbol, and the neutral element of $G_{n}$ in the right symbol). The functoriality of this construction can be easily checked.
Main examples
-------------
### The braided Thompson group $BV$ {#the-braided-thompson-group-bv .unnumbered}
The family of extensions $1\rightarrow P_n\longrightarrow B_n \longrightarrow {\mathfrak S}_n \rightarrow 1$, $n\geq 1$, is a cosimplicial $\mathfrak S$-extension, with $\partial_{n}^{i}$ the obvious geometric strand doubling map, and $\varepsilon_{n}^{i}: P_{n}\rightarrow P_{n-1}$ the morphism obtained by deleting the $i^{th}$ braid.
The group $B[V]$ is the braided Thompson group $BV$ discovered independently by Brin and Dehornoy ([@bri1], [@bri2],[@de1], [@de2]).
### The universal mapping class group in genus zero ${\cal B}$ {#the-universal-mapping-class-group-in-genus-zero-cal-b .unnumbered}
In [@fu-ka1] we construct the group ${\cal B}$ as a mapping class group of a sphere minus a Cantor set. The surface $\mathscr{S}_{0,\infty}$ is the boundary of the 3-dimensional thickening of a regular (unrooted) dyadic tree. The definition of ${{{\cal B}}}$ given in $\cite{fu-ka1}$ is therefore completely topological. We wish to give an equivalent one using the formalism of cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extensions.\
### Mapping class groups $M^*(0,n)$ {#mapping-class-groups-m0n .unnumbered}
\[M\]
1. Let $S$ be an $n$-holed sphere, that is, a sphere minus $n$ disjoint embedded open disks. Its [*pure mapping class group*]{} $K^*(S)$ is the group of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of $S$. The homeomorphisms and the isotopies are assumed to fix pointwise the $n$ boundary circles.
2. Suppose we have chosen two base points on each boundary circle of $S$, $p_{+}$ and $p_{-}$. The full mapping class group $M^*(S)$ is the group of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the holed sphere $S$ which permute the boundary circles and the set of base points, preserving their signs. The isotopies are only assumed to fix the base points.\
If the set of boundary components is labelled by $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, then $K^*(S)$ and $M^*(S)$ are related by a short exact sequence $$1\rightarrow
K^*(S)\longrightarrow M^*(S) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_n\rightarrow
1.$$
The family of group extensions $1\rightarrow
K^*(0,n)\longrightarrow M^*(0,n) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_n\rightarrow
1$, $n\geq 1$, forms a cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension.
The strand doubling map $\partial^{i}_{n}: \sigma\in M^*(0,n)\mapsto \partial^{i}_{n}(\sigma)\in M^*(0,n+1)$ is deduced from the topological operation consisting in gluing a pair of pants $P_{i}$ (resp. $P_{\bar{\sigma}(i)}$) along the $i^{th}$ (resp. $\sigma(i)^{th}$) boundary circle of the $n$-holed reference surface $\Sigma_{0,n}$, then defining the natural extension of $\sigma$ as a (mapping class of) homeomorphism $\Sigma_{0,n}\cup P_{i}\rightarrow \Sigma_{0,n}\cup P_{\sigma(i)}$, and finally identifying $\Sigma_{0,n}\cup P_{i}$ and $\Sigma_{0,n}\cup P_{\sigma(i)}$ to $\Sigma_{0,n+1}$ to obtain the expected $\partial^{i}_{n}(\sigma)$.
The codegeneracy morphisms $\varepsilon^{i}:K^*(0,n)\rightarrow K^*(0,n-1)$ are induced by the topological operation consisting in filling up the $i^{th}$ hole of $\Sigma_{0,n}$ with a disk, and identifying the resulting surface to $\Sigma_{0,n-1}$.
The cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension $(1\rightarrow
K^*(0,n)\longrightarrow M^*(0,n) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_n\rightarrow
1, n\geq 1)$, yields the extension of Thompson’s group $V$
$$1\rightarrow K^*_{\infty}\longrightarrow M^*[V]\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$ by the construction of Proposition \[construction\]. The group $M^*[V]$ is isomorphic to the universal mapping class group ${{{\cal B}}}$ defined in $\cite{fu-ka1}$.
### Profinite completions {#profinite-completions .unnumbered}
Each strand doubling map $\partial^{i}_{n}: M^*(0,n)\rightarrow M^*(0,n+1)$ extends to a map $\widehat{\partial^{i}_{n}}: \widehat{M^*}(0,n)\rightarrow \widehat{M^*}(0,n+1)$ between the profinite completions of the corresponding groups.
See [@ka2] for a proof.
The cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extension $(1\rightarrow
\widehat{K^*}(0,n)\longrightarrow \widehat{M^*}(0,n) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{S}_n\rightarrow
1, n\geq 1)$, yields the extension of Thompson’s group $V$
$$1\rightarrow \widehat{K}^*_{\infty}\longrightarrow \widehat{M^*}[V]\longrightarrow V\rightarrow 1$$ by the construction of Proposition \[construction\].
The group $\widehat{M^*}[V]$, which will be denoted $\widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$ in the sequel, is called the $V$-profinite completion of the universal mapping class group of genus zero. The group $\widehat{K}^*_{\infty}$ is an inductive limit of the profinite completions of the pure mapping class groups $K^*(0,n)$. The group $\widehat{\cal B}$ is related to ${\cal B}$ via the commutative diagram
(0,0)
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3105,1009)(451,-830) (451, 29)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2071, 29)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2971, 29)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3556, 29)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1081, 29)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2971,-781)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3556,-781)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2071,-781)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1081,-781)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (451,-781)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The morphism ${K}^*_{\infty}\rightarrow \widehat{K}^*_{\infty}$ is induced by the collection of natural morphisms ${K}^*(0,n)\rightarrow
\widehat{K^*}(0,n)$. All vertical arrows are injective.
### Embeddings $BV\subset {{{\cal B}}}$ and $\widehat{BV}\subset \widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$ {#embeddings-bvsubset-cal-b-and-widehatbvsubset-widehatcal-b .unnumbered}
The Artin braid group $B_{n}$ embeds into $M^*(0,n+1)$. The family of embeddings $B_{n}\rightarrowtail M^*(0,n+1)$ indexed by $n$ induces in turn an embedding $BV\subset {{{\cal B}}}$. After applying the functor of profinite completion, one obtains morphisms $\widehat{B_{n}}\rightarrow \widehat{M^*}(0,n+1)$ which are still injective. Hence an embedding $\widehat{BV}\subset \widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$.
The universal mapping class group in genus zero and the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only does the group ${\cal B}$ of [@fu-ka1] contain all the mapping class groups of compact surfaces of genus zero, but it also encodes their mutual relations. Otherwise stated, all the information contained in the modular tower of genus zero is encoded in the group ${\cal B}$. We wish to give a remarkable illustration of this idea, as well as an example of application of the formalism of cosimplicial ${\mathfrak S}$-extensions.\
In the article [@dr], Drinfeld defined a group containing the absolute Galois group $Gal(\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}},{{\mathbb{Q}}})$, and called it the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $\widehat{GT}$. Explicit formulas of the action of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group (in its $k$-pro-unipotent version) on the $k$-pro-unipotent completions of the braid groups were given. Similar formulas hold for the profinite version, and the corresponding action of $\widehat{GT}$ extends the natural action of $Gal(\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}},{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ on the profinite completions $\widehat{B_{n}}$ of the braid groups. A fundamental remark is that the action of $\widehat{GT}$ on the $\widehat{B_{n}}$’s respects not only the obvious embeddings $\widehat{B}_{n}\rightarrow \widehat{B}_{n+1}$ (“adding one strand”), but also the strand doubling maps $\widehat{\partial^{i}}: \widehat{B_{n}} \rightarrow \widehat{B}_{n+1}$. The action of $\widehat{GT}$ extends to the profinite completions $\widehat{M^*}(0,n)$ of the mapping class groups of holed spheres, preserving the analogous “strand doubling maps”, (topologically corresponding to a pair of pants glueing) $\widehat{\partial^{i}}$. The action of $\widehat{GT}$ on the Teichmüller tower in genus zero has been systematically studied in [@bu-fe-lo-sc-vo].
Since $\widehat{GT}$ acts on the $\widehat{M^*}(0,n)$’s respecting the maps $\widehat{\partial^{i}}$, the formalism of cosimplicial $\mathfrak S$-extensions enables us easily to prove that it extends to the completion $\widehat{\cal B}$. Denoting $\alpha,\beta, \pi$ and $t$ the images in $\widehat{\cal B}$ of the generators of ${\cal B}$, one can easily obtain the following :
The Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $\widehat{GT}$ acts on the group $\widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$. Moreover, denoting by $(\lambda,f)\in \hat{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\times \hat{F_{2}}$ an element of $\widehat{GT}$, the action reads on the generators as follows: $$(\lambda,f).(\pi)=\pi^{\lambda}$$ $$(\lambda,f).(t)=t^{\lambda}$$ $$(\lambda,f)(\alpha)=\alpha f(t,\alpha t\alpha^{-1})$$ $$(\lambda,f)(\beta)=\beta.$$
It is quite remarkable that the action of $\widehat{GT}$ turns out to be completely defined by 4 formulas (3 would suffice, as the generator $t$ is redundant). Moreover, if one assumes that a pair $(\lambda,f)$ defines an automorphism of $\widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$ given by the above formulas on the generators, then $(\lambda,f)$ satisfies the three relations characterizing its belonging to $\widehat{{{{\cal B}}}}$. Therefore, the presentation of the group ${{{\cal B}}}$ encodes the definition of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $\widehat{GT}$.
Problems
========
Are the groups $F,T, V$ or their generalizations $T^*, {{{\cal B}}}$ automatic? More generally are they (synchronously) combable? In the affirmative case this would imply that braided Thompson groups are of type $F_{\infty}$.
A directly related question is the one for the braided Houghton groups.
Find out whether ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ are $F_{n-1}$ but not $F_n$.
Degenhardt ([@Deg]) proved that the braided Houghton groups are $F_{n-1}$ but not $F_n$ for $n\leq 3$ and conjectured that this holds for all $n$. This would be a parallel to the results obtained by Brown (see [@br1]) for the usual Houghton groups $H_n$. Progress towards the settlement of this conjecture was made by Kai-Uwe Bux in [@Bux].
This behavior is in contrast with the case of the Thompson group $T$ (which is ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$) and its braided version $T^*$ (which is at least ${\rm FP}_3$ (see [@fu-ka4]) and expected to be ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$). It is therefore likely that ${\mathcal M}_{\partial}(Y_n^{\sharp})$ are not combable (hence not automatic) although the result of [@fu-ka4] would suggest that they might be asynchronously combable with quadratic Dehn function. If the similarity with the braid groups is pushed one step further then the braided Houghton groups should have solvable conjugacy problem as well.
One does not know which other planar graphs yield finitely presented asymptotically rigid mapping class groups. One may enlarge the category of graphs to that of colored graphs, in which automorphisms and almost automorphisms are required to preserve the coloring.
An interesting class of colored planar trees comes from universal coverings of ribbon graphs associated to punctured surfaces and 2-dimensional orbifolds. The ribbon structure of the graph is a cyclic order around each vertex. There is a natural coloring of vertices and edges of the graph and this induces a coloring on the universal covering tree. Moreover, the tree has a natural embedding in the plane which uses the induced cyclic order around the vertices.
However P. Greenberg ([@Gr]) showed that asymptotically rigid mapping class groups of universal coverings of (colored) ribbon graphs (called projective Thompson groups) have infinitely many generators, as soon as the genus of the surface is positive. Moreover, if the genus is zero, Laget [@L] proved that the asymptotic mapping class groups are finitely presented groups. It seems that the finite presentability holds more generally for all the groups obtained from the 2-orbifolds of genus zero. The basic example in this respect is the Thompson group $T$ which arises from the 2-orbifold associated to the group ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, namely the sphere with a cusp, one singular point of order 2 and another one of order 3.
We proved in [@fu-ka3] that the universal mapping class group ${{{\cal M}}}$ of infinite genus is finitely generated. Also the Greenberg-Sergiescu acyclic extension ${A}_T$ was proved in [@fu-se] to be finitely generated. The present methods do not permit to settle the following
Are the groups ${{{\cal M}}}$ or $A_{T}$ finitely presented or even of type $F_{\infty}$ ?
A fundamental theorem of Tillmann (see [@ti1; @ti2]) states that the plus construction of the classifying space $B\Gamma_{\infty}$ of the infinite genus mapping class group $\Gamma_{\infty}=\lim_{g\to \infty}\Gamma_{g,1}$ is an infinite loop space. This is a key ingredient in the Madsen-Weiss proof of the Mumford conjecture (see [@ma-we; @mad]). The second proof of Tillmann’s theorem ([@ti2]) uses Segal’s surfaces category whose objects are compact oriented 1-manifolds and whose morphisms are Riemann surfaces cobording the respective objects. Tillmann actually shows that the operad associated to Segal’s category detects the infinite loop spaces. In this context it would be interesting to know whether we could replace $\Gamma_{\infty}$ by ${{{\cal M}}}$ and we also propose the following:
Find a geometric interpretation of the acyclicity of the group $A$. Is the plus construction of the classifying space $B{{{\cal M}}}$ an infinite loop space?
In [@dgh] the authors considered the Teichmüller space of quasiconformal asymptotically conformal structures on $\Sigma_{0,\infty}$ minus a disk. They showed that $F$ is the automorphism group of this Teichmüller space.
Is there a similar interpretation for the groups ${{{\cal B}}}$ and ${{{\cal M}}}$, for instance?
Another setting where the group $T$ acts as a mapping class group is that of Greenberg’s space ${\mathcal Gr}={\rm CPP}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}/{\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, which is sometimes called the Teichmüller space associated to $T$ (see [@gr; @ma]). Here ${\rm CPP}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ is the space of piecewise ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ functions $f:P_{{{\mathbb{R}}}}^1\to P_{{{\mathbb{R}}}}^1$ on the projective circle $P_{{{\mathbb{R}}}}^1$ whose breaking points are rational. The space ${\mathcal Gr}$ is contractible and the action of $F$ on it is free. Thus ${\mathcal Gr}/F'$ is a $BF'$ and one could use this model to build a homology equivalence $BF'\to \Omega S^3$, by making further use of James’ model of a loop space.
Is it possible to interpret $T$ as the group of automorphisms of the space ${\mathcal Gr}$ equipped with some convenient structure?
[99]{}
J. M. Alonso, Combings of groups, [*Algorithms and Classification in Combinatorial Group Theory*]{}, Berkeley 1989 (Eds. G.Baumslag, C.F.Miller III), 165-178, MSRI Series 23, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
T. Altinel and A. Muranov, Interprétation de l’arithmétique dans certains groupes de permutations affines par morceaux d’un intervalle, [*J. Inst. Math. Jussieu*]{} 8 (2009), 623–652.
H. Bai, F. Bonahon and X. Liu, [ Local representations of the quantum Teichmüller space]{}, math.GT/0707.2151.
B. Bakalov and A. Kirillov Jr., [*Lectures on tensor categories and modular functors*]{}, University Lecture Series 21, A. M. S., 2001.
B. Bakalov and A. Kirillov Jr., [ On the Lego-Teichmüller game]{}, [*Transform. Groups*]{} 5 (2000), 207-244.
V. Bardakov and V. Tolstykh, Interpreting the arithmetic in Thompson’s group $F$, [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} 211 (2007), no. 3, 633–637.
E. W. Barnes, [The genesis of the double gamma function]{},[*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} 31 (1899), 358-381.
R. Baxter, [*Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics*]{}, Academic Press, London 1989.
J. -C. Birget, Factorisations of the Thompson-Higman groups and complexity, [Internat. J. Algebra Comput.]{} 18(2) (2008), 285–320.
N. Brady, [ Sol geometry groups are not asynchronously automatic]{}, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3) 83 (2001), 93-119.
M. R. Bridson, [ On the geometry of normal forms in discrete groups]{}, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3) 67 (1993), 596-616.
M. R. Bridson, [ Combings of semidirect products and $3$-manifold groups]{}, [*Geom. Funct. Analysis*]{} 3 (1993), 263-278.
M. G. Brin, [The algebra of strand splitting. I. A braided version of Thompson’s group $V$,]{} [*J. Group Theory*]{} 10 (2007), 757–788.
M. G. Brin, [The algebra of strand splitting. II. A presentation for the braid group on one strand,]{} [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.*]{} 16 (2006), 203–219.
M. G. Brin, The chameleon groups of Richard J. Thompson: automorphisms and dynamics. [*Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.*]{} No. 84 (1996), 5–33 (1997).
M. G. Brin, The free group of rank 2 is a limit of Thompson’s group $F$, [*Groups Geom. Dyn.*]{} 4 (2010), 433–454.
K. S. Brown and R. Geoghegan, An infinite-dimensional torsion-free ${\rm FP}_{\infty }$ group, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 77 (1984), no. 2, 367–381.
K. S. Brown, [ Finiteness properties of groups]{}, [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} 44 (1987), 45–75.
K. S. Brown, [ The Geometry of Finitely Presented Infinite Simple Groups]{}, [*Algorithms and Classification in Combinatorial Group Theory*]{} (G. Baumslag and C. F. Miller III , eds), 121–136, MSRI Publications, 23, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
X. Buff, J. Fehrenbach, P. Lochak, L. Schneps and P. Vogel, [*Espaces de modules des courbes, groupes modulaires et théorie des champs*]{}, Panoramas et Synthèses, No 7, 1999.
J. Burillo, S. Cleary and C. Rover, Comensurators and subgroups of finite index of Thompson’s group F, [*Geom. Topol.*]{} 12 (2008), 1701–1709.
M. Burger and S. Mozes, Lattices in product of trees, [*Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.*]{} No. 92 (2000), 151–194 (2001).
K. -U. Bux, [ Braiding and tangling the chessboard complex]{}, math.GT/0310420.
D. Calegari, [ Circular groups, Planar groups and the Euler class]{}, [*Proceedings of the Casson Fest*]{}, Geom. Topol. Monogr. 7 (2004), 431-491. D. Calegari, Denominator bounds in Thompson-like groups and flows, [*Groups Geom. Dyn.*]{} 1(2007), 101–109.
J. W. Cannon, W. J. Floyd and W. R. Parry, [Introductory notes on Richard Thompson’s groups]{}, [*Enseign. Math.*]{} 42 (1996), 215–256.
L. D. Chekhov and V. Fock, [ Quantum Teichmüller space]{}, math.QA/9908165.
L. D. Chekhov and R. C. Penner, [ On quantizing Teichmüller and Thurston theories]{}, [*Handbook of Teichmüller theory*]{}, vol. I, EMS Publishing House, Zürich 2007, 579-645.
M. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz and R. Scott, [ Fundamental groups of minimal blow-ups Fundamental groups of blow-ups]{}, [*Advances Math.* ]{} 177 (2003), no. 1, 115–179.
E. de Faria, F. Gardiner and W. Harvey, [Thompson’s group as a Teichmuüller mapping class group]{}, [*Contemporary Math.*]{} 355, 2004, 165-185.
F. Degenhardt, [Endlichkeitseigeinschaften gewiser Gruppen von Zöpfen unendlicher Ordnung]{}, PhD thesis, Frankfurt 2000.
P. Dehornoy, [Geometric presentations for Thompson’s groups,]{} [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} 203 (2005), 1–44.
P. Dehornoy, [ The group of parenthesized braids]{}. [ *Advances Math.*]{} 205 (2006), 354–409.
V. G. Drinfel’d, [ On quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras and on a group that is closely connected with ${\rm Gal}(\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}/{{\mathbb{Q}}})$]{}, [*Algebra i Analiz*]{} 2 (1990), no. 4, 149–181; translation in [*Leningrad Math. J.*]{} 2 (1991), no. 4, 829–860.
I. A. Dynnikov, [Three-page representation of links]{}, [*Uspekhi Mat. Nauk*]{} 53 (1998), 237-238; translation in [*Russian Math. Surveys*]{} 53 (1998), 1091-1092.
D. B. A. Epstein, J. W. Cannon, D. F. Holt, S. V. F. Levy, M. S. Paterson and W.P. Thurston, [*Word processing in groups*]{}, [ Jones and Bartlett Publishers]{}, Boston, MA, 1992.
L. D. Faddeev, [ Discrete Heisenberg-Weyl group and modular group]{}, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} 34 (1995), 249-254.
D. S. Farley, [ Finiteness and $\rm CAT(0)$ properties of diagram groups]{}, [*Topology*]{} 42 (2003), 1065-1082.
D. S. Farley, Proper isometric actions of Thompson’s groups on Hilbert space, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} 2003, no. 45, 2409–2414.
Z. Fiedorowicz and J. -L. Loday, Crossed-simplicial groups and their associated homology, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 329 (1991), no.1, 57–87.
M. Fiori and T. Leinster, An abstract characterisation of Thompson group $F$, [*Semigroup Forum*]{} 80 (2010), 325–340.
V. Fock, [Dual Teichmüller spaces]{}, math.DG-GA/9702018.
V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, [Moduli spaces of local systems and higher Teichmüller theory]{}, [*Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.*]{} no.103, 2006, 1-211.
V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, [Moduli spaces of convex projective structures on surfaces]{}, [*Advances Math.* ]{} 208 (2007), 249–273.
V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, [ The quantum dilogarithm and unitary representations of cluster modular groupoids]{}, [*Invent. Math.* ]{} 175 (2009), 223–286.
V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, [ Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm II: The intertwinner]{}, arXiv:math/0702398.
L. Funar, [ Ptolemy groupoids actions on Teichmüller spaces]{}, [*Modern Trends in Geometry and Topology*]{}, Deva, Romania 2005, (D. Andrica, P. Blaga, S. Moroianu, Eds.), Cluj Univ. Press 2006, p.185-201.
L. Funar, [ Braided Houghton groups as mapping class groups]{}, [ *Annales Sci. Univ. “A.I.Cuza” Jassy*]{}, special vol. to the memory of Gh. Ionesei, 53 (2007), 229-240.
L. Funar and R. Gelca, [ On the groupoid of transformations of rigid structures on surfaces]{}, [*J. Math. Sci., Univ. Tokyo*]{} 6 (1999), 599-646.
L. Funar and C. Kapoudjian, [On a universal mapping class groups of genus zero]{}, [*Geom. Funct. Analysis*]{} 14 (2004), 965–1012.
L. Funar and C. Kapoudjian, [The braided Ptolemy-Thompson group is finitely presented]{}, [*Geometry $\&$ Topology*]{} 12 (2008), 475-530.
L. Funar and C. Kapoudjian, [ An infinite genus mapping class group and stable cohomology, ]{}[*Commun. Math. Physics*]{} 287 (2009), 787-804.
L. Funar and C. Kapoudjian, [ The Ptolemy-Thompson group T\* is asynchronously combable]{}, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{}, to appear, 47p.,math.GT/0602490.
L. Funar and R. Kashaev, Centrally extended mapping class groups from quantum Teichmuller theory, arXiv:1003.5365.
L. Funar and V. Sergiescu, [ Central extensions of the Ptolemy-Thompson group and quantized Teichmuller theory]{}, [*J. Topology*]{} 3 (2010), 29-62.
R. Geogheghan, [*Topological methods in group theory*]{}, [Graduate Texts in Mathematics]{} 243, Springer, New York, 2008.
R. Geogheghan and F. Guzman, Associativity and Thompson’s group, [*Topological and asymptotic aspects of group theory*]{}, 113–135, Contemp. Math. 394, Amer. Math. Soc., 2006.
S. M. Gersten, [ Finiteness properties of asynchronously automatic groups]{}, [*Geometric group theory*]{} (Columbus, 1992), 121-133, Ohio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 3, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995.
S. M. Gersten and H. Short, [ Small cancellation theory and automatic groups II]{}, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 105 (1991), 641–662.
S. Gervais, [ A finite presentation of the mapping class group of a punctured surface]{}, [*Topology 40*]{} (2001), no. 4, 703–725.
S. Gervais, [ Presentation and central extensions of mapping class groups]{}, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 348 (1996), 3097–3132.
E. Ghys, Groups acting on the circle, [*Enseign. Math.*]{} (2) 47 (2001), 329–407.
E. Ghys and V. Sergiescu, [Sur un groupe remarquable de difféomorphismes du cercle]{}, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} [62]{} (1987), 185–239.
V. Ginzburg and M. Kapranaov, [ Koszul duality for operads]{}, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} 76 (1994), no. 1, 203–272.
A. B. Goncharov, [ Pentagon relation for the quantum dilogarithm and quantized ${\cal M}\sb {0,5}\sp {\rm cyc}$]{}, [*Geometry and dynamics of groups and spaces, In memory of Alexander Reznikov*]{} (M. Kapranov, S. Kolyada, Yu. I. Manin, P. Moree and L. Potyagailo Ed.), 415–428, Progr. Math., 265, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2008.
P. Greenberg, [ Projective aspects of the Higman-Thompson group]{}, [*Group theory from a geometrical viewpoint*]{} (Trieste, 1990), 633–644, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991.
P. Greenberg, [ Les espaces de bracelets, les complexes de Stasheff et le groupe de Thompson]{}, Papers in honor of José Adem (Spanish), [*Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana*]{} (2) 37 (1992), no. 1-2, 189–201.
P. Greenberg and V. Sergiescu, [ An acyclic extension of the braid group]{}, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} [66]{} (1991), 109–138.
R. I. Grigorchuk, V. V. Nekrashevich and V. I. Sushchanskii, [ Automata, dynamical systems and infinite groups,]{} [*Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.*]{} 231 (2000), 134-214.
A. Grothendieck, [Esquisse d’un programme]{}, dans [*Geometric Galois Actions 1. Around Grothendieck’s esquisse d’un Programme*]{}, edité par L. Schneps et P. Lochak, London Mathematical Society, Lecture Note Series 242.
V.Guba, [ Polynomial isoperimetric inequalities for Richard Thompson’s groups $F$, $T$, and $V$]{}, [*Algorithmic problems in groups and semigroups*]{} (Lincoln, NE, 1998), 91-120, [*Trends Math., Birkhäuser Boston,*]{} Boston, MA, 2000.
V. Guba, [ The Dehn function of Richard Thompson’s group $F$ is quadratic]{}, [*Invent. Math.* ]{} 163 (2006), 313–342.
V. Guba and M. Sapir, [ Diagram groups]{}, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.* ]{} 130 (1997), no. 620.
U. Haagerup and G. Picioroaga, New presentations of Thompson’s groups and applications, [*J. of Operator Theory*]{}, to appear.
J. Harer, [ Stability of the homology of the mapping class groups of orientable surfaces]{}. [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) 121 (1985), no. 2, 215–249.
A. Hatcher, P. Lochak et L. Schneps, [ On the Teichmüller tower of mapping class groups]{},[*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{}, 521 (2000), 1-24.
A. Hatcher et W. Thurston, [ A presentation for the mapping class group of a closed orientable surface]{},[*Topology*]{} 19 (1980), 221–237.
M. Imbert, [ Sur l’isomorphisme de Richard Thompson avec le groupe de Ptolémée]{}, 313–324, [*Geometric Galois actions*]{}, 2, London Math. Soc., Lecture Note Ser., 243, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
P. Jolissaint, [*Operators algebra related to Thompson’s group F*]{}, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 79 (2005), 231–241.
C. Kapoudjian, [*Sur des généralisations p-adiques du groupe des difféomorphismes du cercle*]{}, Thèse de Doctorat, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, décembre 1998.
C. Kapoudjian, [ From symmetries of the modular tower of genus zero real stable curves to an Euler class for the dyadic circle]{}, [*Compositio Mathematica*]{}, 137 (2003), 49–73.
C. Kapoudjian, [ Cosimplicial $\mathfrak{S}$-extensions and Thompson’s group $V$. An application to the Grothendieck-Teichmüller theory]{}, preprint.
C. Kapoudjian, [ Finiteness and homological properties of the Thompson-Coxeter group of type $B$]{}, in preparation.
C. Kapoudjian et V. Sergiescu, [ An extension of the Burau representation to a mapping class group associated to Thompson’s group $T$]{}, [*Geometry and dynamics*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. , Vol. 389 , 141–164 (2005).
R. Kashaev, [ Quantization of Teichmüller spaces and quantum dilogarithm]{}, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} 43 (1998), 105-115.
R. Kashaev, [ On quantum moduli space of flat ${\rm PSL}(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$-connections on a punctured surface]{}, [*Handbook of Teichmüller theory*]{}, vol. I, EMS Publishing House, Zürich 2007, 761-782.
F. Knudsen, [ The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves. II. The stacks $M\sb{g,n}$]{}, [*Math. Scand.*]{} 52 (1983), no. 2, 161–199.
M. Korkmaz,[ Automorphisms of complexes of curves on punctured spheres and on punctured tori]{}, [*Topology Appl.*]{} 95 (1999), no. 2, 85–111.
G. Laget, [*Groupes de Thmpson projectifs de genre 0*]{}, PhD Thesis, Univ.Grenoble I, 2004.
I. Liousse, Rotation numbers in Thompson-Stein groups and applications, Geometriae Dedicata 131(2008), 49–71.
P. Lochak, H. Nakamura et L. Schneps, [ On a new version of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group]{}, [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{}, 325(1997), no. 1, 11–16.
P. Lochak et L. Schneps, [ The Grothendieck-Teichmüller group and automorphisms of braid groups.]{} [*The Grothendieck theory of dessins d’enfants*]{} (Luminy, 1993), 323–358, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 200, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994.
P. Lochak et L. Schneps, [ The universal Ptolemy-Teichmüller groupoid]{}, [*Geometric Galois actions*]{}, 2, 325–347, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser., 243, Cambridge, 1997.
I. Madsen and M. Weiss, [ The stable moduli space of Riemann surfaces: Mumford’s conjecture]{}, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) 165 (2007), no. 3, 843–941.
I. Madsen, [ Homology of the open moduli space of curves]{}, [*Handbook of Teichmüller theory*]{}, vol. III, EMS Publishing House, Zürich 2011.
I. Marin, [ On the representation theory of braid groups]{}, preprint 2003-2005.
X. Martin, [*Sur la Géométrie du Groupe de Thompson*]{}, Thèse de Doctorat, Univ. Joseph Fourier (Grenoble I), juin 2002.
X. Martin, [ Piecewise-projective representation of Thompson’s group $T$]{}, [*Geometric methods in group theory*]{}, 161–180, Contemp. Math., 372, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
F. Matucci, [Shpilrain-Ushakov protocol for Thompson’s group is always breakable]{}, [*J.of Cryptology*]{} 213(2009), 458–468.
G. Moore and N. Seiberg, [ Classical and quantum field theory]{}, [*Commun. Math. Physics*]{}, 123 (1989), 177–254.
S. Morita, [ Structure of the mapping class group and symplectic representation theory]{}, [*Essays on geometry and related topics*]{}, (E. Ghys, P. De la Harpe, V. Jones, V. Sergiescu, Eds.) Vol. 2, 577–596, Monogr. Enseign. Math., 38, Genève, 2001.
A. Navas, [*Groups of diffeomorphisms of the circle*]{}, [Chicago Lectures in Mathematics Series]{}, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2011.
Yu. A. Neretin, Combinatorial analogues of the group of diffeomorphisms of the circle, [*Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math.*]{} [ 41]{} (1993), 337–349.
L. Mosher, [ Mapping class groups are automatic]{}, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) 142 (1995), 303-384.
T. Napier and M. Ramachandran, Thompson’s group $F$ is not Kähler, Topological and asymptotic aspects of group theory, 197–201, [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, 394, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
G. A. Niblo and L. D. Reeves, [ The geometry of cube complexes and the complexity of their fundamental groups]{}, [*Topology*]{} 37 (1998), 621–633.
C. Oikonomides, The Godbillon-Vey cyclic cocycle for PL foliations, [*J. Funct. Analysis*]{} 234 (2006), 127–151.
R. C. Penner, [ Universal constructions in Teichmüller theory]{}, [*Advances Math.*]{} 98 (1993), 143–215.
R. C. Penner, [The universal Ptolemy group and its completions]{}, [*Geometric Galois actions*]{}, 2, 293–312, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser., 243, Cambridge, 1997.
A. Pressley et G. Segal, [*Loop groups*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
A. Reznikov, Analytic topology of groups, spaces and strings, in [*Geometry and dynamics of groups and spaces*]{}, 3–92, Progress in Mathematics 265, 2008.
D. Ruinski, A. Shamir and B. Tsaban, Length-based cryptanalysis: the case of Thompson’s group, [*J. Math. Cryptol.*]{} 1 (2007), 309–372.
V. Sergiescu, [*Graphes planaires et présentations des groupes de tresses*]{}, Math. Z. 214 (1993), 477–490.
V. Sergiescu, [ Versions combinatoires de ${\rm Diff}(S^1)$. Groupes de Thompson]{}, Appendix B in L. Guieu and C. Roger, [*L’algèbre et le groupe de Virasoro. Aspects géométriques et algébriques, généralisations*]{}, Les Publications CRM, Montreal, QC, 2007.
R. J. Thompson, Embeddings into finitely generated simple groups which preserve the word problem, in [*Word problems*]{}, II (Conf. on Decision Problems in Algebra, Oxford, 1976), Stud. Logic Foundations Math. 95, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1980, 401–441.
U. Tillmann, [ On the homotopy of the stable mapping class group]{}, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 130 (1997), no. 2, 257–275.
U. Tillmann, [ Higher genus surface operad detects infinite loop spaces]{}, [*Math. Ann.*]{} 317 (2000), no. 3, 613–628.
A. Usnich, Symplectic automorphisms of $\mathbb C\mathbb P^2$ and the Thompson group $T$, arXiv:math/0611604.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Weyl semi-metal candidate MoTe$_2$ is expected to exhibit a range of exotic electronic transport properties. It exhibits a structural phase transition near room temperature that is evident in the thermal hysteresis in resistivity and thermopower (Seebeck coefficient) as well as large spin-orbit interaction. Here, we also document a resistivity anomaly of up to 13% in the temperature window between 25 and 50K, which is found to be strongly anisotropic. Based on the experimental data in conjunction with density functional theory calculations, we conjecture that the anomaly can be related to the presence of defects in the system. These findings open opportunities for further investigations and understanding of the transport behavior in these newly discovered semi-metallic layered systems.'
author:
- Dhavala Suri
- Christopher Linderälv
- Bogdan Karpiak
- Linnea Andersson
- Sandeep Kumar Singh
- Andre Dankert
- Raman Sankar
- 'F. C. Chou'
- Paul Erhart
- 'Saroj P. Dash'
- 'R. S. Patel'
title: Resistivity Anomaly in Weyl Semimetal candidate Molybdenum Telluride
---
Introduction
============
Transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDC) have received a lot of attention due to a plethora of exciting physical phenomena and their excellent electronic, optical, thermal and mechanical properties [@keum; @qi; @mak; @radi; @splendi; @ugeda; @mai; @Suri2017]. TMDCs can exist in several different phases displaying a variety of electronic properties including semiconducting, metallic, superconducting, topological insulators and Weyl Fermionic states. Semiconducting TMDCs possess band gaps that change from indirect to direct with the number of layers, facilitating applications such as transistors, photodetectors and electroluminescent devices [@Wang2012; @Langouche2014; @Dash2017]. TMDCs also possess high spin-orbit coupling (SOC), which gives rise to spin polarized surface states in topological insulators [@Dankert2015] and Weyl semimetals [@edgeti; @Soluyanov2015]. Interestingly, the recently discovered semi-metallic phases of WTe$_2$ and MoTe$_2$ show extremely large non-saturating magnetoresistance [@qi; @keum; @mnali], signatures of Weyl semimetals [@Deng2016; @sunweyl] as well as topological Fermi arcs and surface states [@edgeti], which motivates a further exploration of their fundamental properties.
Here, we investigate the Weyl semi-metal candidate MoTe$_2$ by both electronic transport experiments and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The basic material properties were investigated by electron, thermal and magneto-transport measurements. We observed the structural phase transition from 1T$'$ to T$_\text{d}$ in both resistivity and Seebeck coefficient measurements, and significant spin-orbit coupling as evident from weak anti-localization signatures. The samples exhibit a very large and strongly anisotropic resistivity anomaly in the T$_\text{d}$ phase of MoTe$_2$ that occurs between 25 and 50 K.
Results and Discussions
=======================
Basic characterization
----------------------
MoTe$_{2}$ occurs in semiconducting or semi-metallic phases depending on the lattice structure. In the semiconducting phase (2H) each Mo is bonded to six Te atoms in a trigonal prismatic coordination; the three Te sites above the Mo plane are located exactly on-top of the three Te sites below. If one of the Te planes is rotated by 180 degrees one obtains the semimetallic phase (1T), which is, however, unstable toward the 1T$^{\prime}$ phase [@duerloo]. The two semimetallic phases \[1T$^{\prime}$ and T$_{\text{d}}$\] that are in fact observed have monoclinic and orthorhombic crystal structures, respectively, and can be thought of as distorted variants of 1T. They differ with respect to the cell angle $\beta$, which is 93.9$^{\circ}$ for 1T$^\prime$ and 90$^\circ$ for T$_{\text{d}}$. Importantly, while 1T$^\prime$ possesses both time-reversal and inversion symmetries, T$_{\text{d}}$ does not exhibit inversion symmetry [@Sankar2017].
![ Experimental characterization. (a) Raman spectrum of 1T$^\prime$-MoTe$_2$ crystals measured at room temperature. Peaks at different wavenumbers are indicated with solid black dots. (b) Schematic representation of the current-in-plane (CIP) measurement configuration in the standard four probe method. (c) Resistivity ($\rho$) versus temperature ($T$) in the range 210–280 K in CIP configuration showing the transition from 1T$'$ to T$_{\text{d}}$ phase. Solid and hollow dots represent cooling and heating cycles, respectively, as indicated by arrows. (d) Magnetoconductance measurements: $\Delta \sigma$ versus $B$ at 2 K showing a weak anti-localization (WAL) signal. The red line represents the data and the black line represents the HLN fit. (e) Seebeck coefficient versus temperature in the range 150–220 K; black dots represent the data; the red line is the best fit curve. (f) Seebeck coefficient versus temperature in the range 210–280 K. Solid blue and dashed lines represent cooling and heating cycles, respectively. []{data-label="fig:characterization"}](Figure1.pdf){width="15cm"}
MoTe$_2$ crystals were grown by the chemical vapor transport (CVT) method. Figure [Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(a) shows the Raman spectra where the characteristic peaks corresponding to A$_g$ symmetry were observed at 108 cm$^{-1}$, 129 cm$^{-1}$, 164 cm$^{-1}$, and 260 cm$^{-1}$. These appearance of these peaks confirms the occurrence of the 1T$^\prime$ phase at room temperature. Furthermore a peak corresponding to B$_g$ symmetry was observed at 193 cm$^{-1}$ [@Oliver; @Sankar2017]. We note that although the CVT method to grow TMDCs assures samples of high yield in less time compared to other methods, the approach results in a large number of point defects throughout the crystal. As a result of defects and a high degree of disorder the electronic transport properties of CVT grown samples display some intriguing features [@PhysRevB.95.155128] and were accordingly characterized by means of resistivity, magnetoresistance, and Seebeck measurements. Temperature dependent resistivity measurements were performed on samples of typical dimensions $5\times 2\,\text{mm}^2$, thickness $\approx\,100\,\mu\text{m}$ using the four probe technique \[[Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(b)\]. The resistivity as a function of temperature exhibits hysteretic behavior around 245K\[[Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(c)\], which is attributed to the structural transition from the 1T$^\prime$ phase at higher temperatures to the T$_{\text{d}}$ phase at lower temperatures [@Sankar2017; @Zhang2016].
Since MoTe$_2$ possesses high spin-orbit coupling, weak anti-localization (WAL) measurements were carried out as well. In this case, application of an out-of-plane magnetic field $B_{\perp}$ breaks the time-reversal symmetry, and reduces the conductivity correction ($\Delta\sigma(B)$) as shown in [Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(d). The conductivity reduction is a signature of WAL and can be fitted by the Hikami-Larkin-Nagaoka (HLN) model [@hkn], which yields a phase coherence length $l_{\phi}$ of $\approx\,100\,\text{nm}$. The Seebeck coefficient increases linearly with temperature between 150 and 220K \[[Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(e)\] as expected for a metallic phase [@Snyder2008; @reviewarxiv; @ashcroft]. The thermal hysteresis apparent in the resistivity measurements is also observed in the same temperature range in the Seebeck coefficient \[[Fig. \[fig:characterization\]]{}(f)\]. As before the hysteresis is caused by the structural phase transition from the T$_{\text{d}}$ to the 1T$^\prime$ phase, and is also observed for other samples \[see Fig. S2 (b) of the Supplementary Information [@supp]\].
Resistivity anomaly
-------------------
![ Resistivity of MoTe$_2$ in current in-plane (CIP) configuration. (a) Resistivity ($\rho$) versus temperature ($T$) measurements showing the resistivity anomaly in the CIP geometry. Measurements were performed with a constant current source of $I=100\,\text{mA}$ at a pressure of $10^{-3}\,\text{mbar}$. The red line represents the background as described by a polynomial fit. (b) Resistivity anomaly ($\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}$) versus temperature, in the range 20–60K, plotted after background subtraction. Data points are shown by blue dots while the cyan line represents a Gaussian fit. []{data-label="fig:anomaly-cip"}](Figure2.pdf){width="12cm"}
Having established that the basic characteristics of our samples in the temperature window between approximately 150K to room temperature match those expected for the known semi-metallic phases of MoTe$_2$, we can now focus on the low-temperature behavior. Here, the temperature dependent resistivity obtained at a pressure of $10^{-3}\,\text{mbar}$ reveals a resistivity anomaly (RA) that sets in around a particular temperature of T$_{\text{RA}} \approx$36 K \[[Fig. \[fig:anomaly-cip\]]{}\]. The resistivity anomaly is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\text{RA (\%)}
&= \frac{\rho_{\text{raw data}} - \rho_{\text{background}}}{\rho_{\text{background}}} \times 100 \%
= \frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho} \times 100 \%\end{aligned}$$ In the present case, we find a RA of up to 13%, which is best described by a Gaussian fit. Such anomalies in TMDCs have been found to be sensitive to various factors including, e.g., impurities, doping, and pressure [@zocco; @ritschel]. Our measurements have been repeated on different samples and reproduced consistently (see Figs. S3 (a,b) of the Supplementary Information [@supp]). To confirm that the signature is purely from the sample, a control experiment was also performed on a Cu wire in similar experimental conditions, which showed normal metallic behavior \[Fig. S3 (c)\]. Given the growth method, which as discussed above tends to be associated with a relatively high defect density and the WAL analysis, We tentatively attribute these anomalies to defects incorporated during synthesis.
![ Resistivity anomaly of MoTe$_2$ in current-perpendicular-to-plane (CPP) configuration. (a) Schematic illustration of CPP measurement in four probe configuration. (b) Resistivity ($\rho$) versus temperature ($T$) measurements showing the resistance anomaly in the CPP measurement geometry. The red line represents the polynomial curve used for background subtraction. (c) Resitivity anomaly ($\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}$) versus temperature, in the range 20–60 K, plotted after background subtraction. Data points are shown by blue dots while the cyan line represents a Gaussian fit. []{data-label="fig:anomaly-cpp"}](Figure3.pdf){width="15cm"}
In MoTe$_2$, the intra-layer bonding is strong and covalent, whereas the inter-layer bonding is due to weak van-der-Waals forces, leading to strong anisotropy in many properties. Measurements were therefore also performed in current-perpendicular-to-plane (CPP) configuration, where the current flows perpendicular to the sample planes \[[Fig. \[fig:anomaly-cpp\]]{}(a)\]. The thermal hysteresis (corresponding to the 1T$'$-T$_\text{d}$ structural transition close to room temperature) observed in CPP mode was centered at 254 K. The degree of anisotropy estimated from the comparison of the resistivity measured in CIP and CPP modes is $\approx$ 10$^{3}$. In the CPP measurement configuration $T_{\text{RA}}$ is centered at 40 K \[[Fig. \[fig:anomaly-cpp\]]{}(b)\], which is close to the temperature of 36 K obtained in CIP geometry. The RA obtained in CPP mode is, however, 6% and thus about half of that observed in CIP mode (13.1%) \[[Fig. \[fig:anomaly-cpp\]]{}(c)\]. The reduction of the resistivity anomaly in CPP mode compared to CIP mode may be attributed to the high degree of structural anisotropy. In particular, since the weak van-der-Waals gap inter-layers bonding is associated with soft phonon modes, one can expect the electron-phonon coupling strength to be very anisotropic.
![ (a) Electronic band structure of 1T$^{\prime}$-MoTe$_2$ (blue) and T$_\text{d}$-MoTe$_2$ (black lines). (b) Energy landscape for the transition from the 1T$^{\prime}$ phase to T$_{\text d}$. (c) Projected Fermi surface on the $k_y-k_z$ plane. Notice the open orbits that are present in the 1T$^{\prime}$ phase in contrast to the pinching at the zone boundary that occurs in the T$_{\text d}$ phase.[]{data-label="fig:dft"}](Figure4.pdf){width="17cm"}
In order to gain further understanding of the experimental results, density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed using the project augmented wave (PAW) method [@Blo94; @KreJou99] as implemented in the Vienna ab-initio simulation package [@KreFur96a]. Structural relaxation and total energy calculations were carried out using the vdW-DF-cx exchange-correlation functional [@DioRydSch04; @BerHyl14], which has been previously shown to provide an excellent description of the lattice structure of semiconducting TMDCs with van-der-Waals bonding [@LinErh16]. While spin-orbit coupling (SOC) is important given the large mass of Te, the spin-polarized version of vdW-DF-cx has not yet been verified for such calculations yet. The electronic structure including SOC effects was therefore computed using the PBE fucntional [@PerBurErn96] on the vdW-DF-cx relaxed structures. The structures were relaxed until the maximum force in the system was less than 5 meV/[Å]{}. The plane wave cutoff energy was set to 400 eV and the Brillouin zone was sampled suing a $24\times12\times6$ Monkhorst-Pack grid.
While the calculated in-plane lattice parameters are in very good agreement with experiment, the out-of-plane lattice parameter in the metallic phases of MoTe$_2$ is underestimated by $2.5\%$ compared to experimental data [@Sankar2017]. In this context, it is interesting to note that in the case of WSe$_2$ a similar difference for the out-of-plane lattice constant was observed between conventionally and turbostratically grown crystals of the 2H phase [@NguBerLin10; @ErhHylLin15], which could be attributed to the larger density of stacking faults in the latter material. Since the vdW-DF-cx method otherwise reproduces the results for the ideal crystal structures of TMDCs very well, the discrepancy could be another telltale sign of the rather higher defect density in the present samples that was already alluded to above. A comprehensive comparison of the calculated lattice parameters can be found in the Supplementary Material.
The electronic band structures of bulk 1T$^\prime$ and T$_{\text{d}}$ MoTe$_2$ show a multi-valley structure with many pockets and band inversions. Generally, they are very similar \[Fig. \[fig:dft\] (a)\] with noticeable differences only along the Y-C (Y-T) and C-Z (T-Z) paths in the Brillouin zone of T$_\text{d}$ (1T$^{\prime}$). According to our calculations, the ideal 1T$^{\prime}$ and T$_{\text d}$ structures are energetically practically degenerate and separated by a very small transition barrier of about 1 meV/f.u. \[Fig. \[fig:dft\] (b)\]. This extremely soft landscape suggests that these phases can be very sensitive to thermal perturbations and defects. The most striking difference in the electronic band structure is the pinching of the energy bands close to the Fermi energy at the zone boundary near $Z$ in the T$_{\text d}$ phase \[Fig. \[fig:dft\] (c)\], a feature that is absent in the case of 1T$^{\prime}$. Qualitatively, this means that the orbits in T$_{\text d}$ are closed, whereas the obits are open in 1T$^{\prime}$. We note, however, that the precise location of (and number of) the Weyl points in the T$_{\text d}$ phase is known to be very sensitive to the structural parameters [@TamWuCuc16], and even small changes in the lattice parameter (due to thermal expansion or defects) might change the Fermi surface considerably and thus affect electrical transport in the material.
Conclusions
===========
To summarize, we have carried out transport measurements on semi-metallic MoTe$_2$ in various temperature ranges. MoTe$_2$ showed semi-metallic properties with high spin-orbit coupling, structural phase transitions from T$_d$ to 1T$^{\prime}$ near to room temperature in the temperature dependent resistivity (in both CIP and CPP measurement geometries) and Seebeck coefficient measurements. We observed a pronounced resistivity anomaly up to 13% at low temperature with a strong anisotropy of $\approx$ 10$^3$ (three orders of magnitude) between the CIP and CPP measurement configuration. The resistivity anomaly can be attributed to point defects created during the synthesis of MoTe$_2$ by chemical vapor transport process. The DFT calculations performed suggest that the resistivity anomaly is not present in the pristine crystal, which further supports the attribution to defects. This work forges a path for further investigation of metastable state leading to reorganization in the electron density and its relation to chiral symmetry breaking in various Weyl semi-metal candidates.
Acknowledgements
================
DS thanks Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India for a PhD fellowship through the DST-INSPIRE program (No. DST/INSPIRE Fellowship/2013/742). RSP thanks the DST, Government of India for financial support through the Nanomission program (No. SR/NM/NS-1002/2010 (G)) and SERB grant (No. EMR/2016/003318). SPD thanks financial supports from the European Union Graphene Flagship (No. 604391), a FlagEra project (VR No. 2015-06813), and the Swedish Research Council (No. 2016-03658). CL, SKS, and PE acknowledge support from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.\
\
**Corresponding Authors:**\
R. S. Patel: [email protected]; Saroj P. Dash: [email protected]; Paul Erhart: [email protected]
[39]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys3314) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms11038) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.136805) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nnano.2010.279) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nl903868w) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nmat4061) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nl403742j) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4984953) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2012.193) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms16093) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature15768) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys3871) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms10671) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04363) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.155128) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms13552) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}, “,” (, ) p. @noop [ ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.205114) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.125135) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.246401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.035412) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.115205) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cm903633w) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01509) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031021)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Insight has been gained about the cause of the initial failure of the Blocks Renormalization Group (BRG), expressing the conclusions in the development of a rather similar technique where the defects were removed: the [*Correlated*]{} Blocks Renormalization Group (CBRG) for problems in quantum mechanics both in 1D and 2D in the presence of an arbitrary potential.
The Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) has been extended so as to work on trees, and it was applied to the analysis of the excitonic spectrum of a family of polymeric molecules with fractal character: the dendrimers.
The required modifications of the DMRG algorithm in order to be applied to multidimensional systems have been studied, arriving at the Punctures Renormalization Group (PRG), which uses a single block —more natural than the left-right distinction in $>1D$. The application to the analysis of excitons in disordered systems with long range interaction has been described. The difficulties on the path towards a PRG for many body problems were analyzed in some detail.
Techniques based on real space renormalization group have been employed for the effective reduction of degrees of freedom in partial differential equations. Concretely, a theoretical framework has been exposed for the sub-discretization process and it has been applied to both linear and non-linear equations in 1D.
The Real Space Renormalization Group (RSRG) overflows with theoretical questions which require more insight and practical applications which wait for development. The number of publications on the field, specially since the DMRG was developed, grows ever larger. In the near future, we intend to undertake the following research lines:
Application of the PRG, in parallel with analytical RG techniques, to various problems of excitons in disordered media.
Development of the PRG algorithm for many particles.
Development of RSRG techniques for partial differential equations in $>$1D, specially for fluid mechanical problems.
=[Apéndices.]{} PS. [15]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\#1[ =[\#1]{}]{}
In this appendix some elements of graph theory and their connection to physics are exposed. The book of Bollobás is an excellent introduction to the subject.
Incidence, Adjacence and Laplacian.
-----------------------------------
Let ${\cal G}$ be a simple graph, where $V({\cal G})$ denotes the set of vertices and $E({\cal G})$ the set of edges, with respective sizes $N_v$ and $N_e$. The graph structure is given by a neighbourhood structure: $N: V\mapsto {\cal P}(V)$, which assigns to each vertex the set of neighbouring vertices. The only constraint for that structure is symmetry: $i\in N(j) \iff j\in N(i)$.
Let us assign an arbitrary [*orientation*]{} to the graph by giving a travelling order to each edge. The [*incidence matrix*]{} is a $N_v\times N_e$ matrix with elements $B_{ij}$ in the set $\{-1,0,+1\}$ such that
$$B_{ij}=\cases{+1 & if vertex $i$ is the origin of edge $j$\cr
-1 & if vertex $i$ is the end of edge $j$\cr
0 & otherwise}$$
A fundamental matrix related to $B$ is the [*adjacency matrix*]{}, defined to be the $N_v\times N_v$ matrix whose elements $A_{ij}$ are
$$A_{ij}=\cases{+1 & if vertex $i$ is connected through an edge to
vertex $j$\cr
0 & otherwise}$$
The adjacency matrix is relevant for paths combinatorics on a graph, since the number of different ways of traveling from site $i$ to site $j$ in $n$ steps is given by $(A^n)_{ij}$.
The most important matrix associated to a graph may be the [*combinatorial laplacian*]{}, which is defined as the $N_v\times N_v$ matrix $L=B^tB$. We define the [*degree*]{} of a vertex $d_i$ to be its number of neighbours (in physics it is usually called the [*coordination number*]{}), and $D$ to be the diagonal matrix $N_v\times N_v$ whose $(i,i)$-th entry is just $d(i)$. Then it is easy to prove the following identity:
$$L=D-A$$
where $A$ is the adjacency matrix. Therefore, the elements of the combinatorial laplacian are just the number of neighbours in the diagonal and $-1$ in all $(i,j)$ entries where vertex $i$ is directly connected to vertex $j$. From now on, we shall drop the adjective [*combinatorial*]{}.
It is usual to consider [*fields*]{} on graphs for the study of the laplacian. We shall consider a field on the graph to be any function $\phi:V\mapsto K$, where $K$ may be any numerical field (usually real or complex numbers). The functional space to which $\phi$ belongs is a vector space of finite dimension, so we may oscillate between the terms “field” and “vector”.
Spectrum of the Adjacency Matrix.
---------------------------------
Let us denote by $\{\mu_i\}$ the set of eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix. Let $d_\linp{max}$ the maximum degree of the graph (the highest coordination number) and $d_\linp{min}$ the minimum degree. We state a series of theorems whose proof is not complicated.
[*a)*]{} The highest eigenvalue fulfills $d_\linp{min}\leq
\mu_\linp{max}\leq d_\linp{max}$. PS. 2
[*b)*]{} The maximal degree $d_\linp{max}$ is an eigenvalue iff ${\cal G}$ is regular (i.e.: iff all the vertices have the same degree). In that case, it is non–degenerate. PS. 2
[*c)*]{} If $-d_\linp{max}$ is an eigenvalue, then the graph is regular and bipartite. PS. 2
[*d)*]{} If ${\cal H}$ is a subgraph of ${\cal G}$, then the whole spectrum of its adjacency matrix lies within $\mu_\linp{min}$ and $\mu_\linp{max}$.
Spectrum of the Laplacian
-------------------------
The laplacian is always a selfadjoint positive semidefinite matrix. The proof is straightforward from its definition or, as well, from the fact that the quadratic form $\elem<\phi|L|\phi>$ (usually called the [*lagrangian*]{} form) may be written as a sum of squares.
Let us denote by $\ket|\delta_i>$ the field concentrated on the $i$-th vertex. The field $\ket|\phi>$ may be expanded in that basis as $\ket|\phi>=\sum_i \phi_i\ket|\delta_i>$ and, therefore:
$$\elem<\phi|L|\phi>= \sum_{i\in V} d_i \phi_i^2
- \sum_{\<i,j\>\in E} \phi_i \phi_j = \sum_{\<i,j\>\in E}
(\phi_i-\phi_j)^2$$
where the summation over $\<i,j\>\in E$ denotes all edges of the graph. The following facts are easy to prove:
[*a)*]{} All the eigenvalues of the laplacian are either positive or zero. PS. 2
[*b)*]{} If the graph is regular with uniform degree $r$, the spectrum of the laplacian and that of the adjacency matrix are easily related. If $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $L$, then $\mu=r-\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$ (and viceversa). PS. 2
[*c)*]{} The lowest eigenvalue of the laplacian is always zero. The associated eigenvector is the uniform field. The reason is that each row of the matrix has as many off–diagonal $-1$ elements as the number in the diagonal marks. Therefore, the field given by $(1,1,1,\ldots,1)$ has always zero lagrangian. PS. 2
[*d)*]{} The second smallest eigenvalue is of outmost importance. Its magnitude refers to the [*global connectivity*]{}. We define the vertex connectivity to be the minimum fraction of the vertices which it is necessary to remove for the graph to become disconnected. Then, we get the following
[Theorem.]{} [*The vertex connectivity of an incomplete graph ${\cal G}$ is never smaller than the second lowest eigenvalue of the laplacian.*]{} PS. 2
We shall not give a complete proof of this theorem, but only an heuristic argument. The eigenfunction associated to the second lowest eigenvalue must be orthogonal to the uniform field. Therefore, it must have at least two domains of different signs. But, at the same time, it must take the minimum possible value for the lagrangian, which grows with nonuniformity (since it is the sum of the squares of the field “jumps”). So, the desired field should have just a single “wall”, which should be as small as possible. The minimum set of vertices which, when removed, separate the graph into two parts would be a nice place to locate it.
Boundary conditions.
--------------------
Probably, the most important constraint with physical applications which may be imposed on the functional space of fields on a graph is the presence of non–trivial boundary conditions. We shall focus on the Dirichlet (fixed) and Neumann (free) types.
The discrete analogues of boundary conditions is, of course, highly dependent on our concept of “boundary”. We shall mark a subset of $V({\cal G})$ to be the [*border set*]{} of the graph (the rest being called the [*bulk*]{}).
So as to make things concrete, we shall consider [*quasi–regular*]{} graphs, which consist of many vertices with a common degree $r$ but for a few, which have a smaller degree. By adding a certain number of extra vertices we may get all the authentic ones to have a homogeneous degree $r$, while all the new vertices have degree $1$, making up what we shall denote to be the [*closure*]{} of the graph. The set of added vertices shall be known as [*tack vertices*]{} and the vertices which are directly connected to them shall be the [*border vertices*]{}.
At this point we may already consider various possibilities for the boundary conditions.
a\) [*Free boundary conditions.*]{} The acceptable fields take the same value at the tack vertices and at the border ones.
Let us consider any of the border vertices, with index $i$ and degree $d_i=r-v_i$, which is completed up to $r$ through the addition of tack vertices. Denoting by $N(i)$ the set of bulk neighbours and by $T(i)$ the set of neighbouring tack vertices, the condition would be read as $\forall k\in H(i), \phi_k=\phi_i$. The action of the laplacian on such a field would be
$$(L_\linp{free}\ket|\phi>)_i = r\phi_i - \sum_{j\in N(i)} \phi_j -
\underbrace{\sum_{k\in T(i)}\phi_k}_{v_i\phi_i}= (r-v_i)\phi_i -
\sum_{j\in N(i)} \phi_j$$
In other words: the contribution of the tack vertices is exactly cancelled out. Therefore, the laplacian [*does not change form*]{}. We might say that the meaning of the free boundary conditions is the [*absence of an exterior world*]{} linked to the system: we do not need to consider external elements to the graph.
b\) [*Fixed boundary conditions.*]{} The acceptable fields take the value zero on the tack vertices. Let $i$ be again the index of a border vertex and, with the notation of the former paragraph, the laplacian would be
$$(L_\linp{fixed}\ket|\phi>)_i=r\phi_i - \sum_{j\in N(i)} \phi_j -
\underbrace{\sum_{k\in T(i)} \phi_i}_{0} = r\phi_i - \sum_{j\in
N(i)}\phi_j = r-(A\ket|\phi>)_i$$
thus we find that it may be rewritten as
$$L_\linp{fixed} = rI-A$$
The physical meaning of the fixed boundary conditions is that [*there is an exterior world*]{}, but it [*is trivial*]{}. Notice also that the laplacian spectrum with fixed b.c. is closely related to that of the adjacency matrix.
c\) [*Mixed boundary conditions.*]{} If the value of the field at the tack vertices is neither zero nor the same as that at the border vertices, then the laplacian gets the form:
$$(L_\linp{mixed}\ket|\phi>)_i = r\phi_i - \sum_{j\in N(i)} \phi_j -
\underbrace{\sum_{k\in H(i)} \phi_k}_\linp{constant}$$
The term marked as “constant” is not linear on the set $\{\phi_i\}_{i\in V}$, so the laplacian receives an inhomogeneous term when the tack vertices are removed.
This more general type of boundary conditions can take into account the immersion of a system into a larger one.
PS. 7
Random walks on different kinds of spaces constitute a very important part of the basis of theoretical physics. In particular, quantum mechanics of spinless particles may be formulated as the statistical theory of random walkers in [*imaginary time*]{} .
Let us consider a large number of non–interacting random walkers in a graph. The number of particles at each vertex constitutes a field. Its time evolution is dictated by the master equation:
$${\pl\phi_i\over \pl t} \propto
\hbox{\# Particles which enter} - \hbox{\# Particles which exit}
\propto \sum_{j\in N(i)} \phi_j - d_i\phi_i = -(L\ket|\phi>)_i$$
whenever vertex $i$ belongs to the bulk. Otherwise, then there is a distinction:
[a)]{} [*Fixed boundary conditions.*]{} Tack vertices (walls) absorb any incoming particle. Therefore, border vertices have sinks linked to them. This justifies the “zero” values and the relation to the adjacency matrix. PS. 2
[b)]{} [*Free boundary conditions.*]{} Tack vertices (walls) reflect back any incoming particle. Therefore, they may be thought [*not to exist*]{}. In mathematical terms, they take the same value as on the border vertices, making the gradient across the walls vanish.
The combinatorial laplacian [*should not*]{} be considered as a mere discrete approximation to the continuous operator used for the Schrödinger equation. The formulation should be the other way round: the continuum is just an idealization useful for mathematical physics, meanwhile all the real data are discrete. Moreover: the structure of space–time might be discrete itself or, more precisely, better approximable by discrete structures than by the continous concepts used nowadays.
Bibliography.
-------------
, [*Modern graph theory*]{}, Springer (1998).
, [*A non-perturbative real space renormalization group scheme*]{}, part I in [cond-mat/9910511]{} and part II in [cond-mat/9910512]{}. Also at J. Phys. A (Math. Gen.) [**33**]{}, 6173 (2000) and Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 174408 (2001).
, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{}, McGraw-Hill (1965).
, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{}, Cambridge U.P. (1989).
This appendix deals with certain computational aspects of the present thesis work which may be usually neglected.
We wish to remark that, for the reasons exposed in detail at the preface, all the results shown in this memory have been obtained with software written by us and with free software. The programs were written in C and C++ (compiled with [g++]{} and [gcc]{} from GNU) and it was necessary to write a series of libraries, which are cited in the rest of the appendix.
$\bullet$ [*Linear Algebra Library.*]{} ([matrix.cc]{}) A C++ library which implements the classes [Vector]{} and [Matrix]{}, in which sum and multiplication operators have a natural meaning. Standard routines for the inversion of matrices, Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization, etc. are implemented.
Especially important is the exact diagonalization routine. It operates in two steps: obtention of a tridiagonal matrix similar to the original one by the Householder method and obtention of the eigenvalues through a QL algorithm with implicit displacements .
$\bullet$ [*Graphs Library.*]{} ([graph.cc]{}) The generation and easy manipulation of neighbourhood structures was performed with a library which implemented the class called [Graph]{} with natural operations for the access of the vertices, graphical output and computation of adjacency and laplacian matrices, among other functions .
$\bullet$ [*Operators Description Library.*]{} ([odl.cc]{}) The operators used for many body problems are manipulated as descriptions in a certain language, having the possibility to act on states, adding, multiplying and obtaining their matrix elements on any basis of the Hilbert space.
$\bullet$ [*Easy X-Window Graphics Library.*]{} ([easyx.c]{}) The X-Window graphical system is a very extended standard both for PCs and workstations . Through the usage of this library of easy management, based on the [Xlib]{} standard, it was possible to make up animations and to obtain real time graphical output.
$\bullet$ [*PostScript Graphics Library.*]{} ([easyps.c]{}) On the other hand, [PostScript]{} is the standard format for graphics printing . Many of the pictures of the present memory were produced by our own programs using this library.
These libraries, which are by-products of this thesis, shall be put in the public domain under the GPL ([*General Public License*]{}) in a near future, which shall allow its free usage and copying. At the same time, some of these works have already yielded some innovations in the computational sciences field, as it may be checked at , where the techniques exposed in the [odl.cc]{} are being applied to the development of a computational language of geometrical constructions with pedagogical applications.
Bibliography.
-------------
, Adobe Systems Inc. (1985), 19th ed. in 1991.
, [*Modern graph theory*]{}, Springer (2001).
, [*The geometric description language*]{}, text available at [http://gdlang.sourceforge.net]{} (2001).
, [*General public license*]{}, text available at [http://www.gnu.org]{}.
, [*Matrix computations*]{}, The John Hopkins U.P. (1996).
, [*Numerical recipes in C*]{}, Cambridge U. P. (1997) and freely available at [http://www.nr.com]{}.
, [*X11R6: Xlib Documentation*]{}, available at [http://www.xfree86.org]{} (1996).
It is interesting to notice that many classical results of continuous analysis are also [*exactly*]{} true as results of discrete analysis. On the other hand, in many cases it is necessary to make some changes so as to preserve the analogy (see, e.g., ).
In chapter 5 a result was used according to which a delta function under the heat equation evolves to a gaussian function which fulfills
$$\<x^2\> \approx t^{1/2} \eq{\leyescala}$$
Notwithstanding, the calculations made in that chapter referred to the [*discrete version*]{} of the same equation, given in 1D by:
$$\phi_i(t+\Delta t)=\phi_i(t) + {\kappa\Delta t\over \Delta
x^2}\(\phi_{i-1}(t)-2\phi_i(t) + \phi_{i+1}(t)\)\eq{\calordisc}$$
This appendix proves that the relation \[\] is also [*exact*]{} for the finite differences equation \[\] under certain constraints for the boundary conditions (b.c.) .
Let us suppose the function $\phi(0)$ to be [*normalized*]{} according to
$$\sum_{i=1}^N \Delta x \phi_i(0)=1$$
and that the b.c. allow for the exact conservation of that magnitude: either $N\to\infty$, or b.c. are free or periodical. It is not allowed to fix the b.c. to any set of values.
The second moment $\<x^2\>$ is defined in the continuum by
$$\<x^2(t)\>_c\equiv \int d\mu\,x^2\phi(x,t)$$
The discrete analogue would be
$$\<x^2(t)\>\equiv \sum_{i=1}^N (\Delta x) (i\Delta x)^2 \phi_i(t)$$
We now compute the value for the following time-step:
$$\<x^2(t+\Delta t)\>=\sum_{i=1}^N \Delta x (i\Delta x)^2
\phi_i(t+\Delta t)=$$
$$=\sum_{i=1}^N (\Delta x)^3 i^2 \[ \phi_i(t) +
{\kappa \Delta t\over \Delta x^2} \(\phi_{i-1}(t) - 2\phi_i(t)
+\phi_{i+1}(t)\)\]=$$
$$=\kappa\Delta t\Delta x\[ \sum_{i=1}^N i^2\phi_{i-1}(t) -
2\sum_{i=1}^N i^2\phi_i(t) + \sum_{i=1}^N i^2\phi_{i+1}(t)\] +
\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^N i^2\Delta x^3\phi_i(t)}_{\<x^2(t)\>}$$
The quantity in brackets may be rewritten as
$$\sum_{i=1}^N \{ (i+1)^2 -2i^2 + (i-1)^2 \} \phi_i(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N
\phi_i(t)$$
Due to the conditions previously exposed, the quantity $m=\sum\phi_i(t)$ may not depend on time, so we have
$$\<x^2(t+\Delta t)\>=\<x^2(t)\>+2\kappa m\Delta t$$
Iterating this equation we arrive at
$$\<x^2(t)\>=\<x^2(0)\> + 2\kappa mt$$
as we wanted to prove.
Bibliography.
-------------
, [*A real space renormalization group approach to field evolution equations*]{}, [cond-mat/0106155]{} and Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{} 036703 (2002).
, [*Concrete mathematics*]{}, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co. (1994) (Primera ed.: 1989).
In many parts of this work it is necessary to re-orthonormalize a set of vectors which were orthonormal before some operation on them took place. This operation is in many cases of “local” nature, i.e.: it affects only a small fraction of the components of the vectors. Therefore, a full Gram-Schmidt technique is an innecessary waste of computational resources.
Let us suppose the set of vectors $\{\ket|\phi^0_i>\}_{i=1}^n$ to be orthonormal. An operator ${\cal O}$ has acted on them, so we have a new series of states:
$$\ket|\phi_i>={\cal O}\ket|\phi^0_i>$$
such that the obtention of the dot products on them is a computationally simple task:
$$C_{ij}\equiv\<\phi_i|\phi_j\>$$
In the typical case, the dot product of two vectors need $N$ multiplications. We shall assume that this is not needed, and matrix $C_{ij}$ is given as an [*input*]{}.
Once matrix $C_{ij}$ is known, it is possible to obtain a Gram-Schmidt matrix $G^i_j$ so that the states
$$\ket|\phi'_i>=G^i_j\ket|\phi_j>$$
make up an othonormal set. We describe now the process to obtain such a matrix.
The Gram-Schmidt (GS) operation consists, briefly, in the removal from the $i$-th vector of all the “contribution” of the previous vectors (indices $1$ up to $i-1$). This implies that the GS matrix has a structure which may be exploited: $G^i_j=0$ whenever $j>i$. Thus, the orthonormal $i$-th vector is computed only from the previous vectors.
Let us suppose that the orthonormal set $\{\ket|\phi'_j>\}_{j=1}^{i-1}$ has already been built. Then the new state given by
$$\ket|\phi^*_i>=\ket|\phi_i>-\sum_{j<i}
\<\phi_i|\phi'_j\>\ket|\phi'_j> \eq{\nonormalized}$$
is orthogonal to the previous ones, but is not normalized. Using matrix $G^i_j$ we may rewrite expression \[\] as
$$\ket|\phi^*_i>=\ket|\phi_i> -
\sum_{j<i}\sum_{k,l\leq j}\elem<\phi_i|G^j_k|\phi_k>
G^j_l\ket|\phi_l>$$
where the second sum only extends up to $k,l\leq j$ due to the matrix structure of $G$. Naturally, $G^i_j$ is a number and not an operator, so we may extract the dot product $\<\phi_i|\phi_k\>$
$$\ket|\phi^*_i>=\ket|\phi_i>-\sum_{j<i}\sum_{k,l\leq j}
C_{ik}G^j_kG^j_l \ket|\phi_l>=\ket|\phi_i>-\sum_{l<i}\sum_{j<i \atop k\leq j}
G^j_k G^j_l C_{ik} \ket|\phi_l>$$
where the last expression was obtained reorganizing the sums. This last expression may be rewritten as
$$\ket|\phi^*_i>=\sum_{l\leq i}g^i_l \ket|\phi_l>$$
with the coefficients $g^i_l$ given by
$$g^i_l=\cases{ -\sum_{j,k<i} G^j_k G^j_l C_{ik} & if $l<i$ \cr
1 & if $l=i$\cr
0 & otherwise\cr} \eq{\gij}$$
Let us suppose that the $g^i_l$ are known for a given value of $i$, providing therefore the state $\ket|\phi^*_i>$. In due time, this state shall be normalized to yield the desired state $\ket|\phi'_i>$. The norm of this state shall be:
$$\<\phi^*_i|\phi^*_i\>=\sum_{j,k\leq i}\sum_{k\leq i} g^i_j g^i_k
\<\phi_i|\phi_j\>= \sum_{j,k\leq i} g^i_j g^i_k C_{jk}$$
Therefore, the values of $G^i_j$ are obtained from those of $g^i_j$ in a very simple way:
$$G^i_j = {g^i_j \over \sqrt{\sum_{j,k\leq i} g^i_j g^i_k C_{jk}}}
\eq{\normalization}$$
The calculation procedure for the $G^i_j$ may be now established in an inductive way. The $g^1_j$ do not require previous values of $G^i_j$: $g^1_j=\delta^1_j$. The normalization is direct:
$$G^1_1={1\over\sqrt{C_{11}}}$$
and the rest $G^1_j=0$.
The values for the $g^i_j$ may always be calculated from those of the $G^k_l$ with $k\leq l$, as it is shown in equation \[\]. The usage of this equation along with \[\] provides the full algorithm, shown in pseudocode 1.
PS. 2 [PseudoCode 1.]{}
Algorithm for the obtention of the matrix $G^i_j$.
At the end of the previous program, matrix $G$ is complete.
In section 2.7 the self-replicability properties of certain sets of functions were studied, along with their relation to CBRG. In this section some results were shown referring to a certain “pseudo-fractal dimension” or “scaling dimension for the energy”. It is a definition with full geometric sense, but which is not [*sensu strictu*]{} a fractal dimension .
Let $\{\psi_i\}$ be the $N$ components of a normalized wave–function. Let $T: V^N\mapsto V^{N/2}$ be the RG (or coarse-graining) transformation which consists of the following steps:
$$\hat\phi_i={1\over 2}(\phi_{2i-1}+\phi_{2i}) \qquad
T\phi={\hat\phi \over |\hat\phi|}$$
In other words: we consider the vector formed by the local averages of two sites, and after that we normalize it. We may generate a family of states in different vector spaces:
$$\{\phi,T\phi,T^2\phi\ldots T^n\phi\}$$
where $n$ is $\log_2(N)-1$. In our applications (although it is not required), $N$ shall always be a power of $2$.
Now we take the sequence of expected values of the kinetic energy for these functions, always with free b.c.:
$$E_m\equiv \elem<\phi|(T^m)^\dagger\ H\ T^m|\phi>$$
In the form of an ordinary sum,
$$E_m=\sum_{i=2}^{N\cdot 2^{-m}} \((T^m\phi)_i -
(T^m\phi)_{i-1}\)^2$$
I.e.: the squared sum of the derivative. For “smooth” functions, this sequence approximately fulfills
$$\log(E_m) \approx c_0+2m$$
The reason is the following: for a smooth function, jumps will be increased in a factor $2$ when averaging ($4$ when squared). When normalizing a smaller number of components, these shall be increased by a further factor $\sqrt{2}$ ($2$ upon squaring, so a factor $8$ so far). But the sum extends only to half the components, so we must divide by $2$ and a factor $4$ remains: the scaling exponent is $\log_2(4)=2$ as it was announced.
We shall denote by “[*energetic scaling exponent*]{}” or “[*pseudo-fractal dimension associated to energy*]{}” the number $\epsilon$ which makes the best fit to
$$\log(E_m) \approx c_0 + \epsilon m$$
In practice we obtain, for example, for the first four normalized polynomials $\{1,x,x^2,x^3\}$ on $2048$ sites the values of $\epsilon$: $x\to 1.90 \pm 0.03$, $x^2\to 1.87 \pm 0.04$ and $x^3\to
1.87 \pm 0.04$. As it was shown in section 2.7, for the fixed point of the eigenstates of the particle in a box with free and fixed b.c. the results of table 4 in chapter 2 are obtained. In the first case they are rather near to $2$, meanwhile in the second one they are clearly $\approx 0$.
What physical interpretation do these results have? Let us imagine that these wave–functions which were obtained as a fixed point were real wave–functions of a particle and let us make the inverse path: from big scales to smaller ones. If $\epsilon\approx 2$ or, at least, is clearly incompatible with zero, then the energies of the lowest energy states get smaller and smaller when one takes the continuum limit. If the exponent were null, that would imply that the energy of the ground state might have a finite limit [*without*]{} being localized. This generation of a “gap” might be interpreted as a dynamical mass generation.
\#1–\#2
[[\#1]{} \#2PS. 2]{} =[Glossary.]{} =[Glossary.]{}
We present in the following pages an index of commented terms or glossary. Some of these terms have been introduced in our work, and in that case they are marked with an asterisk.
Aspect – (of a field) Discrete and finite set of observables referred to an extended physical system which aspire to represent the whole knowledge of the observer about it. For the quasistatic transformation, e.g., these observables are the integral values on the cells of a given partition of space (concept more refined than that of [*discretization*]{}). Sections 5.1 to 5.3.
Basic Scale – Scale at which the physical laws explaining a given phenomenon are simple. Thus, e.g., ferromagnetism is explained at atomic scale. Macroscopic physics is obtained from it by applying RG transformations. Section 1.2.
Blocks Algebra – In the meaning used in this work, blocks are just subsets of a graph, on which an internal operation known as addition may be defined. It is possible to interpret RSRG as a flow on a matrix representation of that algebra. Section 4.6.
BRG, Blocks Renormalization Group,– Process for the variational computation of the lowest energy spectrum of a system using as [*Ansatz*]{} the lowest energy eigenfunctions corresponding to smaller blocks. Section 1.4.III and chapter 2 (part I).
CBRG, Correlated Blocks Renormalization Group – Modification of the BRG which takes into account the correlation between blocks through the introduction of the influence and interaction matrices. Chapter 2 (part II).
Dendrimers,– Polymeric molecules in which from a monomer stem various branches which branch at due time all at once, resulting a system of great symmetry. They have lots of applications, from materials science to medicine. Its excitonic spectrum is analyzed through DMRG applied to trees. Chapter 3 (part II).
DMRG, Density Matrix Renormalization Group,– Drastic modification of the BRG following the idea that the lowest energy states of the blocks need not be the best bricks for building the global state. The system is divided into left and right blocks, and the “most probable” states for each block are chosen by fitting to a given target state, projecting with a density matrix. Esp. section 1.4.V and chapter 3.
Embedding Operator,– Operator which projects a renormalized state into a real space one. In QM it is forced to be the adjoint of the truncation operator, while in other applications it is only required to be its SVD pseudoinverse. Since the renormalized state has fewer degrees of freedom, the consecutive application of truncation and embedding does not yield the identity, but a projector on the relevant degrees of freedom. Esp. sections 2.1 and 5.2.
Evolution Prescription – (for fields) Discrete computational rule for the evolution (either deterministic or stochastic) of an aspect of a field. Sections 5.1 and 5.2.
Implicit RSRG Method – Variational RSRG algorithm for QM in which the wave–functions are not stored, but a given number of matrix elements of chosen operators on them. Otherwise, the method is known as [*explicit*]{}. Sections 3.1 and 4.1.
Influence Matrix – In CBRG, an additive modification on the block hamiltonian provoked by the presence of a neighbouring block. A given block receives one influence matrix per neighbour. Section 2.3.
Interaction Matrix –In CBRG, part of the total hamiltonian of a system which does not belong to the hamiltonian of any block, but stays between a given pair of blocks. Section 2.3.
ITF, Ising Model in a Transverse Field,– Quantum model for an uniaxial ferromagnet in which the $z$ components of the spins tend to align, while a magnetic field in a perpendicular axis ($x$) tend to prevent that alignment. It has a phase transition even in 1D and has also an interesting analogy with the classical 2D Ising model. It is analyzed with BRG in section 2.1.
Laplacian,– In a rather generic way, it is an operator which allows to compute statistically the diffusion of a collective of non-interacting particles on a given space. Especially interesting for this work is the laplacian on a graph. Appendix A.
Observational Frame – Any physical observation process requires a certain “grain size” (lower or UV cutoff) and a “plate size” (higher or IR cutoff). A pack formed by a reference frame (Lorentz, Galilei...) along with the “IR cutoff + UV cutoff” and any other required features for observation makes up an [*observational frame*]{}. Section 1.2.
Patch – Set of punctures. In PRG, region of the system which, at a given RG step, is fully well represented in the [*Ansatz*]{}. Section 4.2.
PRG, Punctures Renormalization Group – Variational RSRG calculation of the low energy spectrum of a quantum mechanical system via the [*Ansatz*]{} of some functions which represent a given region of the system (the punctures) and others which represent the rest of it. Chapter 4.
Puncture – In PRG, each of the sites which are well determined in the [*Ansatz*]{} at a given step, represented by the corresponding delta state $\ket|\delta_p>$. Section 4.2.
Quadtree,– Structure for the addressing of 2D points or the storage of a bidimensional field (e.g. an image) through divisions of a square into $2\times 2$ smaller squares in an interative way. Used by 2D CBRG. Section 2.6.
Quasistatic Transformation – Truncation operator which proceeds by cells overlapping in an iterative way, removing one degree of freedom at each step. Sections 5.3 and 5.4.
Renormalized Space,– Space of a smaller number of degrees of freedom than real space, in which each component represents the weight of a state considered to be relevant. Real states may travel to renormalized space via the truncation operators. From renormalized space one may jump to real space by using the embedding operators. Esp. sections 2.1, 2.5, 5.1 and 5.2.
RG, Renormalization Group– In physical terms, a displacement of the observational frame along the scales axis. Esp. chapter 1.
RSRG, Real Space Renormalization Group– RG implementation which only uses blocks formed according to geometric criteria. The term is used as opposed to the RG methods based on Fourier space. Esp. chapter 1.
Scaling Exponents,– Many physical laws are ruled by [*scaling laws*]{} or [*power laws*]{}, which require a situation with a certain degree of invariance under scaling (aka RG) transformations. The exponents are robust observables, since they tend to be universal. [*Critical exponents*]{}, according to which physical magnitudes diverge near a critical point, are a particular case. Esp. sections 1.2 and 2.1.
Self-Replicability ,– Property of certain sets of functions on an interval (in $d$ dimensions) to be correctly approximated using linear combinations of its copies scaled on a factor $1/2^d$ and situated on the different quadrants of that interval. Useful concept for the analysis of CBRG. Section 2.7.
Sewing ,– Path followed by the puncture (or patch) through the system in the PRG, which must traverse all the links. Esp. section 4.4.
SVD, Singular Values Decomposition– Analogue of the diagonalization for rectangular matrices. It allows the easy obtention of a “pseudoinverse” of a given matrix which fulfills the Moore-Penrose conditions. Section 5.2.
Sweep,– Process in the second part of traditional DMRG, for which one of the two blocks (left or right) grows at the expense of the other until an extreme is reached; after that, the process continues in the other sense. Analogously, a full path of the free site in the trees DMRG and PRG. Esp. section 3.1.
Target State,– In DMRG the block states are chosen as those which fit better to a certain state which was obtained for the full system, known as [*target state*]{}. Esp. section 3.1 and 3.2.
Tree,– Connected graph in which there is an only continuous path which does not repeat sites between any couple of sites. Especially useful for making calculations with DMRG, since it allows the use of an implicit method. Section 3.3.
Truncation Operator,– Operator which takes an state from an arbitrary space and returns another on a space of smaller dimension, known as the renormalized space, where each component represents the “weight” on a series of states of the original space thought (for some reason) to be especially relevant. Esp. sections 2.1 and 5.2.
Warmup,– First step for many RSRG techniques, which initializes the suitable operators before the sweeping or sewing cycles start. The only requirement is that the matrix elements of the operators correspond to real states, but an intelligent election boosts the computation a lot. Esp. sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4.5.
Universality Class– Set of physical systems which share the same scaling exponents. The ubiquity of the phenomenon is explained via the Renormalization Group (RG). Section 1.2.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper investigates the asymptotic expansion for the size of block codes defined for the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with feedback under the following setting: A peak power constraint is imposed on every transmitted codeword, and the average error probability of decoding the transmitted message is non-vanishing as the blocklength increases. It is well-known that the presence of feedback does not increase the first-order asymptotics (i.e., capacity) in the asymptotic expansion for the AWGN channel. The main contribution of this paper is a self-contained proof of an upper bound on the asymptotic expansion for the AWGN channel with feedback. Combined with existing achievability results for the AWGN channel, our result implies that the presence of feedback does not improve the second- and third-order asymptotics. An auxiliary contribution is a proof of the strong converse for the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback under a peak power constraint.'
author:
- 'Silas L. Fong and Vincent Y. F. Tan[^1]'
title: Asymptotic Expansions for Gaussian Channels with Feedback under a Peak Power Constraint
---
AWGN channel, Feedback, Asymptotic expansion, Second-order asymptotics, Parallel Gaussian channels
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel is one in which at each discrete time $k \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, the output $Y_k$ is the sum of the input $X_k$ and a Gaussian random variable $Z_k$ that represents additive noise. The collection of the noise random variables $\{Z_k\}_{k\in \{1,\ldots, n\}}$ is assumed to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). The inputs are also power limited, which means that $\sum_{k=1}^n X_k^2 \le nP$ with probability 1 where $P>0$ is the permissible power, i.e., a peak power constraint. If we would like to transmit a uniformly distributed message $W\in \{1,2,\ldots, \lceil 2^{nR} \rceil\}$ across this channel, it was shown by Shannon [@Shannon48] the maximum rate of communication $R$ or the [*capacity*]{} is $$\mathrm{C}(P) \triangleq \frac{1}{2}\log(1+P) \qquad\mbox{bits per channel use}. \label{defCP}$$ In other words, if $M^*(n,\varepsilon,P)$ designates the maximum number of messages that can be transmitted over $n$ uses of an AWGN channel with permissible power $P$ and average error probability $\varepsilon$, one has $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log M^*(n,\varepsilon,P)=\mathrm{C}(P).$$ In fact, the strong converse was shown by Shannon in [@Sha59b] (also see Yoshihara [@Yoshihara] and Wolfowitz [@Wolfowitz]) and so we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log M^*(n,\varepsilon,P)=\mathrm{C}(P)$$ for every $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
[*Feedback*]{}, which is the focus of the current paper, is known to simplify coding schemes and improves the performance of communication systems in many scenarios. See [@elgamal Chapter 17] for a thorough discussion of the benefits of feedback in single- and multi-user information theory. When feedback is allowed, each input symbol $X_k$ depends not only on the transmitted message $W$ but also the vector of channel outputs up to and including time $k-1$, i.e., the symbols $Y^{k-1}= (Y_1, \ldots, Y_{k-1})$. For [*memoryless*]{} AWGN channels, it is known that feedback does not increase the capacity of the channel, i.e., the feedback capacity remains at $\mathrm{C}(P)$. This follows from a seminal result by Shannon [@Sha56] in which he proved that noiseless feedback does not increase the capacity of memoryless channels.
In this paper, we are interested in analyzing the performance of the AWGN channel with feedback under the constraint that the average error probability in decoding the transmitted message is non-vanishing, i.e., bounded above by a constant $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$. In the absence of feedback, it is known from Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú [@PPV10 Theorem 54, Eq. (294)] and Tan-Tomamichel [@TanTom13a Theorem 1] that $$\log M^*(n,\varepsilon,P)=n\mathrm{C}(P) + \sqrt{n\mathrm{V}(P)} \Phi^{-1} (\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1) \label{eqn:asymp_expans}$$ where $$\mathrm{V}(P) \triangleq \frac{P(P+2) (\log e)^2}{2(P+1)^2}\qquad\mbox{bits}^2 \mbox{ per channel use} \label{defVP}$$ is known as the Gaussian [*dispersion*]{} function and $\Phi^{-1}$ is the inverse of the cumulative distribution function for the standard Gaussian distribution. See Hayashi’s work [@Hayashi09] for a proof of without the third-order $\frac{1}{2}\log n +O(1)$ term.
Main Contributions
------------------
A natural question then arises. In the presence of feedback, what is the analogue of the asymptotic expansion in ? Let $M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n,\varepsilon,P)$ be the maximum number of codewords that can be transmitted through $n$ uses of the channel when each input symbol $X_k$ is allowed to depend on $(W,Y^{k-1})$. Clearly, $M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n,\varepsilon,P)\ge M^*(n,\varepsilon,P)$ for all choices of the parameters $(n,\varepsilon,P)$ (because the code can simply ignore the fed back symbols $Y^{k-1}$). In this work, our main contribution is a conceptually simple, concise and self-contained proof that the asymptotic expansion in remains unchanged, i.e., $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n,\varepsilon,P)=n\mathrm{C}(P) + \sqrt{n\mathrm{V}(P)} \Phi^{-1} (\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1) .\label{eqn:asymp_expans_fb}$$ This means that, up to the third-order term in the asymptotic expansion of $\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n,\varepsilon,P)$, full feedback from the output of the channel to the encoder does not increase the number of codewords transmissible over the channel.
As an auxiliary contribution, we investigate the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback under a peak power constraint and prove an upper bound for the second-order asymptotics. This establishes the strong converse for this channel, which (to the best of the authors’ knowledge) was not known previously.
Related Work
------------
Our work is inspired by Altuğ and Wagner’s recent study of the fundamental limits of communication over discrete memoryless channels (DMCs) with feedback [@AW14]. In their work, Altuğ and Wagner showed [@AW14 Theorem 1] that for some classes of DMCs whose capacity-achieving input distributions are not unique (and in particular the minimum and maximum conditional information variances differ), the second-order asymptotics improves in the presence of feedback compared to the no-feedback scenario. They also showed [@AW14 Theorem 2] that feedback does not improve the second-order asymptotics for DMCs $p_{Y|X}$ if the conditional variance of the log-likelihood ratio $\log \frac{p_{Y|X}(Y|x) }{q^*(Y)}$, where $q^*$ is the unique capacity-achieving output distribution, does not depend on the input $x$. Such DMCs include the class of weakly-input symmetric DMCs initially studied by Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú [@PPV11b]. Our contribution is similar in spirit to [@AW14 Theorem 2]. However, we note that the proof technique used by Altuğ and Wagner requires the use of a sophisticated Berry-Esséen-type result for bounded martingale difference sequences [@Machkouri]. Our technique for the AWGN channel is conceptually simpler. We prove that a sum of random variables that naturally appears in the non-asymptotic analysis of the AWGN channel with feedback has the same distribution as the sum of i.i.d. random variables, thus facilitating the use of the usual Berry-Esséen theorem [@feller Theorem 2 in Section XVI.5]. We prove this equivalence between the distributions by using moment generating functions.
In another line of work, for rates below capacity $\mathrm{C}(P)$, Pinsker [@Pin68] showed that for fixed-length block codes on Gaussian channels, the use of feedback cannot improve the exponent over the sphere-packing bound under the peak power constraint. This is in contrast to the case where an expected average power constraint is imposed under which Schalkwijk and Kailath [@Schalkwijk; @Schalkwijk1] showed in a series of celebrated works that the error probability decays doubly exponentially fast for rates below $\mathrm{C}(P)$. The work contained herein [*only*]{} considers the peak power constraint. We leave the analysis of the asymptotic expansion for $\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n,\varepsilon,P)$ under the expected average power constraint for future work.
Paper Outline
-------------
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[notation\] summarizes the notation used in this paper. Section \[sectionDefinition\] provides the problem setup of the AWGN channel with feedback under the peak power constraint and presents our main theorem. Section \[sectionPrelim\] contains the preliminaries required for the proof of our main theorem, which include important properties of non-asymptotic binary hypothesis testing quantities, and an important lemma concerning [*simulating output distributions*]{}. Section \[sectionMainResult\] presents the proof of our main theorem. Section \[sectionParallelAWGNChannel\] discusses the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback under a peak power constraint and applies the techniques used in Section \[sectionMainResult\] to prove the strong converse.
Notation
========
We use $\Pr\{\mathcal{E}\}$ to represent the probability of an event $\mathcal{E}$, and we let $\boldsymbol{1}(\mathcal{E})$ be the characteristic function of $\mathcal{E}$. We use a capital letter $X$ to denote an arbitrary (can be discrete, continuous or other general) random variable with alphabet $\mathcal{X}$, and use the small letter $x$ to denote a realization of $X$. We use $X^n$ to denote a random tuple $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n)$, where the components $X_k$ have the same alphabet $\mathcal{X}$.
The following notations are used for any arbitrary random variables $X$ and $Y$ and any mapping $g$ whose domain includes $\mathcal{X}$. We let $p_X$ and $p_{Y|X}$ denote the probability distribution of $X$ and the conditional probability distribution of $Y$ given $X$ respectively. We let $\Pr_{p_X}\{g(X)\ge\xi\}$ denote $\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} p_X(x)\mathbf{1}(\{g(x)\ge\xi\})\, \mathrm{d}x$ for any real-valued function $g$ and any real constant $\xi$. The expectation and the variance of $g(X)$ are denoted as $
\E_{p_X}[g(X)]$ and $
\Var_{p_X}[g(X)]\triangleq \E_{p_X}[(g(X)-\E_{p_X}[g(X)])^2]$ respectively. We let $p_Xp_{Y|X}$ denote the joint distribution of $(X,Y)$, i.e., $p_Xp_{Y|X}(x,y)=p_X(x)p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ for all $x$ and $y$. We let $\phi_{\mu,\sigma^2}: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ denote the probability density function of a Gaussian random variable whose mean and variance are $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ respectively such that $$\phi_{\mu,\sigma^2}(z) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma^2}}e^{-\frac{(z-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}.$$ We will take all logarithms to base 2 throughout this paper.
Additive White Gaussian Noise Channel with Feedback {#sectionDefinition}
===================================================
We consider an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with feedback that consists of one source and one destination, denoted by $\mathrm{s}$ and $\, \mathrm{d}$ respectively. Node $\mathrm{s}$ transmits information to node $\, \mathrm{d}$ in $n$ time slots as follows. Node $\mathrm{s}$ chooses message $$W\in \{1, 2, \ldots, M\}$$ and sends $W$ to node $\, \mathrm{d}$, where $M=|\mathcal{W}|$. We assume that $W$ is uniformly distributed over $\{1, 2, \ldots, M\}$. Then for each $k\in \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, node $\mathrm{s}$ transmits $X_{k}\in \mathbb{R}$ in time slot $k$ and node $\, \mathrm{d}$ receives $$Y_{k}=X_k+Z_k,$$ where $Z_1, Z_2, \ldots, Z_n$ are $n$ independent copies of the standard Gaussian random variable. We assume that a noiseless feedback link from $\, \mathrm{d}$ to $\mathrm{s}$ exists so that $(W, Y^{k-1})$ is available for encoding $X_k$ at node $\mathrm{s}$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. Every codeword $X^n$ transmitted by $\mathrm{s}$ should satisfy $\sum_{k=1}^nX_{k}^2 \le n P$ where $P>0$ denotes permissible power for $X^n$, i.e., a peak power constraint. In other words, $\Pr\{\sum_{k=1}^nX_{k}^2 \le n P\}=1$. After $n$ time slots, node $\, \mathrm{d}$ declares $\hat W$ to be the transmitted $W$ based on $Y^n$.
\[defCode\] An $(n, M, P)$-feedback code consists of the following:
1. A message set $$\mathcal{W}\triangleq \{1, 2, \ldots, M\}$$ at node $\mathrm{s}$. Message $W$ is uniform on $\mathcal{W}$.
2. An encoding function $$\rho_k : \mathcal{W}\times \mathbb{R}^{k-1}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, where $\rho_k$ is the encoding function at node $\mathrm{s}$ for encoding $X_k$ such that $$X_k=\rho_k (W, Y^{k-1})$$ and $$\Pr\left\{\sum_{k=1}^nX_{k}^2 \le nP\right\} = 1.$$
3. A decoding function $$\psi :
\mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathcal{W},$$ where $\psi$ is the decoding function for $W$ at node $\, \mathrm{d}$ such that $$\hat W = \psi(Y^{n}).$$
\[defAWGNchannel\] An additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with feedback is characterized by the probability density distribution $q_{Y|X}$ satisfying $$q_{Y|X}(y|x) = \phi_{0, 1}(y-x) \label{defChannelInDefinition}$$ such that the following holds for any $(n, M, P)$-feedback code: For each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\{W=w, X^k=x^k, Y^k=y^k\}
= \Pr\{W=w, X^k=x^k, Y^{k-1}=y^{k-1}\}\Pr\{Y_k=y_k|X_k=x_k\} \label{memorylessStatement*}\end{aligned}$$ for all $w$, $x^k$ and $y^k$ where $$\Pr\{Y_k=y_k|X_k=x_k\} = p_{Y_k|X_k}(y_k|x_k) = q_{Y|X}(y_k|x_k). \label{defChannelInDefinition*}$$ Since $p_{Y_k|X_k}$ does not depend on $k$ by , the channel is stationary.
For any $(n, M, P)$-feedback code defined on the AWGN channel with feedback, let $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ be the joint distribution induced by the code. We can factorize $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}
&\stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} p_{W,X^n, Y^n}p_{\hat W |Y^n} \notag\\
&= p_W \left(\prod_{k=1}^np_{X_k,Y_k|X^{k-1}, Y^{k-1}, W}\right)p_{\hat W |Y^n} \notag\\
&= p_W \left(\prod_{k=1}^n p_{X_k|X^{k-1}, Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X^k, Y^{k-1}, W} \right)p_{\hat W |Y^n} \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{=} p_W \left(\prod_{k=1}^n \left( p_{X_k|W, Y^{k-1}} p_{Y_k|X^k, Y^{k-1}, W} \right)\right)p_{\hat W |Y^n}\notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(c)}}{=} p_W \left(\prod_{k=1}^n \left(p_{X_k|W, Y^{k-1}} p_{Y_k|X_k}\right)\right)p_{\hat W |Y^n}. \label{memorylessStatement}\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follows from Definition \[defCode\] that $\hat W$ is a function of $Y^n$.
2. follows from Definition \[defCode\] that $X_k$ is a function of $(W, Y^{k-1})$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$.
3. follows from and that for all $w$, $x^k$ and $y^k$ such that $p_{X^k, Y^{k-1}, W}(x^k, y^{k-1}, w)>0$, $$p_{Y_k|W, X^k, Y^{k-1}}(y_k|w, x^k, y^{k-1}) = p_{Y_k|X_k}(y_k|x_k) = q_{Y|X}(y_k|x_k). \label{memorylessStatement+}$$
\[defErrorProbability\] For an $(n, M, P)$-feedback code defined on the AWGN channel with feedback, we can calculate according to the *average probability of decoding error* defined as $\Pr\left\{\hat W \ne W\right\}$. We call an $(n, M, P)$-feedback code with average probability of decoding error no larger than $\varepsilon$ an $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code.
Before stating our main result, we define $\Phi: (-\infty, \infty)\rightarrow (0,1)$ to be the cumulative distribution function for the standard Gaussian distribution and recall the definitions of $\mathrm{C}(P)$ and $\mathrm{V}(P)$ in and . Since $\Phi$ is strictly increasing on $(-\infty, \infty)$, the inverse of $\Phi$ is well-defined and is denoted by $\Phi^{-1}$. The following theorem is the main result in this paper.
\[thmMainResult\] Fix an $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ and let $$M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P) \triangleq \max\{M: \text{There exists an $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code}\}.$$ Then, there exists a constant $\kappa$ not depending on $n$ such that for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P) \le n \mathrm{C}(P) + \sqrt{n\mathrm{V}(P)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + \kappa. \label{cutsetStatement}$$
Combining and Theorem \[thmMainResult\], we complete the characterizations of the first-, second- and third-order asymptotics for the AWGN channel with feedback as shown in .
In order to prove our main theorem, we need to leverage important properties of the non-asymptotic quantities in binary hypothesis testing and we also need to construct so-called [*simulating output distributions*]{}. These preliminaries are contained in Section \[sectionPrelim\]. The details of the proof of Theorem \[thmMainResult\] are provided in Section \[sectionMainResult\].
Preliminaries for the Proof of Theorem \[thmMainResult\] {#sectionPrelim}
========================================================
Binary Hypothesis Testing {#sectionBHT}
-------------------------
The following definition concerning the non-asymptotic fundamental limits of a simple binary hypothesis test is standard. See for example [@Pol10 Section 2.3].
\[defBHTDivergence\] Let $p_{X}$ and $q_{X}$ be two probability distributions on some common alphabet $\mathcal{X}$. Let $$\mathcal{A}(\{0,1\}|\mathcal{X})\triangleq \{
r_{Z|X}: \text{$Z$ and $X$ assume values in $\{0,1\}$ and $\mathcal{X}$ respectively}\}$$ be the set of randomized binary hypothesis tests between $p_{X}$ and $q_{X}$ where $\{Z=0\}$ indicates the test chooses $q_X$, and let $\delta\in [0,1]$ be a real number. The minimum type-II error in a simple binary hypothesis test between $p_{X}$ and $q_{X}$ with type-I error no larger than $1-\delta$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\delta}(p_X\|q_X) \triangleq
\inf\limits_{\substack{r_{Z|X} \in \mathcal{A}(\{0,1\}|\mathcal{X}): \\ \int_{x\in \mathcal{X}}r_{Z|X}(1|x)p_X(x)\, \mathrm{d}x\ge \delta}} \int_{x\in \mathcal{X}}r_{Z|X}(1|x)q_X(x)\, \mathrm{d}x.\label{eqDefISDivergence}\end{aligned}$$
The existence of a minimizing test $r_{Z|X}$ is guaranteed by the Neyman-Pearson lemma.
We state in the following lemma and proposition some important properties of $\beta_{\delta}(p_X\|q_X)$, which are crucial for the proof of Theorem \[thmMainResult\]. The proof of the following lemma can be found in, for example, Wang-Colbeck-Renner [@Wang2009 Lemma 1].
\[lemmaDPI\] Let $p_{X}$ and $q_{X}$ be two probability distributions on some $\mathcal{X}$, and let $g$ be a function whose domain contains $\mathcal{X}$. Then, the following two statements hold:
1. (Data processing inequality (DPI)) $\beta_{\delta}(p_X\|q_X) \le \beta_{\delta}(p_{g(X)}\|q_{g(X)})$.
2. For all $\xi>0$, $\beta_{\delta}(p_X\|q_X)\ge \frac{1}{\xi}\left(\delta - \int_{x\in\mathcal{X}}p_X(x) \boldsymbol{1}\left(\left\{ \frac{p_X(x)}{q_X(x)} \ge \xi \right\}\right)\, \mathrm{d}x\right) $.
The proof of the following proposition can be also be found in Wang-Colbeck-Renner [@Wang2009 Lemma 3].
\[propositionBHTLowerBound\] Let $p_{U,V}$ be a probability distribution defined on $\mathcal{W}\times \mathcal{W}$ for some finite alphabet $\mathcal{W}$, and let $p_U$ be the marginal distribution of $p_{U,V}$. In addition, let $q_{V}$ be a distribution defined on $\mathcal{W}$. Suppose $p_{U}$ is the uniform distribution, and let $$\alpha = \Pr\{U\ne V\} \label{defAlpha}$$ be a real number in $[0, 1)$ where $(U,V)$ is distributed according to $p_{U,V}$. Then, $$|\mathcal{W}| \le 1/\beta_{1-\alpha}(p_{U,V}\|p_{U} q_{V}). \label{propositionBHTLowerBoundEq1}$$
Simulating Output Distribution {#sectionSimulatingDistribution}
------------------------------
Proposition \[propositionBHTLowerBound\] and Statement 2 of Lemma \[lemmaDPI\] together imply a lower bound for the error probability, and the lower bound holds for all $q_V$. Therefore, we are motivated to choose a *simulating output distribution* $q_V$ which is almost the same as the output distribution chosen in [@Pol10 Section 4.2.2] so that the right hand side of can be simplified. The construction of the simulating output distribution is contained in the following lemma.
\[lemmaSimulatingDistribution\] Given an $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code for the AWGN channel, let $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ be the probability distribution induced by the code according to . Then there exists a probability distribution $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ that satisfies the following properties:
1. $s_{\hat W|Y^n} = p_{\hat W|Y^n}$
2. $s_{Y^n} = \prod_{k=1}^n s_{Y_k}$
3. For each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, $s_{Y_k}(y_k) = \phi_{0, 1+P}(y_k)$ for all $y_k\in \mathbb{R}$.
We call $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ a *simulating output distribution of $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$* because $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ captures all the important properties of $(Y^n, \hat W)$ when $(W, X^n, Y^n, \hat W)$ is generated according to the given probability distribution $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$.
Define $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ as $$s_{Y^n, \hat W}(y^n, \hat w)= \left( \prod_{k=1}^n \phi_{0, 1+P}(y_k) \right) p_{\hat W|Y^n}(\hat w|y^n) \label{marginal2ndWay}$$ for all $\hat W \in \mathcal{W}$ and $y^n\in \mathbb{R}^n$. In order to prove Property (i), we marginalize and obtain $$s_{Y^n}(y^n)= \prod_{k=1}^n \phi_{0, 1+P}(y_k) \label{marginal3rdWay}$$ for all $y^n\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Property (i) then follows from and . Property (iii) follows from marginalizing . Property (ii) follows from and Property (iii).
Proof of Theorem \[thmMainResult\] {#sectionMainResult}
==================================
Lower Bounding the Error Probability in Terms of the Type-II Error of a Hypothesis Test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix an $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ and choose an arbitrary sequence of $(\bar n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback codes for the AWGN channel with feedback. Using Definition \[defCode\], we have $$\Pr\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{\bar n}X_{k}^2 \le \bar nP\right\} = 1 \label{powerConstraintInProof}$$ for the $(\bar n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code for each $\bar n\in \mathbb{N}$. Given the $(\bar n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code, we can always construct an $(\bar n + 1, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code by appending a carefully chosen $X_{\bar n+1}$ to each transmitted codeword $X^{\bar n}$ generated by the $(\bar n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code such that $$\Pr\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{\bar n+1}X_{k}^2 = (\bar n+1)P\right\} = 1. \label{powerConstraintInProofnBar}$$ The technique of transforming the peak power inequality constraint to a power equality constraint by appending an extra symbol has been employed in [@PPV10 Lemma 39] and [@TanBook Theorem 4.4] (and is called the Yaglom map trick). To simplify notation, we let $n=\bar n+1$. Let $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ be the probability distribution induced by the $(n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code constructed above for each $n\in\{2, 3, \ldots\}$, where $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ is obtained according to . In view of , we assume without loss of generality that $$p_{W,X^n, Y^n}(w,x^n, y^n) = p_{W,X^n, Y^n}(w,x^n, y^n)\mathbf{1}\left(\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2 = nP\right\}\right) \label{powerConstraintCharacteristicFunction}$$ for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$, $x^n\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $y^n\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Fix an $(n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code. Let $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ be a simulating output distribution of $p_{W,X^n, Y^n, \hat W}$ such that $s_{Y^n, \hat W}$ satisfies all the properties in Lemma \[lemmaSimulatingDistribution\]. Then, it follows from Proposition \[propositionBHTLowerBound\] and Definition \[defCode\] with the identifications $U\equiv W$, $V\equiv \hat W$, $p_{U,V}\equiv p_{W,\hat W}$, $q_V\equiv s_{\hat W}$, $|\mathcal{W}|\equiv M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P)$ and $\alpha\equiv \Pr\{\hat W \ne W\} \le \varepsilon$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_{W,\hat W}\|p_W s_{\hat W}) \le \beta_{1-\alpha}(p_{W,\hat W}\|p_W s_{\hat W}) \le 1/M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P). \label{eqnBHTReverseChain}
\end{aligned}$$
Using the DPI to Introduce the Channel Input and Output
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following chain of inequalities: $$\begin{aligned}
& \beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_{W,\hat W}\|p_W s_{\hat W}) \notag\\
& =\beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_W p_{\hat W|W}\|p_W s_{\hat W}) \notag\\
&\stackrel{\text{(a)}}{\ge} \beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_Wp_{\hat W, Y^n|W}\|p_W s_{\hat W, Y^n}) \notag\\
& = \beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_Wp_{Y^n|W}p_{\hat W|Y^n, W}\|p_Ws_{Y^n} s_{\hat W|Y^n}) \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{=} \beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_W p_{Y^n|W}p_{\hat W|Y^n, W}\|p_W s_{Y^n} p_{\hat W|Y^n}) \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(c)}}{=}\beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_W p_{Y^n|W}p_{\hat W|Y^n}\|p_W s_{Y^n} p_{\hat W|Y^n}) \notag\\
&\stackrel{\text{(d)}}{\ge} \beta_{1-\varepsilon}\left(p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n}p_{X^n,Y^n|W}\left\|p_Wp_{\hat W|Y^n} s_{Y^n}\prod_{k=1}^n p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}\right.\right) \label{eqnBHTFirstChain}\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follows from the DPI of $\beta_{1-\varepsilon}$ by introducing the channel output $Y^n$.
2. follows from Property (i) in Lemma \[lemmaSimulatingDistribution\].
3. follows from the fact that $$W \rightarrow Y^n \rightarrow \hat W$$ forms a Markov chain for the $(n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code (cf. Definition \[defCode\]).
4. follows from the DPI of $\beta_{1-\varepsilon}$ by introducing the channel input $X^n$.
Obtaining a Non-Asymptotic Bound from the Binary Hypothesis Testing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Following , we marginalize and obtain $$p_{W, X^n , Y^n} =p_W \prod_{k=1}^n (p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X_k})$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{X^n , Y^n|W} =\prod_{k=1}^n (p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X_k}). \label{eqnBHTFirstChain*}
\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \beta_{1-\varepsilon}(p_{W,\hat W}\|p_W s_{\hat W}) \notag\\
& \ge \beta_{1-\varepsilon}\left(p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n}\prod_{k=1}^n (p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X_k})\left\|p_{\hat W|Y^n} p_W s_{Y^n} \prod_{k=1}^n ( p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W} )\right.\right) \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} \beta_{1-\varepsilon}\left(p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n}\prod_{k=1}^n (p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X_k})\left\|p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n} \prod_{k=1}^n ( p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W} s_{Y_k})\right.\right) \label{eqnBHT5thChain}
\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from Property (ii) in Lemma \[lemmaSimulatingDistribution\]. Fix any constant $\xi_n>0$ to be specified later. Using Lemma \[lemmaDPI\] and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{1-\varepsilon}\left(p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n}\prod_{k=1}^n (p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W}p_{Y_k|X_k})\left\|p_W p_{\hat W|Y^n} \prod_{k=1}^n ( p_{X_k|Y^{k-1}, W} s_{Y_k})\right.\right) \notag\\
&\ge \frac{1}{\xi_n}\left(1-\varepsilon - \int_{w, x^n, y^n}p_{W, X^n, Y^n}(w, x^n, y^n) \boldsymbol{1}\left(\left\{\prod_{k=1}^n \frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(y_k|x_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(y_k)} \ge \xi_n \right\}\right)\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n \, \mathrm{d}w\right). \label{eqnBHTThirdChain}\end{aligned}$$ Combining , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P)\notag\\
& \le \log\xi_n - \log\left(1-\varepsilon - \int_{w,x^n, y^n}p_{W,X^n, Y^n}(w,x^n, y^n) \boldsymbol{1}\left(\left\{\sum_{k=1}^n \log\frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(y_k|x_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(y_k)} \ge \log\xi_n \right\}\right)\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n \, \mathrm{d}w\right) \notag\\
& = \log\xi_n - \log\left(1-\varepsilon - \Pr_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n \log\frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(Y_{k}|X_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(Y_{k})} \ge \log\xi_n \right\}\right) \notag\\
& = \log\xi_n - \log\left(\Pr_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n \log\frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(Y_{k}|X_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(Y_{k})} < \log\xi_n \right\}-\varepsilon\right).\label{eqnBHTSecondChain}\end{aligned}$$
Simplifying the Non-Asymptotic Bound
------------------------------------
The channel law is $$p_{Y_k|X_k}(y_{k}|x_{k}) = \phi_{0,1}(y_k-x_k) \label{memorylessStatement++}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. Combining and Property (iii) in Lemma \[lemmaSimulatingDistribution\], we have $$\log\frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(Y_{k}|X_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(Y_{k})} = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+P)+ \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}\left(-P(Y_k-X_k)^2 + X_k^2 + 2X_k(Y_k-X_k)\right) \label{defLogLikelihood}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. Due to the power equality constraint imposed on the codewords, we have $$\Pr_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}}\left\{ \sum_{k=1}^n X_k^2 = nP \right\} \stackrel{\eqref{powerConstraintInProofnBar}}{=}1. \label{powerConstraintInProofn}$$ Letting $$U_k \triangleq \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-P(Y_k-X_k)^2 + 2X_k(Y_k-X_k)+P) \label{defUk}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, it follows from and that $$\Pr_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}}\left\{\sum_{k=1}^n \log\frac{p_{Y_k|X_k}(Y_{k}|X_{k})}{s_{Y_{k}}(Y_{k})} =\frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) + \sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right\}=1.\label{expectationSumUk}$$ Combining and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) \le \log\xi_n - \log\left(\Pr_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n U_k < \log\xi_n - \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) \right\}-\varepsilon\right). \label{eqnBHT6thChain}\end{aligned}$$
Evaluating the Distribution of the Sum of Random Variables $\sum_{k=1}^n U_k$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to simplify , we now investigate the distribution of the sum of random variables $\sum_{k=1}^n U_k$. Note that if the AWGN channel has no feedback, it follows from spherical symmetry [@Pol10 Section 4.2.2] of the AWGN channel that the evaluation of $\eqref{eqnBHT6thChain}$ can be simplified by assuming without loss of generality that $$(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n) = (\sqrt{P}, \sqrt{P}, \ldots, \sqrt{P}). \label{powerAssumption}$$ Surprisingly in the feedback case, we will show in the following that the distribution of $\sum_{k=1}^n U_k$ can be evaluated in closed form. We need not appeal to any sophisticated Berry-Esséen-type results for bounded martingale difference sequences [@Machkouri] as was done by Altuğ and Wagner for discrete memoryless channels in [@AW14]. The evaluation of $\eqref{eqnBHT6thChain}$ is as simple as the no-feedback case. Define the function $
\lambda: \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}
$ $$\lambda(x, y)= -P(y-x)^2 + 2 x(y-x). \label{defLambda}$$ We begin evaluating the distribution of $\sum_{k=1}^n U_k$ by examining the distribution of $\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k, Y_k)$ (cf. ) as follows. Let $$\E_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k, Y_k)}\right] \label{momentGenPartialUk}$$ be the moment generating function of $\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k, Y_k)$. In order to evaluate a closed form expression for , we write $$\begin{aligned}
&\E_{p_{W, X^n, Y^n}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k, Y_k)}\right] \notag\\
&= \int_{w, x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{W, X^{n}, Y^{n}}(w, x^{n},y^{n})e^{t\sum_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n\, \mathrm{d}w \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{powerConstraintCharacteristicFunction}}{=} \int_{w, x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{W, X^{n}, Y^{n}}(w, x^{n},y^{n}) \mathbf{1}\left(\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2 = nP\right\}\right) e^{t\sum_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n\, \mathrm{d}w \notag\\
& = \int\limits_{w, x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{W, X^{n}, Y^{n}}(w, x^{n},y^{n}) \mathbf{1}\left(\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2 = nP\right\}\right) e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right)+\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2\right)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n\, \mathrm{d}w \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{powerConstraintCharacteristicFunction}}{=} \int\limits_{w, x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{W, X^{n}, Y^{n}}(w, x^{n},y^{n}) e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right)+\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2\right)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n\, \mathrm{d}w \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{W}|}\sum\limits_{w\in \mathcal{W}}\int_{x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{X^{n}, Y^{n}|W}(x^{n},y^{n}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right)+\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2\right)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n \label{eqnBHT4thChain}\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from Definition \[defCode\] that $W$ is uniform on $\mathcal{W}$. Following , consider the following chain of equalities for each $w\in \mathcal{W}$ and each $\ell\in \{0, 1, \ldots, n-2\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \int\limits_{x^{n-\ell}, y^{n-\ell}} p(x^{n-\ell},y^{n-\ell}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell}x_k^2\right)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-\ell} \notag\\
& = \int\limits_{x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}} p(x^{n-\ell-1},y^{n-\ell-1}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1}x_k^2\right)} \notag\\
& \qquad \times
\int\limits_{x_{n-\ell}, y_{n-\ell}} p(x_{n-\ell},y_{n-\ell}|w, x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}) e^{t\lambda(x_{n-\ell},y_{n-\ell}) -\frac{2t^2x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP} }\, \mathrm{d}y_{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}x_{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}y^{n-\ell-1} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-\ell-1}\notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} \int\limits_{x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}} p(x^{n-\ell-1},y^{n-\ell-1}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1}x_k^2\right)} \notag\\
& \qquad \times
\int\limits_{x_{n-\ell}} p(x_{n-\ell}|w,x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}) e^{\frac{-2t^2 x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP}} \notag\\
&\qquad \times \int\limits_{y_{n-\ell}} \phi_{0,1}(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell}) e^{t \lambda(x_{n-\ell},y_{n-\ell})}\, \mathrm{d}y_{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}x_{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}y^{n-\ell-1} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-\ell-1}\notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{=} \int\limits_{x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}} p(x^{n-\ell-1},y^{n-\ell-1}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1}x_k^2\right)} \notag\\
& \qquad \times
\int\limits_{x_{n-\ell}} p(x_{n-\ell}|w,x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}) e^{\frac{-2t^2 x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP}} \notag\\
&\qquad \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2tP}}e^{\frac{2t^2x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP}} \, \mathrm{d}x_{n-\ell} \, \mathrm{d}y^{n-\ell-1} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-\ell-1}\notag\\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2tP}}\int\limits_{x^{n-\ell-1}, y^{n-\ell-1}} p(x^{n-\ell-1},y^{n-\ell-1}|w)e^{t\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1} \lambda(x_k,y_k)\right) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n-\ell-1}x_k^2\right)} \, \mathrm{d}y^{n-\ell-1} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-\ell-1} \label{reverseInductionStep1}
\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follows from and .
2. follows from evaluating the integral $$\begin{aligned}
& \int\limits_{y_{n-\ell}} \phi_{0,1}(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell}) e^{t \lambda(x_{n-\ell},y_{n-\ell})}\, \mathrm{d}y_{n-\ell} \\*
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int\limits_{y_{n-\ell}} e^{- (y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell})^2/2}e^{t(-P(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell})^2+2 x_{n-\ell}(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell}) ) }\, \mathrm{d}y_{n-\ell} \\
&=\int\limits_{z}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-z^2/2}e^{t ( -Pz^2 + 2 x_{n-\ell} z)}\, \mathrm{d}z \\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{\frac{1}{2} + tP}}e^{ \frac{(2tx_{n-\ell})^2 }{4 \left(\frac{1}{2}+tP\right)}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2tP}}e^{\frac{2t^2x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP}}\end{aligned}$$ by using the definition of $\lambda(\cdot,\cdot)$ in and the substitution $$\phi_{0,1}(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-(y_{n-\ell}-x_{n-\ell})^2/2}.$$
Applying recursively from $\ell=0$ to $\ell=n-2$, we have for each $w\in\mathcal{W}$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{X^{n}, Y^{n}|W}(x^{n},y^{n}|w)e^{t(\sum_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (nP - \sum_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n \notag\\
& = {(1+2tP)}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{x^{n-1}, y^{n-1}} p_{X^{n-1}, Y^{n-1}|W}(x^{n-1},y^{n-1}|w)e^{t(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \lambda(x_k,y_k)) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (n P - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x_k^2)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^{n-1} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-1} \notag\\
& ={(1+2tP)}^{-1}\int_{x^{n-2}, y^{n-2}} p_{X^{n-2}, Y^{n-2}|W}(x^{n-2},y^{n-2}|w)e^{t(\sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \lambda(x_k,y_k)) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} ( nP - \sum_{k=1}^{n-2}x_k^2)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^{n-2} \, \mathrm{d}x^{n-2} \notag\\
&\:\:\: \vdots\notag\\
& = {(1+2tP)}^{-\frac{n-1}{2}} \int_{x_1, y_1} p_{X_1, Y_1|W}(x_1,y_1|w) e^{t\lambda(x_1,y_1) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (nP - x_1^2)}
\, \mathrm{d}y_1 \, \mathrm{d}x_1,
\label{reverseInductionStep2}\end{aligned}$$ where the $k^{\text{th}}$ equality follows from for $\ell=k-1$. Following , we consider the following chain of equalities for each $w\in \mathcal{W}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{x_1, y_1} p_{X_1, Y_1|W}(x_1,y_1|w) e^{t\lambda(x_1,y_1) +\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (nP - x_1^2)}
\, \mathrm{d}y_1 \, \mathrm{d}x_1 \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{memorylessStatement*}}{=} \int_{x_1} p_{X_1|W}(x_1|w) e^{\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (nP - x_1^2)} \int_{y_1} p_{Y_1|X_1}(y_1|x_1) e^{t\lambda(x_1,y_1)}
\, \mathrm{d}y_1 \, \mathrm{d}x_1 \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{memorylessStatement++}}{=} \int_{x_1} p_{X_1|W}(x_1|w) e^{\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} (nP - x_1^2)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+2tP)}} e^{\frac{2t^2x_1^2}{1+2tP}}
\, \mathrm{d}x_1 \notag\\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+2tP)}} e^{\frac{2t^2nP}{1+2tP}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies from that $$\int_{x^{n}, y^{n}} p_{X^{n}, Y^{n}|W}(x^{n},y^{n}|w)e^{t\sum_{k=1}^{n} \lambda(x_k,y_k)}
\, \mathrm{d}y^n \, \mathrm{d}x^n = {(1+2tP)}^{-\frac{n}{2}} e^{\frac{2t^2nP}{1+2tP}}.\label{reverseInductionStep3}$$ Combining and , we have $$\E_{p_{W,X^n, Y^n}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k,Y_k)}\right] = {(1+2tP)}^{-\frac{n}{2}} e^{\frac{2t^2nP}{1+2tP}}. \label{momentGenSumXkZk}$$ Let $\{Z_k\}_{k=1}^n$ be $n$ independent copies of the standard Gaussian random variable. A straightforward calculation reveals that $$\E_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n (-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k)}\right] = {(1+2tP)}^{-\frac{n}{2}} e^{\frac{2t^2nP}{1+2tP}}. \label{momentGenSumXkZk*}$$ Therefore, $$\E_{p_{W,X^n, Y^n}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k,Y_k)}\right] = \E_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}}\left[e^{t\sum_{k=1}^n (-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k)}\right] \label{momentGenSumXkZk**}$$ by and , i.e., the moment generating functions of $\sum_{k=1}^n (-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k)$ and $\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k,Y_k)$ are equal. It then follows that the probability distributions of $\sum_{k=1}^n (-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k)$ and $\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda(X_k,Y_k)$ are equal, which implies from and that the probability distributions of $\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k+P)$ and $\sum_{k=1}^n U_k$ are equal, which then implies from that $$\begin{aligned}
&\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) \notag\\
&\le \log\xi_n - \log\Bigg(\Pr_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k+P) < \log\xi_n - \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) \right\}-\varepsilon \Bigg). \label{eqnBHT7thChain}\end{aligned}$$
Applying the Berry-Esséen Theorem
---------------------------------
Although the remaining steps for simplifying are standard (cf. [@Pol10 Theorem 74] and [@TanBook Theorem 4.4]), we include them for completeness. We define the mean of the random variable in as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu &\triangleq \E_{p_{Z_1}}\left[\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_1^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_1+P)\right] \\
& =0,\end{aligned}$$ the standard deviation as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma & \triangleq \sqrt{\Var_{p_{Z_1}}\left[\left(\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_1^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_1+P)\right)^2\right]} \notag\\
&=\sqrt{\frac{P(P+2)(\log e)^2}{2(1+P)^2}} \label{defSigma}\end{aligned}$$ and the third absolute moment as $$T\triangleq \E_{p_{Z_1}}\left[\left|\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_1^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_1+P)\right|^3\right]. \label{defT}
%& = \left(\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}\right)^3(15(P+1)^3 + 18P(P+1)^2 + 12P^2(P+1)+ 8P^3),$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
T^{1/3}& \stackrel{\eqref{defT}}{=} \left(\E_{p_{Z_1}}\left[\left|\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_1^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_1+P)\right|^3\right]\right)^{1/3}\notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{\le} \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}\left(P\left(\E_{p_{Z_1}}\left[Z_1^6\right]\right)^{1/3}+2\sqrt{P}\left(\E_{p_{Z_1}}\left[|Z_1|^3\right]\right)^{1/3}+P\right)\notag\\
& = \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}\left(15^{1/3}P+2(2\sqrt{2/\pi})^{1/3} \sqrt{P}+P\right)\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the triangle inequality for the $3$-norm, it follows that $T$ is finite. Using and and applying Berry-Esséen theorem for i.i.d. random variables [@feller Section XVI.5], we have the following bound for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{a\in\mathbb{R}}\left|\Pr_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}}\left\{\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{n}}\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}( -PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k+P) \le a\right\} - \Phi(a) \right| \le \frac{T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies by choosing $a= \Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon +\frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}}\left\{\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{n}}\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}( -PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k+P) <\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right)\right\} > \varepsilon + \frac{T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\,. \label{BerryEsseenSt1}\end{aligned}$$ Following and letting $$\xi_n \triangleq \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\sqrt{n}\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right),$$ we can express as $$\begin{aligned}
&\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) \notag\\
&\le \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\sqrt{n}\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right) \notag\\
& \qquad - \log\Bigg(\Pr_{\prod_{k=1}^n p_{Z_k}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\log e}{2(1+P)}(-PZ_k^2 + 2\sqrt{P}Z_k+P) <\sigma\sqrt{n}\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right) \right\}-\varepsilon \Bigg),\end{aligned}$$ which implies from that $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) < \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\sqrt{n}\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right) - \log \frac{T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\,. \label{eqnBHT8thChain}\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\Phi^{-1}\left(\varepsilon + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}}\right) = \Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{2T}{\sigma^3 \sqrt{n}} \left(\Phi^{-1}\right)^\prime(c)$$ for some $c\in [\varepsilon, 2T/\sigma^3]$ by Taylor’s theorem, it follows from that there exists some real constant $$\bar \kappa \triangleq \frac{2T}{\sigma^2}\left(\Phi^{-1}\right)^\prime(c) -\log \frac{T}{\sigma^3} \label{defBarKappa}$$ that does not depend on $n$ (cf. and ) such that $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) < \frac{n}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\sqrt{n}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + \bar \kappa\,,$$ which implies by letting $$\kappa\triangleq \bar\kappa + \frac{1}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2} \label{defKappa}$$ that $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P) < \frac{n-1}{2}\log(1+P) + \sigma\sqrt{n-1}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log (n-1) + \kappa \, \label{eqnBHT9thChain}$$ for $n\ge 2$. Combining , , , , and , we have .
Parallel Gaussian Channels with Feedback {#sectionParallelAWGNChannel}
========================================
Problem Setup and Main Result
-----------------------------
We consider the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback [@CoverBook Section 9.4] consisting of $L$ independent AWGN channels. Let $\mathcal{L}\triangleq \{1, 2, \ldots, L\}$ be the index set for the $L$ channels. For each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ and each $\ell\in \mathcal{L}$ the channel law is described as follows: In time slot $k$, the source node $\mathrm{s}$ transmits $X_{\ell,k}$ on the $\ell^{\text{th}}$ channel and the corresponding channel output denoted by $Y_{\ell,k}$ is $$Y_{\ell,k} = X_{\ell,k} + Z_{\ell,k},$$ where $\{Z_{\ell,k}\}_{\substack{k \in \{1, 2, \ldots, n\},\ell \in \mathcal{L}}}$ are independent zero-mean Gaussian random variables such that the variance of $Z_{\ell,k}$ is $\sigma_\ell^2>0$. We assume that a noiseless feedback link from the destination node $\rm d$ to the source node $\rm s$ exists so that $(W, \{Y_\ell^{k-1}\}_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}})$ is available for encoding $\{X_{\ell,k}\}_{\ell\in \mathcal{L}}$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. The codewords $\{X_{\ell}^n\}_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}$ transmitted by $\mathrm{s}$ should satisfy the peak power constraint $\sum_{\ell=1}^L \sum_{k=1}^n X_{\ell,k}^2 \le n P$, where $P>0$ denotes the permissible power for $(X_1^n, X_2^n, \ldots, X_L^n)$. In other words, $\Pr\{\sum_{\ell=1}^L \sum_{k=1}^n X_{\ell,k}^2 \le n P\}=1$. An $(n, M, P)$-feedback code for the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback is defined in a similar way to Definition \[defCode\]. To keep notation compact, let $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y}$ denote the random vectors $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_L)$ and $(Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_L)$ respectively, and let $\mathbf{x}\triangleq (x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_L)$ and $\mathbf{y}\triangleq (y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_L)$ be realizations of $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y}$ respectively. The parallel Gaussian channels with feedback is characterized by the conditional probability density function $q_{\boldsymbol{Y}|\boldsymbol{X}}$ satisfying $$q_{\boldsymbol{Y}|\boldsymbol{X}}(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})\triangleq \prod_{\ell=1}^L \phi_{0,\sigma_\ell^2}(y_\ell-x_\ell) \label{defAWGNchannelParallel}$$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^L$ and $\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^L$. The formal definitions of the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback and the corresponding $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code are similar to Definitions \[defAWGNchannel\] and \[defErrorProbability\] respectively, and hence they are omitted. We will use the following proposition concerning noise random variables extensively. The proof of the proposition can be established in a standard way using and hence is omitted.
\[propositionIndepNoises\] Fix any $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code and let $p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n, \hat W}$ denote the probability distribution induced by the code. Then, the following two statements hold for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$:
1. $
p_{\boldsymbol{X}^k, \boldsymbol{Y}^{k-1},\{Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k}\}_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}} = p_{\boldsymbol{X}^k, \boldsymbol{Y}^{k-1}} \prod_{\ell=1}^L p_{Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k}}$.
2. For each $\ell\in \mathcal{L}$, $\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}[Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k}]=0$ and $\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}[(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2]=\sigma_\ell^2$.
The capacity of the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback is well-known and is achieved by the optimal power allocation among the $L$ channels obtained from the water-filling algorithm [@CoverBook Chapter 9.4], which yields $L+1$ real numbers denoted by $\Lambda$, $P_1$, $P_2$, $\ldots$, $P_L$ that satisfy $$\sum_{\ell=1}^L P_\ell = P \label{condition(i)}$$ and $$P_\ell = \max\{0,\Lambda - \sigma_\ell^2\} \label{condition(ii)}$$ for each $\ell\in \mathcal{L}$. Recalling the definitions of $\mathrm{C}(P)$ in , we let $$\mathrm{C}_L(P) \triangleq \sum_{\ell=1}^L \mathrm{C}(P_\ell/\sigma_\ell^2) \qquad\mbox{bits per channel use} \label{defCPparallel}$$ be the capacity of the parallel Gaussian channels [@CoverBook Chapter 9.4]. The following theorem states an upper bound on the first- and second-order asymptotics for the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback.
\[thmMainResultParallel\] Fix an $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ and let $$M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P,L) \triangleq \max\left\{M \left|\: \parbox[c]{3.1 in}{There exists an $(n, M, P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code for the parallel Gaussian channels consisting of~$L$ independent channels with noise variances $(\sigma_1^2,\ldots,\sigma_L^2)$}\right.\right\}.$$ Recall that the values $\Lambda$, $P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_L$ and $\mathrm{C}_L(P)$ are determined by , and . There exists a constant $\kappa$ not depending on $n$ such that for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P,L) \le n \mathrm{C}_L(P) + \kappa\sqrt{n}. \label{cutsetStatementParallel}$$
Strong Converse
---------------
It was shown in Tan and Tomamichel’s work [@TanTom13a Appendix A] that for each $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, there exists a constant $\hat \kappa$ (not depending on $n$) such that $$\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P,L) \ge n \mathrm{C}_L(P) + \sqrt{n\mathrm{V}_L(P)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + \hat \kappa, \label{cutsetStatementParallelAch}$$ where $\mathrm{C}_L(P)$ was defined in and $$\mathrm{V}_L(P) \triangleq \sum_{\ell=1}^L \mathrm{V}(P_\ell/\sigma_\ell^2) \qquad\mbox{bits$^2$ per channel use} \label{defVPparallel}$$ denotes the dispersion of the parallel Gaussian channels without feedback (first proved by Polyanskiy [@Pol10 Theorem 78]). Theorem \[thmMainResultParallel\] together with imply that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P,L)=\mathrm{C}_L(P)$$ for all $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$. Since the limit of the normalized logarithm of the code sizes exists and does not depend on $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, the strong converse is established for the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback.
Proof of Theorem \[thmMainResultParallel\]
------------------------------------------
Fix an $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ and choose an arbitrary sequence of $(\bar n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(\bar n, \varepsilon, P,L), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback codes for the parallel Gaussian channels with feedback. Letting $n=\bar n+1$ and following similar procedures for proving at the start of the proof of Theorem \[thmMainResult\], we obtain a sequence of $(n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P,L), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback codes with $$\Pr\left\{\sum_{\ell=1}^L \sum_{k=1}^n X_{\ell,k}^2 = n P\right\}=1 \label{powerEqualityParallel}$$ such that the following inequality holds for each $n\in \{2, 3, \ldots\}$ and each $\xi_n >0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P,L)\notag\\
& \le \log\xi_n - \log\left(\Pr_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n \log\frac{p_{\boldsymbol{Y}_k|\boldsymbol{X}_k}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{k}|\boldsymbol{X}_{k})}{s_{\boldsymbol{Y}_{k}}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{k})} < \log\xi_n \right\}-\varepsilon\right),\label{eqnBHTSecondChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}$ denotes the probability distribution induced by the $(n, M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P,L), P, \varepsilon)$-feedback code, and $s_{\boldsymbol{Y}_{k}}$ is defined for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ as $$s_{\boldsymbol{Y}_{k}}(\mathbf{y}_{k})=\prod_{\ell=1}^L \phi_{0, P_\ell + \sigma_\ell^2}(y_{\ell,k}) \label{defsYkParallel}$$ for all $\mathbf{y}_{k}$. The channel law is $$p_{\boldsymbol{Y}_k|\boldsymbol{X}_k}(\mathbf{y}_k|\mathbf{x}_k)=\prod_{\ell=1}^L \phi_{0,\sigma_\ell^2}(y_{\ell,k}-x_{\ell,k}) \label{memorylessStatement++parallel}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. Combining and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \log\frac{p_{\boldsymbol{Y}_k|\boldsymbol{X}_k}(\boldsymbol{Y}_k|\boldsymbol{X}_k)}{s_{\boldsymbol{Y}_k}(\boldsymbol{Y}_k)} \notag\\
& = \sum_{\ell=1}^L \left( \frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}\right)+ \frac{\log e}{2(\sigma_\ell^2+P_\ell)}\left(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + X_{\ell,k}^2 + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right)\right)\notag\\
&\stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=}\sum_{\ell=1}^L \left( \frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}\right)+ \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\left(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + X_{\ell,k}^2 + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right)\right) \label{defLogLikelihoodParallel}\end{aligned}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, where (a) follows from . Following , we define the function $\lambda: \mathbb{R}^4 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\lambda(P, \sigma^2, x,y)\triangleq \frac{-P}{\sigma^2}(y-x)^2 + P + 2x(y-x) \label{defLambdaEllParallel}$$ and let $$U_{k} \triangleq \sum_{\ell=1}^L \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}) \label{defUkParallel}$$ for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. It then follows from , and that $$\Pr_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left\{\sum_{k=1}^n U_{k}= \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \left(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + X_{\ell,k}^2 + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right)\right\}=1,$$ which implies from , and that $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P,L)\le \log\xi_n - \log\left(\Pr_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}} \left\{\sum_{k=1}^n U_{k} < \frac{2\Lambda(\log\xi_n - n \mathrm{C}_L(P))}{\log e} \right\}-\varepsilon\right).\label{eqnBHT3rdChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ In the rest of the proof, we would like to use Chebyshev’s inequality to bound the probability term in . To this end, we will evaluate in the following $$\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^n U_k \right]\stackrel{\eqref{defUkParallel}}{=}\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}) \right] \label{evaluateExpSumUk1st}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\Var_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k \right] \notag\\*
& \stackrel{\eqref{defUkParallel}}{=}\Var_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}) \right]\notag\\
& = \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \sum_{\ell^\prime =1}^L \Cov\left[ \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}), \lambda(P_{\ell^\prime}, \sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2, x_{\ell^\prime,m},y_{\ell^\prime,m}) \right] \notag\\
& = \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \Var_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}) \right] + \sum_{(m, \ell^\prime)\ne (k, \ell)}\Cov\left[ \lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k}), \lambda(P_{\ell^\prime}, \sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2, x_{\ell^\prime,m},y_{\ell^\prime,m}) \right]. \label{evaluateVarSumUk1st}
\end{aligned}$$ Following , we consider the following chain of equalities for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ and each $\ell\in \mathcal{L}$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\lambda(P_\ell,\sigma_\ell^2,X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k})\right] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{defLambdaEllParallel}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + P_\ell + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{=} 2 \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ X_{\ell,k}\right]\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k}\right] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(c)}}{=}0, \label{evaluateExpSumUk2nd}\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follow from Statement (ii) in Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\].
2. follows from Statement (i) in Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\].
3. follows from Statement (ii) in Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\].
Combining and , we have $$\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^n U_k \right] = 0. \label{expectationUkParallel}$$ In addition, following , we consider the following chain of equalities for each $\ell$, $\ell^\prime$, $k$ and $m$ such that $(\ell^\prime, m) \ne (\ell, k)$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[\lambda(P_\ell,\sigma_\ell^2,X_{\ell,k} ,Y_{\ell,k}) \lambda(P_{\ell^\prime},\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2,X_{\ell^\prime,m} ,Y_{\ell^\prime,m}) \Bigg] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{defLambdaEllParallel}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[\Bigg(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + P_\ell + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\Bigg) \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \times \Bigg(\frac{-P_{\ell^\prime}}{\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})^2 + P_{\ell^\prime} + 2X_{\ell^\prime,m}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})\Bigg)\Bigg] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\left(\frac{-P_{\ell^\prime}}{\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})^2 + P_{\ell^\prime}\right) \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad + 2X_{\ell^\prime,m}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})\left(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + P_\ell\right)\notag\\
& \qquad \qquad + 4X_{\ell,k} X_{\ell^\prime,m}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})\Bigg] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{=} \begin{cases} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\right]\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[\frac{-P_{\ell^\prime}}{\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})^2 + P_{\ell^\prime} \Bigg] & \text{if $k\le m$,} \vspace{0.04 in} \\ \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[2X_{\ell^\prime,m}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})\right]\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[\frac{-P_{\ell}}{\sigma_{\ell}^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + P_{\ell} \Bigg] & \text{if $k>m$} \end{cases} \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(c)}}{=} 0, \label{ExpectationLambdakLambdamParallel}\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follows from Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\] that $$\E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\Bigg(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2+P_\ell\Bigg)\Bigg(\frac{-P_{\ell^\prime}}{\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2}(Y_{\ell^\prime,m}-X_{\ell^\prime,m})^2+P_{\ell^\prime}\Bigg)\right]=0.$$
2. follows from Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\] that:\
(i) If $k\le m$, $(Y_{{\ell^\prime},m}-X_{{\ell^\prime},m})$ is a zero-mean random variable that is independent of $(X_{\ell^\prime,m},X_{\ell,k}, Y_{\ell,k})$.\
(ii) If $k > m$, $(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})$ is a zero-mean random variable that is independent of $(X_{\ell,k} ,X_{\ell^\prime,m}, Y_{\ell^\prime,m})$.
3. follows from Statement (ii) in Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\].
Combining and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Big[\lambda(P_\ell,\sigma_\ell^2,X_{\ell,k} ,Y_{\ell,k}), \lambda(P_{\ell^\prime},\sigma_{\ell^\prime}^2,X_{\ell^\prime,m} ,Y_{\ell^\prime,m}) \Big] =0\end{aligned}$$ for all $(\ell^\prime, m) \ne (\ell, k)$, which implies from and that $$\begin{aligned}
\Var_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]= \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \left(\lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k})\right)^2 \right]. \label{varianceSumUkParallel}\end{aligned}$$ Following , we consider the following chain of equalities for each $k\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ and each $\ell\in \mathcal{L}$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \left(\lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k})\right)^2 \right] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{defLambdaEllParallel}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[\Bigg(\frac{-P_\ell}{\sigma_\ell^2}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})^2 + P_\ell + 2X_{\ell,k}(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})\Bigg)^2\Bigg] \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{=} \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\Bigg[2P_\ell^2 + 4 \sigma_\ell^2X_{\ell,k}^2\Bigg] \label{ExpectationUkUkParallel}\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from Proposition \[propositionIndepNoises\] that $(Y_{\ell,k}-X_{\ell,k})/\sigma_\ell$ is a standard Gaussian random variable independent of $X_{\ell,k}$. It then follows from and that $$\begin{aligned}
4nP \min_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\{\sigma_\ell^2\} <\sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^L \E_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[ \left(\lambda(P_\ell, \sigma_\ell^2, X_{\ell,k},Y_{\ell,k})\right)^2\right] \le 2n \sum_{\ell=1}^L P_\ell^2 + 4nP\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\{\sigma_\ell^2\}. \label{eqnBHT4thChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ Letting $$\tilde \kappa \triangleq 4\min_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\{\sigma_\ell^2\}P \label{defTildeKappaParallel}$$ and $$\bar \kappa \triangleq 2\sum_{\ell=1}^L P_\ell^2 + 4\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\{\sigma_\ell^2\}P \label{defBarKappaParallel}$$ be two positive real numbers, it follows from , , and that $$n \tilde \kappa<\Var_{p_{W, \boldsymbol{X}^n, \boldsymbol{Y}^n}}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right] \le n \bar \kappa. \label{eqnBHT5thChainParallel}$$ Omitting the distribution subscripts for probability, expectation and variance and letting $$\log\xi_n \triangleq n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]}\, ,$$ it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
&\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P,L)\notag\\
&\le n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]} - \log\left(1-\varepsilon - \Pr\left\{\sum_{k=1}^n U_{k} \ge \sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]}\right\}\right). \label{eqnBHT6thChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]}>0$ by , it follows from Chebyshev’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\left\{\sum_{k=1}^n U_{k} \ge \sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]}\right\} \le (1-\varepsilon)/2,\end{aligned}$$ which implies from that $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n-1, \varepsilon, P ,L)\le n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]} - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right). \label{eqnBHT7thChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\kappa\triangleq \frac{\log e}{\Lambda}\sqrt{\frac{2\bar \kappa}{1-\varepsilon}} - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right)+ \mathrm{C}_L(P) \label{defKappaParallel}$$ and continue the inequality in for $n\ge 2$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}\right)\Var\left[\sum_{k=1}^n U_k\right]} - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right) \notag\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{eqnBHT5thChainParallel}}{\le} n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\frac{2\bar \kappa n}{1-\varepsilon} } - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right) \notag\\
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{\le} n\mathrm{C}_L(P) + (\sqrt{n-1}+1)\frac{\log e}{2\Lambda}\sqrt{\frac{2\bar \kappa}{1-\varepsilon} } - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right) \notag\\
&\le (n-1)\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \sqrt{n-1}\left(\frac{\log e}{\Lambda}\sqrt{\frac{2\bar \kappa}{1-\varepsilon}} - \log\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}\right) + \mathrm{C}_L(P)\right) \notag\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{defKappaParallel}}{=} (n-1)\mathrm{C}_L(P) + \kappa\sqrt{n-1}, \label{eqnBHT8thChainParallel}\end{aligned}$$ where
1. follows from the fact that $\sqrt{n} \le \sqrt{n-1}+1$.
2. follows from our assumption $n\ge 2$ that $1\le \sqrt{n-1}$.
The theorem then follows from combining and .
Difficulties in Establishing the Exact Second-Order Asymptotics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the case for $L=1$ where we are able to provide a converse proof for , we fail to obtain a matching converse statement to for $L>1$. Instead, we can only conclude from Theorem \[thmMainResultParallel\] and that the second-order asymptotics in the asymptotic expansion of $\log M_{\mathrm{fb}}^*(n, \varepsilon, P,L)$ increases at a rate no faster than $\sqrt{n}$ (which is good enough for the purpose of the strong converse). The difficulty in obtaining a matching converse statement to for $L>1$ can be roughly explained as follows: For $L=1$, we can always assume without loss of generality that $\sigma_1^2=1$ and $P=P_1$, and the key equation to proving the reverse statement of is , which enables the insertion of $$e^{\frac{2t^2}{1+2tP} \left(nP - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}x_k^2\right)} \label{sumXk2=0whenL=1}$$ in the third equality of and the cancellation of $e^{\frac{2t^2x_{n-\ell}^2}{1+2tP}}$ in the last step of . Unfortunately for $L>1$, to prove the converse statement to , it appears to be necessary to ensure that the following is true: $$e^{\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^L\frac{2t^2 \sigma_\ell^2}{1+2tP_\ell}\left(nP_\ell - \sum\limits_{k=1}^n x_{\ell,k}^2\right)}=1 . \label{sumXk2=0whenL>1}$$ This requires the following $L$ equations to hold $$p_{W,X_\ell^n, Y_\ell^n}(w,x_\ell^n, y_\ell^n) = p_{W,X_\ell^n, Y_\ell^n}(w,x_\ell^n, y_\ell^n)\mathbf{1}\left(\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{n}x_{\ell,k}^2 = nP_\ell\right\}\right),\qquad\forall\, \ell\in L.\label{powerConstraintCharacteristicFunctionParallel}$$ Unfortunately, we cannot assume (without loss of generality) that is true in view of unless $\sigma_1^2=\sigma_2^2=\ldots = \sigma_L^2$ (which is a trivial case for the parallel Gaussian channels). Essentially we cannot guarantee that $\sum_{k=1}^n X_{\ell,k}^2 = nP_\ell$ for all $\ell\in\mathcal{L}$ with probability one; we only know that the sum $\sum_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\sum_{k=1}^n X_{\ell,k}^2=nP$ with probability one. Since we are able to conclude from for $L=1$ but unable to claim from for $L>1$, there is thus a discrepancy in the second- and third-order asymptotics between Theorem \[thmMainResult\] and Theorem \[thmMainResultParallel\] using the current proof technique.
However, what we are able to show using the current technique is that the third-order term for the parallel Gaussian channels [*without feedback*]{} is upper bounded by $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$, improving on [@Pol10 Theorem 78] and matching the lower bound in [@TanTom13a Appendix A]. Establishing the exact second- and third-order asymptotics for the parallel Gaussian channels [*with feedback*]{} is an avenue for future research.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors would like to thank Yücel Altuğ, Yury Polyanskiy and Yu Xiang for useful comments concerning the difference in the decay rates of the error probabilities under the peak and average power constraints. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National University of Singapore (NUS) under startup grant R-263-000-A98-750/133 and NUS Young Investigator Award R-263-000-B37-133.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” *The Bell System Technical Journal*, vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 1948.
——, “Probability of error for optimal codes in a [G]{}aussian channel,” *The Bell System Technical Journal*, vol. 38, pp. 611–656, 1959.
K. Yoshihara, “Simple proofs for the strong converse theorems in some channels,” *Kodai Mathematical Journal*, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 213–222, 1964.
J. Wolfowitz, *Coding Theorems of Information Theory*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer-Verlag, New York, 1978.
A. [El Gamal]{} and Y.-H. Kim, *Network Information Theory*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
C. E. Shannon, “The zero error capacity of a noisy channel,” *IRE Trans. on Inf. Th.*, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 8–19, 1956.
Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” *[IEEE]{} Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, 2010.
V. Y. F. Tan and M. Tomamichel, “The third-order term in the normal approximation for the [AWGN]{} channel,” *[arXiv:1311.2337 \[cs.IT\]]{}*, Nov 2013.
M. Hayashi, “Information spectrum approach to second-order coding rate in channel coding,” *[IEEE]{} Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 4947–4966, 2009.
Y. Altuğ and A. B. Wagner, “Feedback can improve the second-order coding performance in discrete memoryless channels,” in *Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)*, Honolulu, HI, Jul 2014, pp. 2361–2365.
Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Feedback in the non-asymptotic regime,” *[IEEE]{} Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 4903–4925, 2011.
M. E. Machkouri and L. Ouchti, “Exact convergence rates in the central limit theorem for a class of martingales,” *Bernoulli*, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 981–999, Nov 2007.
W. Feller, *An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications*, 2nd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emJohn Wiley and Sons, 1971.
M. S. Pinsker, “The probability of error in block transmission in a memoryless [Gaussian]{} channel with feedback,” *Problems of Information Transmission*, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 1968.
J. P. M. Schalkwijk and T. Kailath, “A coding scheme for additive noise channels with feedback–[I]{}: No bandwidth constraint,” *[IEEE]{} Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 172–182, 1966.
J. P. M. Schalkwijk, “A coding scheme for additive noise channels with feedback–[II]{}: Bandlimited signals,” *[IEEE]{} Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 183–189, 1966.
Y. Polyanskiy, “Channel coding: [Non]{}-asymptotic fundamental limits,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 2010.
L. Wang, R. Colbeck, and R. Renner, “Simple channel coding bounds,” in *Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)*, Seoul, Korea, 2009.
V. Y. F. Tan, *Asymptotic Estimates in Information Theory with Non-Vanishing Error Probabilities*, ser. Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Now Publishers Inc, 2014, vol. 11.
, *[Elements of Information Theory]{}*, 2nd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emWiley, 2006.
[^1]: Silas L. Fong and Vincent Y. F. Tan are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore (e-mail: `{silas_fong,vtan}@nus.edu.sg`). Vincent Y. F. Tan is also with the Department of Mathematics, NUS.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the multi-spin entanglement for the 1D anisotropic XY model concentrating on the simplest case of three-spin entanglement. As compared to the pairwise entanglement, three-party quantum correlations have a longer range and they are more robust on increasing the temperature. We find regions of the phase diagram of the system where bound entanglement occurs, both at zero and finite temperature. Bound entanglement in the ground state can be obtained by tuning the magnetic field. Thermal bound entanglement emerges naturally due to the effect of temperature on the free ground state entanglement.'
author:
- 'D. Patanè'
- Rosario Fazio
- 'L. Amico'
title: Bound entanglement in the XY model
---
Entanglement is a resource in quantum information science [@RESOURCE]. More recently it has become clear that understanding the nature of quantum correlations may also help in a deeper description of complex many-body systems (see Ref. [@REVIEW] for a recent review on this topic). The work developed in these years in between the two areas of quantum statistical mechanics and quantum information has lead to several interesting results in both disciplines. Among the different aspects investigated so far we mention the study of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition [@NATURE; @OSBORNE02; @VIDAL]. Most of the work so far was developed to bipartite entanglement with some notable exceptions. On the other hand the entanglement monogamy property [@MONOGAMY; @KKW] constrains the entanglement sharing, and put an upper bound to the pairwise entanglement.
Several indications demonstrate that the multipartite entanglement is indeed particularly important for the collective behavior of the system. It was shown, for example, that multipartite entanglement is enhanced with respect to the two-particle entanglement near a quantum critical point[@OSBORNE02; @FUBINI; @anfossi]. Multipartite entanglement close to quantum phase transitions was quantified by the global-entanglement measure of Meyer and Wallach in [@oliveira] or the geometric measure of entanglement [@wei05]. The generalized entanglement measure introduced in [@barnum] was used to study a number of critical [@somma04] and disordered [@montangero] spin models.
A comprehensive classification of the type of multipartite entanglement in spin systems has been recently given by [@guehne05; @TOTH]. Different bounds obtained to the ground state energy were obtained for different types of n-particle quantum correlated states. A violation of these bounds implies the presence of multipartite entanglement in the system. As discussed in [@facchi] the analysis of the average measures of multipartite entanglement might not be sufficient and the analysis of the distribution of block entanglement for different partitions may give additional information.
In the present paper we focus on the Multiparticle Entanglement (ME) with the aim to shed light on how entanglement is shared in a many body system. Specifically we analyse the type of entanglement of a subsystem made of few particles, tracing out the rest of the system and we study the ME shared between them (this approach was recently carried out also for the free electron gas [@VEDRAL-FERMIGAS; @VERTESI]). By this approach, although we cannot discuss the global ME properties of the whole system, we can gain insight in the details of such few-particle ME. In particular we consider the 1D XY model in transverse field and we study the simplest multiparticle case of a subsystem made of three arbitrary spins of the chain. We analyze bipartite entanglement between a spin and the other two with respect to all possible bipartitions. We demonstrate that ME extends over a longer range than two-particle entanglement. An important feature, emerging from our analysis of ME, is the existence of Bound Entanglement (BE) [@HORO1; @DUR-CIRAC] shared among the spins of the chain. This peculiar form of entanglement is characterized by the impossibility of distilling it into a pure form. It is a weak form of entanglement having features of both quantum and classical correlations. Bound entanglement has been a subject of intense research in the last years since it was shown to be a useful resource in the context of quantum information [@ENTA-REVIEW; @HORO2; @HORO3; @BOUND1; @MACCHIAVELLO].
Here we show that it emerges from the equilibrium properties of spin chains. Indeed for the ground state of quantum XY model spins far apart enough may be in a bound entangled state, even in the thermodynamical limit. At $T\ne0$ we find that ME is more robust than two-particle entanglement and increasing the temperature it always turns into a thermal multiparticle bound entanglement.
The paper is organized as follow: in the following section we review the scenario of three-qubit entanglement; we then briefly describe the model studied and some known results concerning its entanglement properties. In the last section we show our results at $T=0$ and at finite temperature.
Free and Bound Three-qubit Entanglement {#section-entanglement}
=======================================
For two-qubit systems, Concurrence [@WOOTTERS] is a measure of entanglement that can be easily calculated both for pure and mixed states and it can be related to the ’entanglement of formation’ [@SHUMI]. Besides, any two-qubit entangled state can be converted into Bell states with the process of distillation [@SHUMI; @NPTBOUND].
For the entanglement of a three-qubit system, a much more complex scenario emerges. The total entanglement shared between the three qubits cannot be described just by studying the qubit/qubit entanglement between all the pairs, as measured f.i. by the Concurrence of the reduced 2-qubit density matrices. In fact in general the three qubits share a ME whose complete information is unavoidably lost by tracing out a qubit. The well known paradigmatic example are the GHZ states for which each couple of spins shares no entanglement, nonetheless each spin is maximally entangled with the other two [@KKW]. A further qualitative difference that emerges for the three qubits entanglement is the existence of bound entangled states. The classification ’free’ and ’bound’ entanglement can be drawn with respect to distillation properties of the entanglement [@HORO1]. Entanglement is bound (not-distillable) if no maximally entangled states between the parties of the system can be obtained with local operations and classical communication (LOCC), not even with an asymptotically infinite supply of copies of the state [@DUR-CIRAC]. Despite thepragmatic definition of BE, the nature of its correlations is peculiar. In fact BE is a very weak form of entanglement that has both quantum and classical features. For instance some examples of multipartite bound entangled state violating Bell-type inequalities were found [@DUR2], but recently it was shown that if we allow collective manipulations, and postselection, no bound entangled state violates Bell-type inequalities [@MASANES2].
While for two-qubit system no BE states exist [@NPTBOUND], in the case of a three-qubit system the relative Hilbert space is large enough to allow such structure to appear. An interesting case in which such BE appears is related to the ’incomplete separability’ of the state (see [@DUR-CIRAC]). This condition happens for example when a state of a tripartite system A-B-C is separable with respect to the partition A|BC and B|AC and non-separable with respect to C|AB. The ’incomplete separability’ is a sufficient condition for a state to have BE since the three qubits are entangled and no maximally entangled state can be created between any of the parties by LOCC. For example, no entanglement can be distilled between C and A because no entanglement can be created with respect to the partition A|BC by LOCC. In the following sections, the feature of incomplete separability will be exploited to detect such a kind of BE in the system.
In order to analyze the free and bound entanglement between the qubits we focus on the entanglement between a qubit and the other two with respect to all possible bipartitions. To measure such bipartite entanglement we used the Negativity [@WERNER]: $$\mathcal{N}_\mathcal{P}=\sum_i|\mu_i|,\label{neg}$$ where $\mu_i$ are the negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the density matrix with respect to the bipartition $\mathcal{P}$. Negativity gives the degree of violation of Peres condition and was proved to be a measure of entanglement [@WERNER; @EISERT-PHD], though it can not detect Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) entangled states.
We remark that the genuinely *multipartite* entanglement (e.g. GHZ type of entanglement) is distinct from generic multiparticle entanglement (e.g. a mixture of Bell states shared between the parties)[@NOTE]. In [@FAN] a Negativity-based multipartite entanglement measure was proposed, but it is not easy to handle for generic mixed states since it requires a convex roof minimization. For a multiparticle system, Negativity is able to measure the ’global’ ME with respect to a certain bi-partition. For instance, Negativity can not distinguish between qubit-qubit entanglement and ME. For example, if qubit A is entangled separately with qubit B (as measured by a non zero concurrence $C_{AB}$) then A will surely be entangled with B and C as a whole and thus $\mathcal{N}_{A|BC}\ne 0$. On the other hand if [*no qubit/qubit entanglement*]{} is present in the system, then a [*non-zero Negativity detects multiparticle entanglement*]{}. Besides, carrying such analysis with respect to all possible bipartitions can give information on how such ME is shared between the qubits. It is precisely this method that we will employ to study the ME entanglement in the system.
The XY model
============
Entanglement has been studied in a variety of spin models [@REVIEW]. A lot of attention has been devoted to the 1D quantum XY model. The Hamiltonian is defined as $$H=J\sum_{i=1}^N (1+\gamma)S^x_i S^x_{i+1}+
(1-\gamma)S^y_i S^y_{i+1} - B S^z_i. \label{model}$$ The spins $S^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\alpha}$, $\alpha=x,y,z$ ($\sigma^{\alpha}$ are Pauli matrices) experience an exchange interaction with coupling $J>0$ and uniform magnetic field of strength $B$. In the thermodynamical limit $N\rightarrow \infty$ the model (\[model\]) has a quantum critical point at $h\doteq B/2J=h_c=1$, and for $0<\gamma \le 1$ it belongs the quantum-Ising universality class [@MODELLO].
Entanglement properties of the model have been studied, particularly close to its phase transition [@REVIEW]. Attention has been focused in the entanglement between two spins or the entanglement between a block of spins and the rest of the lattice. Spin-spin entanglement was studied by means of concurrence and it was shown that a spin is directly entangled to its neighbor spins and the range of spin-spin entanglement $R$ (i.e. the maximal distance at which two spins are still entangled) depends on $h$ and $\gamma$ [@NATURE; @DIV]. In particular for the ground state $R$ diverges at the factorizing field [@KURMANN] $h_f=\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}$ [@DIV] while it is non universal and short ranged at critical point [@NATURE]. Block entropy was studied in terms of Von Neumann entropy and it was shown that it saturates as the size of the block increases for a non critical system, while it diverges logarithmically at the critical point with a universal behavior ruled by its conformal symmetry[@VIDAL; @JIN-KOREPIN].
We consider the system defined in Eq.(\[model\]) in the thermodynamical limit and we focus our attention in a subsystem made of three spins in different positions in the lattice (not necessarily a block). We are interested in the entanglement shared between the three spins, and how such ME is distributed along the chain. Thus, as sketched in the previous section, we compute the Negativity between a spin and the other two with respect to all possible bipartitions of the three spins. A similar analysis was done in [@VEDRAL-FERMIGAS] for three fermions out of a Fermi gas.
Three-spin Entanglement in the XY model {#section-3entanglement}
=======================================
Due to the complete integrability of the XY model, it is possible to calculate the reduced density matrix of any number of spins (see Appendix for the details). The density matrix is a function of the parameters, $h$ and $\gamma$, the temperature $T$ and of the distances between the spins considered: $\alpha=j-i$ and $\beta=k-j$. We first study the case $T=0$ focusing on the range of the three-spin entanglement and then we consider the case of a block of three spins at finite temperature.
Ground State Entanglement
-------------------------
We first focus on the range of three-particle entanglement in the ground state and check whether spins distant enough such that they do not share spin/spin entanglement are nonetheless globally entangled. With this aim, we consider a spin and a block of two spins more distant than the spin/spin entanglement range (see Fig.\[clustering\] a)) and we study the spin/block entanglement as measured by the Negativity. We find that the block of two spins may be entangled with the external spin, despite the latter is not entangled directly with any of the two spins separately (see Fig. \[NegT=0\] upper panel). Hence the range of such spin/block entanglement may extend further than the spin/spin entanglement range.
![ Configurations of spins described in the text and whose entanglement properties are presented in Fig. \[NegT=0\]. We fix the range of spin/spin entanglement $R\leq 3$ such that spins at a distance $d\geq4$ are not directly entangled. [**a)**]{} ’Clustering’ two spins increases the range of entanglement (the scheme is symmetric also for spins on the left of the marked one). [**b)**]{} Symmetric configuration of spins such that no two-particle entanglement is present, but still the spins share multiparticle entanglement.[]{data-label="clustering"}](Clustering.eps){width="5cm"}
An interesting case is when there is no two-particle entanglement between of any the three spins, but still they share ME. Specifically, we consider the symmetric configuration of spins drawn in Fig.\[clustering\]b. As shown in Fig.\[NegT=0\] (lower panel), the Negativity between the central spin and the other two $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ and between an external spin and the other two $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ may be non-zero, despite the three spins do not share spin-spin entanglement.
![$T=0$ Negativities between one spin and the other two Vs magnetic field $h$ are shown for both configurations of Fig \[clustering\]. We consider $\gamma=0.5$. In this case outside the interval marked by the two solid vertical lines ( $0.83 \lesssim h\lesssim 0.91$) the range of spin-spin entanglement is $R\leq 3$ (for values of $h$ inside this interval $R$ grows due to the its divergence at factorizing field $h_f=\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}\simeq 0.86$ [@DIV]). For configuration $a)$ (upper panel), $\mathcal{N}_{Block}$ signals the spin/block entanglement for a distance $d=4$. For values of $h$ outside the vertical lines, the Negativity signals genuine spin/block entanglement. For configuration $b) $ (lower panel), both $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ (solid line) and $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ (dashed line) are plotted. For values of $h$ outside the vertical lines the three spins share no spin/spin entanglement, hence for non zero $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ free multiparticle entanglement is present. The latter turns in to bound entanglement for values of $h$ such that only $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}\ne 0$ and $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}=0$ (both on the left and on the right of the solid lines). []{data-label="NegT=0"}](Nega.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![$T=0$ Negativities between one spin and the other two Vs magnetic field $h$ are shown for both configurations of Fig \[clustering\]. We consider $\gamma=0.5$. In this case outside the interval marked by the two solid vertical lines ( $0.83 \lesssim h\lesssim 0.91$) the range of spin-spin entanglement is $R\leq 3$ (for values of $h$ inside this interval $R$ grows due to the its divergence at factorizing field $h_f=\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}\simeq 0.86$ [@DIV]). For configuration $a)$ (upper panel), $\mathcal{N}_{Block}$ signals the spin/block entanglement for a distance $d=4$. For values of $h$ outside the vertical lines, the Negativity signals genuine spin/block entanglement. For configuration $b) $ (lower panel), both $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ (solid line) and $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ (dashed line) are plotted. For values of $h$ outside the vertical lines the three spins share no spin/spin entanglement, hence for non zero $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ free multiparticle entanglement is present. The latter turns in to bound entanglement for values of $h$ such that only $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}\ne 0$ and $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}=0$ (both on the left and on the right of the solid lines). []{data-label="NegT=0"}](Negb.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
We shall see that spins in the configuration of Fig. \[clustering\] b) can share bound entanglement. To prove it, the idea is to resort the “incomplete separability” condition described in the first section. In fact from Fig. \[NegT=0\] we see that $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ may be zero even if $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ is non-zero. Thus in such case the density matrix of the spins is PPT for the two symmetric bipartitions of one external spin vs the other two ($\uparrow|\uparrow \uparrow$ and $\uparrow\uparrow |\uparrow$) and Negative Partial Transpose (NPT) for the partition of the central spin vs the other two. We remark that PPT does not ensure the separability of the two partitions, nevertheless the state is bound entangled. In fact if we could be able to distill a maximally entangled state between two spins then one of two previous PPT partitions would be NPT and this cannot occur since PPT is invariant under LOCC [@HORO1; @WERNER].
The scenario described above quantitatively varies if different values of $\gamma$ are considered. Since the range of spin-spin entanglement depends on $\gamma$ [@DIV] the distance between the spins at which ME exists and its range are also $\gamma$-dependent. For both the configurations we studied we found that ME is short ranged. However, we notice that such range diverges at the factorizing field $h_f$ (analogously to what occurs for spin/spin entanglement [@DIV]). Remarkably, this holds also for BE. In fact we observe that the range of $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$ is always greater than the range of $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$. Hence approaching $h_f $ there are always configurations of spin far apart enough to share BE and for $h\rightarrow h_f$ its range diverges.\
In summary if the spins are far enough to loose all spin-spin entanglement, some ME may be still present. The nature of the entanglement may change from free to bound entanglement by tuning the magnetic field $h$.
Thermal Bound Entanglement
--------------------------
Quantum states must be ’mixed enough’ to be bound entangled. In fact in a geometrical picture they may be located in a region separating free entangled states from the separable ones [@GEOMETRICAL-BOUND]. In our case, a source mixing is the trace over the other spins of the chain: as pointed out in the previous section, such loss of information may be enough to induce bound entanglement between the three spins. However if the spins are near enough the reduced entanglement is free. Thus in this situation it is intriguing to investigate whether the effect of the thermal mixing can drive the $T=0$ free entanglement to BE. To answer this question we consider a block of three adjacent spins and study the entanglement between them as a function of $T$. We see (Fig. \[thermal\]) that the entanglement between the two external spins is the most fragile increasing $T$, dying first at a certain $T_{C2}$; then at a higher temperature $T_{C1}$ the central spin looses its entanglement with each of the external ones. Thus for $T>T_{C1}$ there is no two-particle entanglement between the spins, but still some ME is present, as detected by the Negativity $\mathcal{N}_{Ext}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{Centr}$. Eventually the Negativity vanishes at $T_{\mathcal{N}_{Ext}}$ and $T_{\mathcal{N}_{Centr}}$. In the region $T_{\mathcal{N}_{Ext}}<T<T_{\mathcal{N}_{Centr}}$ the condition of ’incomplete separability’ occurs: the density matrix is PPT with respect to the external bipartitions and NPT with respect to the central one and thus the spins share BE.
We want to remark here that the failure of Negativity to detect some entangled states does not invalidate the scheme described above. In fact, when all the Negativities are eventually zero, the three-spin state may be still entangled, but such entanglement would be surely bound (since the state has positive partial transpose). This means that the region where bound entanglement is present might be wider than the one marked in Fig. \[thermal\], but, any case, such thermal bound entanglement will always separate the high temperature separable region from the low temperature free entangled one.
This behavior shown for the Ising model is also found for the entire class of Hamiltonians (\[model\]). In fact although the temperature at which the different types of entanglement are suppressed is $\gamma$ dependent the qualitative behavior of the phenomenon is a general feature of the model (\[model\]).
![ Entanglement shared in a block of the three adjacent spins. We consider $\gamma=1$. In this case only nearest neighbor and next nearest neighbor spins are entangled (hence $R=2$) at $T=0$ [@NATURE; @OSBORNE02]. The lines in the $T-h$ plane indicate the temperatures at which the corresponding type of entanglement disappears. In the marked region $T_{\mathcal{N}_{Ext}}<T<T_{\mathcal{N}_{Centr}}$ BE is present.[]{data-label="thermal"}](thermal11.eps){width="8cm"}
Conclusions
===========
We studied the entanglement shared between three spins in an infinite chain described by the anisotropic XY model in a transverse field. We analyzed the Negativity between groups of spins as in Fig.\[clustering\], demonstrating that the corresponding block/block entanglement extends along the chain over a longer range (Fig. \[NegT=0\]) compared to the spin/spin case. Such type of entanglement persists at higher temperature (see Fig. \[thermal\]).
In a recent paper, thermal BE was found for system made of few spins [@TOTH07]. Here we proved the existence of bound entanglement shared between the particles, even in a macroscopic system. It occurs naturally in certain region of the phase diagram for the ’last’ entangled states before the complete separability is reached. In this sense the BE bridges between quantum and classical correlations. Being the BE a form of demoted entanglement, we found that it appears when quantum correlations get weaker. At zero temperature bound entanglement appears (see Fig. \[NegT=0\]) when the spins are sufficiently distant each others and as in the case of the spin/spin entanglement, it can be arbitrary long ranged near the factorizing field. At $T\ne0$ BE is present when the system is driven toward a completely mixed state as the temperature is raised(Fig. \[thermal\]). It would be an interesting to further study bound entanglement in this context (f.i. focusing on other kinds of bound entanglement [@UPB]).
A more refined classification of ME could be done following the scheme of Ref.[@ACIN], discerning different regions in the phase diagram in terms of different entanglement classes (GHZ or W). In Ref. [@ACIN] certain witness operators able to distinguish some $W$- and $GHZ$- mixed states were discussed. We point out, however, that in our case such witness are not able to detect tripartite entanglement, not even if suitably generalized as [@VERTESI]. Instead, the three tangle[@KKW], that in principle could identify the GHZ class, is difficult to handle for generic mixed state and requires a hard numerical effort (some progress is achieved for low rank density matrices[@JENS]).
It is plausible that increasing the size of the subsystem considered will increase the range of the ME. For instance, the range of spin/block entanglement (see configuration of Fig. \[clustering\] a) will increase if we consider a larger block. Hence, a single spin can be entangled with more distant partners, if one allow to cluster them into a large enough block. It would be intriguing to study how spin/block entanglement and, in general, block/block entanglement between subsystems, scale increasing the size of blocks. especially exploring the connection with quantum criticality. We remark that such analysis would be different with respect to the well known block entropy setting[@VIDAL; @BLOCK], since in that case one is interested in the block/rest-of-the-system entanglement. Along this line, some results for a chain of coupled harmonic oscillators were obtained[@WERNER-CHAIN].
Finally, we speculate about the effect of temperature for the entanglement of a larger size block of spins. The behavior depicted in Fig. \[thermal\] suggests that entanglement between sub-blocks of few spins will be suppressed by increasing the temperature, before of the entanglement between larger sub-blocks. Namely, temperature will suppress first spin/spin entanglement, then spin/2-spinblock entanglement,.., n-spinblock/m-spinblock entanglement, and so on. Thus, at high enough temperature, particles of the system will eventually loose all entanglement passing through successive steps at which temperature suppresses entanglement with respect to a ’microscopic’ to ’macroscopic’ hierarchy.
We thank J. Siewert for significant help. We acknowledge fruitful discussions with A. Osterloh, F. Plastina. The work has been supported by PRIN-MIUR and it has been performed within the “Quantum Information” research program of Centro di Ricerca Matematica “Ennio De Giorgi” of Scuola Normale Superiore.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
It is convenient to express $\rho_{ijk}$ in terms of three-point correlation functions that can be obtained explicitly following the method used for the two-point correlation functions in [@MODELLO] $$\rho_{ijk}=
\sum_{pqr} \langle \sigma^p_i\sigma^q_j\sigma^r_k\rangle\sigma^p\otimes\sigma^q\otimes\sigma^r \;\;.
\label{expansion}$$ In the previous equation $p$,$q$,$r$$=0,x,y,z$ ($\sigma^0=\textbf{1}$).
Three-spin reduced density matrix is obtained from Eq.(\[expansion\]). Due to the parity symmetry of the Hamiltonian [@VIDAL2], for the non-broken symmetry case some of the correlators are identically zero and the $8\times 8$ matrix reads: $$\rho_{ijk}=\frac{1}{8}\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\rho_I&\rho_{III}\\
\rho_{III}&\rho_{II}
\end{array}\right ),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_I&=& \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-35pt \left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
1+\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}^{++} & 0 & 0 &\mathcal{D}^-_\beta+\mathcal{E}^-_{\beta\alpha}\\
0 & 1+\mathcal{C}+\mathcal{B}^{--} & \mathcal{D}^+_\beta+\mathcal{E}^+_{\beta\alpha} & 0\\
0 & \mathcal{D}^+_\beta+\mathcal{E}^+_{\beta\alpha} & 1+\mathcal{C}-\mathcal{B}^{+-} & 0\\
\mathcal{D}^-_\beta+\mathcal{E}^-_{\beta\alpha} & 0 & 0 & 1-\mathcal{C}-\mathcal{B}^{-+}\\
\end{array}\right )\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{II}&=& \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-35pt \left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
1+\mathcal{C}-\mathcal{B}^{-+} & 0 & 0 &\mathcal{D}^-_\beta-\mathcal{E}^-_{\beta\alpha}\\
0 & 1-\mathcal{C}-\mathcal{B}^{+-} & \mathcal{D}^-_\beta-\mathcal{E}^+_{\beta\alpha} & 0\\
0 & \mathcal{D}^-_\beta-\mathcal{E}^+_{\beta\alpha} & 1-\mathcal{C}+\mathcal{B}^{--} & 0\\
\mathcal{D}^-_\beta-\mathcal{E}^-_{\beta\alpha} & 0 & 0 & 1-\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}^{++}\\
\end{array}\right )\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{III}&=& \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-20pt \left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &\mathcal{D}^+_\gamma+\mathcal{F}^+_{\alpha\beta} &\mathcal{D}^+_\alpha+\mathcal{F}^+_{\alpha\beta} &0\\
\mathcal{D}^-_\gamma+\mathcal{F}^-_{\alpha\beta} & 0 & 0 & \mathcal{D}^+_\alpha-\mathcal{F}^+_{\alpha\beta}\\
\mathcal{D}^-_\alpha+\mathcal{F}^-_{\alpha\beta} &0 & 0& \mathcal{D}^+_\gamma+\mathcal{F}^+_{\alpha\beta}\\
0 & \mathcal{D}^-_\alpha-\mathcal{F}^-_{\alpha\beta} & \mathcal{D}^-_\gamma-\mathcal{F}^-_{\alpha\beta} & 0\\
\end{array} \right ).\end{aligned}$$ The entries of the matrices above are linear combination of the correlation functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} & = & 3Z+ZZZ\\
\mathcal{B}^{\pm\pm} & = & ZZ_\alpha\pm ZZ_\beta\pm ZZ_\gamma\\
\mathcal{C} & = & Z-ZZZ\\
\mathcal{D} ^{\pm}_\alpha& = & XX_\alpha\pm YY_\alpha\\
\mathcal{E} ^{\pm}_{\alpha\beta}& = & XXZ_{\alpha\beta}\pm YYZ_{\alpha\beta}\\
\mathcal{F} ^{\pm}_{\alpha\beta}& = & XZX_{\alpha\beta}\pm YZY_{\alpha\beta}\end{aligned}$$ where f.i. $YYZ_{\alpha\beta}= \langle \sigma^y_i\sigma^y_j\sigma^z_k\rangle$ with $\alpha=j-i$ and $\beta=k-j$ (the correlators depend only on the relative distance between the spins because of the translational symmetry of the system).
Such three-point correlation functions can be calculated following the method used in [@MODELLO] for the two-point ones. In short, after the Jordan-Wigner transformation which maps spin into spinless fermions $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_l^x&=&A_l \prod_{s=1}^{l-1} A_s B_s \nonumber \\
\sigma^y&=&-B_l \prod_{s=1}^{l-1} A_s B_s \nonumber \\
\sigma^z&=&- A_l B_l \;. \label{jordanwigner}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=c+c^\dagger$ and $B=c-c^\dagger$, the three-point correlation functions $\langle \sigma^p_i\sigma^q_j\sigma^r_k\rangle$ can be written as a Pfaffian whose elements are the two-point correlators $\langle A_l B_m\rangle$. The structure of the Pfaffians further simplifies in to a determinant because only terms $\langle A_l B_m\rangle=G_{m-l}=
\int^\pi_0\
\frac{1}{\pi}\{\cos(\phi |m-l|)(\cos(\phi)-a)-\gamma\sin(\phi |m-l|)\sin(\phi)\}
\frac{\tanh(\frac{1}{2 T}\sqrt{\gamma^2\sin\phi^2+(h-\cos\phi^2)})}{\sqrt{\gamma^2\sin\phi^2+(h-\cos\phi^2)}}
d\phi$ are non vanishing.
$$\begin{aligned}
ZZZ_{\alpha\beta}&=&-
\left |
\begin{array}{ccc}
G_{0} & G_{\alpha}&G_{\alpha+\beta}\\
G_{-\alpha} & G_{0}&G_{\beta}\\
G_{-\alpha-\beta} & G_{-\beta}&G_{0}\\
\end{array}\right |,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
XXZ_{\alpha\beta}&=&(-)^{\alpha +1} \times \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-20pt \left |
\begin{array}{ccccc}
G_{-1} &G_0 &\ldots & G_{\alpha-2}&G_{\alpha+\beta-1}\\
G_{-2} & G_{-1} & \ldots & G_{\alpha-3}&G_{\alpha+\beta-2}\\
\vdots & \nonumber & \ddots & \vdots &\vdots \\
G_{-\alpha} & G_{-\alpha-1} & \ldots & G_{-1}&G_{\beta}\\
G_{-\alpha-\beta} & G_{-\alpha-\beta-1} & \ldots & G_{-\beta-1}&G_{0}\\
\end{array}\right |,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
XZX_{\alpha\beta}&=&(-)^{\alpha +\beta} \times \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-20pt \left |
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
G_{-1} &\ldots & G_{\alpha-2}&G_{\alpha}&\ldots & G_{\alpha+\beta-2}\\
\vdots & &\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
G_{-\alpha+1} &\ldots & G_{0}&G_{2}&\ldots & G_{\beta}\\
G_{-\alpha-1} &\ldots & G_{-2}&G_{0}&\ldots & G_{\beta-2}\\
\vdots & &\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
G_{-\alpha-\beta} & \ldots & G_{-\beta-1} &G_{-\beta+1}& \ldots & G_{-1}\\
\end{array}\right |,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
YYZ_{\alpha\beta}&=&(-)^{\alpha +1} \times \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-20pt \left |
\begin{array}{ccccc}
G_{1} &G_2 &\ldots & G_{\alpha}&G_{\alpha+\beta}\\
G_{0} & G_{1} & \ldots & G_{\alpha-1}&G_{\alpha+\beta-1}\\
\vdots & \nonumber & \ddots & \vdots &\vdots \\
G_{-\alpha+2} & G_{-\alpha+3} & \ldots & G_{1}&G_{\beta+1}\\
G_{-\alpha-\beta+1} & G_{-\alpha-\beta+2} & \ldots & G_{-\beta}&G_{0}\\
\end{array}\right |,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
YZY_{\alpha\beta}&=&(-)^{\alpha +\beta} \times \nonumber \\
&&\hskip-20pt \left |
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
G_{1} &\ldots & G_{\alpha-1}&G_{\alpha+1}&\ldots & G_{\alpha+\beta}\\
\vdots & &\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
G_{-\alpha+2} &\ldots & G_{0}&G_{2}&\ldots & G_{\beta+1}\\
G_{-\alpha} &\ldots & G_{-2}&G_{0}&\ldots & G_{\beta-1}\\
\vdots & &\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
G_{-\alpha-\beta+2} & \ldots & G_{-\beta} &G_{-\beta+2}& \ldots & G_{1}\\
\end{array}\right |.\end{aligned}$$
The main difference with respect the two-point correlators calculated in [@MODELLO] is that in this case the Toeplitz structure of the matrix is no longer valid.
[100]{}
M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Communication*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2000). L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, [*Entanglement in many-body systems*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0703044. A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Nature (London) [**416**]{}, 608 (2002). T.J. Osborne and M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{},032110 (2002). G. Vidal, J.I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**90**]{}, 227902 (2003). T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**96**]{}, 220503 (2006). V. Coffmann, J. Kundu and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 052306 (2000). T. Roscilde, P. Verrucchi, A. Fubini, S. Haas, and V. Tognetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**93**]{}, 167203 (2004). A. Anfossi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 056402 (2005). T. R. de Oliveira, G. Rigolin, M. C. de Oliveira, and E. Miranda Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 170401 (2006). T. C. Wei, D. Das, S. Mukhopadyay, S. Vishveshwara, and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 060305(R) (2005). H. Barnum and E. Knill and G. Ortiz and R. Somma and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 107902 (2004). R. Somma and G. Ortiz and H. Barnum and E. Knill and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 042311 (2004). S. Montangero and L. Viola Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 040302(R) (2006). O. Guehne, G. Tóth and H.J. Briegel, New. J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 229 (2005). O. Guehne and G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 052319 (2006). P. Facchi, G. Florio and S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 042331 (2006); G. Costantini and P. Facchi and G. Florio and S. Pascazio, quant-ph/0612098. C. Lunkes, C. Brukner and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**95**]{}, 030503 (2005). V. Vértesi, quant-ph/0701246 M. Horodecki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, (24) 5239-5242 (1998). W. Dür and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 042314 (2000). R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki, quant-ph/0702225v2 M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1056 (1999). K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 160502 (2005). L. Masanes, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**96**]{}, 150501 (2006). P. Hyllus, C. Moura Alves, D. Bruss and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 032316 (2004). W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998). C. H. Bennett [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**53**]{}, 2046 (1996). W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruss, Phys Rev. A [**61**]{}, 062313 (2000). W. Dür, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**87**]{}, 230402 (2001). L. Masanes, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**97**]{}, 050503 (2006). G. Vidal and R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 032314 (2002). J. Eisert, quant-ph/0610253. For a more refined analysis see Ref.[@ACIN]. Y. Ou and H. Fan, quant-ph/0702127v4. E. Lieb, T. Schulz, and D. Mathis, Ann. Phys. [**60**]{}, 407 (1961); P. Pfeuty, Ann. Phys. [**57**]{}, 79 (1970); E. Barouch and B.M. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A [**3**]{}, 786 (1971). L. Amico [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 022322 (2006). J. Kurmann, H. Thomas and G. Müller, Physica A, [**112**]{}, 235 (1982). A. R. Its, B.-Q. Jin and V. E. Korepin, Journal Phys. A: Math. Gen. vol [**38**]{}, pages 2975-2990, (2005). J.M. Leinaas [*et al.*]{}, quant-ph/0605079. G. Tóth [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0702219. C.H. Bennett [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**82**]{}, 5385 (1999); S. Bravyi, Quant. Inf. Processing [**3**]{} 309 (2004). A. Acín, D. Bruss, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 040401 (2001). R. Lohmayer, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 260502, (2006). V. Korepin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 096402, (2004); B.-Q.Jin and V.E.Korepin, J. Stat. Phys. [**116**]{}, 79 (2004); M. B. Plenio [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 060503 (2005); M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 010404 (2006). K. Audenaert [*et al.*]{}, Phys Rev. A [**66**]{}, 042327 (2002). J. I. Latorre, E. Rico and G. Vidal, Quant. Inf. and Comp. [**4**]{} 048 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we study the motion of a fluid with several dispersed particles whose concentration is very small (smaller than $10^{-3}$), with possible applications to problems coming from geophysics, meteorology, and oceanography. We consider a very dilute suspension of heavy particles in a quasi-incompressible fluid (low Mach number). In our case the Stokes number is small and –as pointed out in the theory of multiphase turbulence– we can use an Eulerian model instead of a Lagrangian one. The assumption of low concentration allows us to disregard particle–particle interactions, but we take into account the effect of particles on the fluid (two-way coupling). In this way we can study the physical effect of particles’ inertia (and not only passive tracers), with a model similar to the Boussinesq equations.
The resulting model is used in both direct numerical simulations and large eddy simulations of a dam-break (lock-exchange) problem, which is a well-known academic test case.\
**Keywords:** Dilute suspensions, Eulerian models, direct and large eddy simulations, slightly compressible flows, dam-break (lock-exchange) problem.\
**MSC 2010 classification:** Primary: 76T15; Secondary: 86-08, 86A04, 35Q35.
author:
- |
Luigi C. Berselli\
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Università di Pisa\
Pisa, ITALY, [email protected]
- |
Matteo Cerminara\
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa\
Istituto Nazionale di Vulcanologia e Geofisica\
Pisa, ITALY, [email protected]
- |
Traian Iliescu\
Department of Mathematics\
Virginia Tech\
Blacksburg, VA, [email protected]
title: '**Disperse two-phase flows, with applications to geophysical problems**'
---
Introduction
============
One of the characteristic features of geophysical flows (see for instance [@CRB2011]) is stratification (the other one is rotation). In this manuscript, we study some problems related to suspensions of heavy particles in incompressible slightly compressible- fluids. Our aim is a better understanding of mixing phenomena between the two phases, the fluid and solid one. We especially study this problem because (turbulent) mixing with stratification plays a fundamental role in the dynamics of both oceanic and atmospheric flows. In this study, we perform the analysis of some models related to the transport of heavy dilute particles, with special emphasis on their mixing. Observe that mixing is very relevant near the surface and the bottom of the ocean, near topographic features, near polar and marginal seas, as well as near the equatorial zones [@KC2000]. Especially in coastal waters, precise analysis of transport and dispersion is needed to study biological species, coastal discharges, and also transport of contaminants. The other main motivation of our study is a better understanding of transport of particles (e.g. dust and pollution) in the air. This happens -for instance- in volcanic eruptions or more generally by natural and/or human generation of jets/plumes of particles in the atmosphere.
Following [@BE2010], in the physical regimes we will consider, it is appropriate to use the Eulerian approach, that is the solid-phase (the particles) will be modeled as a continuum. This choice is motivated by the presence of a huge number of particles and because we are analyzing the so called “fine particle” regime (that is the Stokes number is much smaller than one). In this regime, a Lagrangian approach could be computationally expensive, and the Eulerian approach may offer more computationally efficient alternatives. We will explain the precise assumptions that make this *ansatz* physically representative and we will also study numerically the resulting models, with and without large scales further approximation. In particular, we will model the particles as dust, investigating a model related to *dusty gases*, and which belongs to the hierarchy of reduced multiphase models, as reviewed by Balachandar [@BE2010]. These models represent a good approximation when the number of fine particles to be traced is very large and a direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the fluid with a Lagrangian tracer for each particle would be too expensive. As well explained in [@BE2010], the point-like Eulerian approach for multiphase fluid-particle dynamics becomes even more efficient in the case of large eddy simulations (LES), because the physical diameter of the particles has to be compared with the large eddy length-scale and not with the smaller Kolmogorov one. We will use the dusty gas model in a physical configuration that is very close to that modeled by the Boussinesq system, and this explains why we compare our numerical results with those reported in [@OIFSD2007; @BFIO2011]. Observe that the dusty gas model reduces to the Boussinesq system with a large Prandtl number if: a) the fluid velocity is divergence-free; and b) the relative ratio of solid and fluid bulk densities is very small (see Sec. \[sec:models\] and Eq. ).
The approach we will use for multiphase fluids is well-described in Marble [@Mar1970]. More precisely, when the *Stokes time* –which is the characteristic time of relaxation of the particle velocity with respect to the surrounding fluid– is small enough and the number of particles is very large, it could be reasonable to use the Eulerian approach (instead of the Lagrangian). In Eulerian models both the carrier and the dispersed phase are treated as interpenetrating fluid media, and consequently both the particulate solid-phase and fluid-phase properties are expressed by a continuous field representation. Originally we started studying these models in order to simulate ash plumes coming from volcanic eruptions, see [@EOCENS2007; @CBEOS2013; @Cer2014; @VHC2014], but here we will show that the same approach could be also used to study some problems coming from other geophysical situations, at least for certain ranges of physical parameters.
Our model is evaluated in a two dimensional *dam-break problem*, also known as the *lock-exchange problem*. This problem, despite being concerned with a) a simple domain; b) nice initial and boundary conditions; and c) smooth gravity external forcing, contains shear-driven mixing, internal waves, interactions with boundaries, and convective motions. The dam-break problem setup has long served as a paradigm configuration for studying the space-time evolution of gravity currents (cf. [@Dor1998; @Fer2000; @RL2000; @SD1994]). Consequently, we set up a canonical benchmark problem, for which an extensive literature is available: The vertical barrier separating fluid and fluid with particles is abruptly removed, and counter-propagating gravity currents initiate mixing. The time evolution can be quite complex, showing shear-driven mixing, internal waves interacting with the velocity, and gravitationally-unstable transients. This benchmark problem has been investigated experimentally and numerically for instance in [@BS1978; @HLD1996; @HHPS1996; @HPHS1993]. Both the impressive amount of data and the physical relevance of the problem make it an appropriate benchmark and a natural first step in the thorough assessment of any approximate model to study stratification. The results we obtain validate the proposed model as appropriate to simulate dilute suspensions of ash in the air. In addition, we found that new peculiar phenomena appear, which are generated by compressibility. Even if the behavior of the simulations is qualitatively very close to that of the incompressible case, the (even very slightly) compressible character of the fluid produces a more complex behavior, especially in the first part of the simulations. To better investigate the efficiency and limitations of the numerical solver, the numerical tests will be performed by using both DNS and LES. Complete discussion of the numerical results will be given in Section \[sec:numerical\_results\].
**Plan of the paper:** In Section \[sec:models\] we present the reduced multiphase model we will consider, with particular attention to the correct evaluation of physical parameters that make the approximation effective. In Section \[sec:numerical\_results\] we present the setting of the numerical experiments we performed. Particular emphasis is posed on the initial conditions and on the interpretation and comparison of the results with those available in the literature.
On multiphase Eulerian models {#sec:models}
=============================
In order to study multiphase flows and especially (even compressible) flows with particles, some approximate and reduced models have been proposed in the literature. In the case of dilute suspensions, a complete hierarchy of approximate models is available (see [@BE2010]) on the basis of two critical parameters determining the level of interaction between the liquid and solid phase: The fractional volume occupied by the dispersed-phase and the mass loading, (that is the ratio of mass of the dispersed to carrier phase). When they are both small, the dominant effect on the dynamics of the dispersed-phase is that of the turbulent carrier flow (*one-way coupled*). When the mass of the dispersed-phase is comparable with that of the carrier-phase, the back-influence of the dispersed-phase on the carrier-phase dynamics becomes relevant (*two-way coupled*). When the fractional volume occupied by the dispersed-phase increases, interactions between particles become more important, requiring a *four-way coupling*. In the extreme limit of very large concentration, we encounter the granular flow regime.
Here, we consider rather heavy particles such that $\widehat{\rho}_{s}>>\widehat{\rho}_{f}$ (air), or $\widehat{\rho}_{s}\sim\widehat{\rho}_{f}$ (liquid), where in the sequel the subscript “$_s$” stands for solid, while “$_f$” stands for fluid. Here a hat $\,\widehat{.}\,$ denotes material densities (as opposed to bulk densities): In particular, we suppose $\widehat{\rho}_{s}\sim 400-3000 \text{kg}/\text{m}^{3}$. A rather small particle/volume concentration must be assumed (to have dilute suspensions), that is $$\epsilon_s := \frac{V_{s}}{V} < 10^{-3},$$ where $V_{s}$ is the volume occupied by the particles over the total volume $V$. When $\epsilon_{s}$ is smaller than $10^{-3}$, particle-particle collisions and interactions can be neglected and the particle-phase can be considered as a pressure-less and non-viscous continuum. In this situation the particles move approximately with the same velocity of the surrounding fluid, and the theory has been developed by Carrier [@Car1958] (see a review in Marble [@Mar1970]). With these assumptions the bulk densities $\rho_{f}:=(1-\epsilon_{s})\widehat{\rho}_{f}$ and $\rho_{s}:=\epsilon_{s}\widehat{\rho}_{s}$ are of the same order of magnitude, about $1 \text{kg}/\text{m}^{3}$ in the case dust-in-air (two-way coupling). In the case of water with particles the ratio $\rho_s/\rho_f$ is of the order of $10^{-3}$, hence particles behave very similarly to passive tracers (almost one-way coupling).
Another assumption required by Marble’s analysis is that particles can be considered *point-like*, if their typical diameter $d_s$ is smaller than the smallest scale of the problem under analysis, that is the Kolmogorov length $\eta$ (DNS), or the smallest resolved LES length-scale $\xi$ (LES).
To describe the gas/fluid-particle drag, we observe that it depends in a strong nonlinear way on the local flow variables and especially on the relative Reynolds number: $$\text{Re}_s= \frac{\widehat{\rho}_f |\,{u}_s - \,{u}_f| d_s}{\mu},$$ where $\mu$ is the gas dynamic viscosity coefficient and $\,{u}_{f}$ and $u_s$ are the fluid and solid phase velocity field, respectively. On the other hand, for a point-like single particle and in the hypothesis of small velocities difference ($\text{Re}_s<1$), the drag force (per volume unit) acting on a single particle depends just linearly on the difference of velocities: $${f}_d = \frac{\rho_s}{\tau_{s}}(\,{u}_s - \,{u}_f)\,,\qquad
\text{with}\qquad \tau_{s} :=\frac{({2
\widehat{\rho}_{s}/\widehat{\rho}_{f}+1})\,d_s^2}{36\nu},$$ where $\tau_{s}$ is the *particle relaxation time or Stokes time*, which is the time needed to a particle to equilibrate to a change of fluid velocity [@BE2010], and $\nu:={\mu}/{\widehat{\rho}_f}$ is the fluid kinematic viscosity. In particular, in the case of water with particles we have $\widehat{\rho}_{s}/\widehat{\rho}_{f}\sim1$, while in the case of a gas $\widehat{\rho}_{s}/\widehat{\rho}_{f}>>1$ and hence $$\label{eq:tau_w}
\tau_{s} \ \sim\
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d_s^2}{12\nu} \qquad \text{(water),}
\\
&\quad\frac{\widehat{\rho}_s\,d_s^2}{18\mu} \qquad \text{(air).}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ In order to measure the lack of equilibrium between the two phases, we have to compare $\tau_{s}$ with the smallest time of the dynamics. In the turbulent regime, the smallest time is the Kolmogorov smallest eddy’s turnover time $\tau=\tau_{\eta}=\eta^2/\nu$ (DNS) (cf. Frisch [@Fri1995]) or analogously $\tau=\tau_\xi=\tau_{\eta}\,(\xi/\eta)^\frac{2}{3}$ (LES). It is possible to characterize this situation by using as non-dimensional parameter –the Stokes number– which is defined by comparing the Stokes time with the fastest time-scale of the problem under analysis $\text{St} :={\tau_{s}/}{\tau}$. If $\textup{St} < 10^{-3}$ (the “fine particle regime”), we say that we have *kinematic equilibrium* between the two phases and so we can use in a consistent way the dusty gas model. In order to have also *thermal equilibrium* between the two phases, one has to assume that the *thermal relaxation time* (cf. [@Mar1970]) is small, that is: $$\tau_T := \frac{\widehat{\rho}_s C_s}{k_s} \frac{d_s^2}{4}<<1.$$ Comparing the kinetic and thermal relaxation times, we get the Stokes thermal time $$\label{eq:Stokes}
\text{St}_{T}:=\frac{\tau_T}{\tau} =
\frac{\tau_T}{\tau_s}\frac{\tau_s}{\tau}=\frac{3}{2} \frac{C_s
\mu}{k_s} \text{St}= \frac{3}{2} \,{Pr}_s \,\text{St}\,,$$ i.e., the particle Prandtl number, where $C_s$ is the solid-phase specific heat-capacity at constant volume and $k_s$ is its thermal conductivity. To ensure that the dusty gas model is physically reasonable, both kinematic and thermal equilibrium must hold, that is, both Stokes numbers should be less than $10^{-3}$. This implies that we have a single velocity $u=u_f=u_s$ for both phases and also a single temperature field $T=T_f=T_s$.
To check that our assumptions are fulfilled, we first show that if the Stokes number is small, then also the thermal Stokes number remains small. Indeed, using the typical value of the dynamic viscosity $\mu=10^{-3}\,\text{Pa}\cdot\text{s}$ (water) or $\mu=10^{-5}\,\text{Pa}\cdot\text{s}$ (air), specific heat capacity $C_s=10^3\,\mathrm{J \cdot kg^{-1} \cdot K^{-1}}$ and thermal conductivity $k_s\sim1\,\mathrm{W}\cdot \text{m}^{-1}\cdot
\text{K}^{-1}$, we can evaluate the particle Prandtl number in both cases: $$\text{Pr}_s =\frac{\mu C_s}{k_s}\sim
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{10^3 * 10^{-3}}{1} \sim 1 \qquad \text{(water),}
\\
\frac{10^3 * 10^{-5}}{1} \sim 10^{-2} \qquad \text{(air).}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Hence formula shows that $\text{St}_T\lesssim\text{St}$.
Summarizing, we used the following assumptions:
1. Continuum assumption for both the gaseous and solid phase;
2. The solid-phase is dispersed ($\epsilon_s < 10^{-3}$), thus it is pressure-less and non-interacting;
3. The relative Reynolds number between the solid and gaseous phases is smaller than one so that it is appropriate to use the Stokes law for drag;
4. The Stokes number is smaller than one so that the Eulerian approach is appropriate;
5. All the phases, either solid or gaseous, have the same velocity and temperature fields $u(x,z,t),\,T(x,z,t)$ (local thermal and kinematic equilibrium). We showed that this assumption is accurate if the Stokes number is much smaller than one.
In this regime, the equations for the balance of mass, momentum, and energy are: $$\label{eq:equilibriumEulerian2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\rho + \nabla\cdot(\rho \,{u}) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t\rho_s + \nabla\cdot(\rho_s \,{u}) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t (\rho \,{u}) + \nabla\cdot (\rho \,{u}\otimes \,{u}
+ p\,\mathbbm{I} - \mathbbm{T}) =
% \\
% \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
\rho \,{g},
\\
& \partial_t (\rho\, e) + \nabla\cdot\left(\rho\,u\, e\right) + p\,\nabla\cdot\,{u} =
% \\
% \qquad\;
\mathbbm{T}:\nabla \,{u}-\nabla\cdot q\,,% \tau_{S}\left[\rho_s| {a}|^2 +
% \nabla\cdot\left(\rho_s\frac{C_as}{C_v}e_f\vec{a}\right)\right]\,,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $\rho := \rho_f + \rho_s$ is the mixture density, $e:=\frac{C_v \rho_f +{C_s}\rho_s}{\rho}$ is the internal mixture energy, and $g$ is the gravity acceleration pointing in the downward vertical direction. The stress-tensor is $$\mathbbm{T} :=
2\mu(T)\,\left[\frac{\nabla{u}+\nabla{u}^{T}}{2}-
\frac{1}{D}(\nabla\cdot{u})\,\mathbbm{I}\right],$$ with $\mu(T)$ the dynamic viscosity, possibly depending on the temperature $T$, and $D$ the spatial dimension of the problem. The Fourier law for the heat transfer assumes $\vec{q} = -k\,\nabla T$, where $k$ is the fluid thermal conductivity. We denote by $C_v$ and $C_s$ the fluid and solid phase specific heat-capacity at constant volume, respectively. System is completed by using the constitutive law $p=p(\rho,\rho_s,T)$. In the case of air and particles (the one for which we will present the simulations) $p=\rho_f R\,T$, where $R$ is the air gas constant.\
**Remark 1.** The correct law would be $p=\frac{\rho_f
R\,T}{1-\epsilon_s}$, but in our dilute setting $\epsilon_s$ is very small, which justifies the approximation $p=\rho_f R\,T$. A different constitutive law must be used in the presence of water or other fluids.\
**Remark 2.** Note that the constant particle pressure $\nabla
p_s=0$ is justified by the lack of particle-particle forces. Note that in the case of uniform particle distribution ($\rho_s/\rho_f=
C$), the equations reduce to the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, with density multiplied by a factor $C$. Some numerical experiments (with $\rho_s/\rho_f\not= C$) were performed in [@SKOH2005], where the dusty gas model was applied to volcanic eruptions, i.e. a flow with vanishing initial solid density $\rho_s$ and particles injected into the atmosphere from the volcanic vent.
Denoting by s $y_s={\rho_s}/{\rho}$ the solid-phase mass-fraction, we can rewrite the system with just one flow variable ($\rho\,u$) as follows: $$\label{eq:equilibriumEulerian2bis}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\rho + \nabla\cdot(\rho \,{u}) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t(\rho\, y_s) + \nabla\cdot(\rho\,{u}\,y_s) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t (\rho \,{u}) + \nabla\cdot (\rho \,{u}\otimes
\,{u} + p\,\mathbbm{I} - \mathbbm{T}) =
% \\
% \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
\rho \,{g},
\\
& \partial_t (\rho\, e) + \nabla\cdot\left(\rho\,{u}\, e\right) + p\,\nabla\cdot\,{u} =
% \\
% \qquad\;
\mathbbm{T}:\nabla \,{u}-\nabla\cdot q\,.% \tau_{S}\left[\rho_s| {a}|^2 +
% \nabla\cdot\left(\rho_s\frac{C_as}{C_v}e_f\vec{a}\right)\right]\,,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ In the following, we will also assume to have an iso-entropic flow with a perfect gas (which is a reasonable approximation for the air, see for example [@M1956]). We can thus substitute the energy equation (\[eq:equilibriumEulerian2bis\]-d) by the constitutive law $$p(x(t),z(t),t)=p_0(x(0))\left(\frac{\rho(x(t),z(t),t)}{\rho(x(0),z(0),0)}\right)^{\gamma(x(t),z(t),
t)},$$ where $\gamma(x(t),z(t),t)=\frac{1-y_s(x(t),z(t),t)
R}{(1-y_s(x(t),z(t),t))C_v+y_s(x(t),z(t),t) C_s}$ and $(x(t),z(t))$ is the streamline starting at $(x(0),z(0))$ for $t=0$ (we have not been able to find this expression in the literature; for its full derivation see [@Cer2014]). In particular, a simple calculation shows that $\gamma(x(t),z(t),t)=\gamma(x(0),z(0),0)\sim
\gamma$. Moreover, since $T(x(0),z(0),0)/\rho(x(0),z(0),0)^{\gamma(x(0),z(0),0)}=a(x(0),z(0),0)\sim
a$ (where $a(x(0),z(0),0)\sim a$ and $\gamma(x(0),z(0),0)\sim \gamma$ are motivated by the small density variations compared with a constant temperature), we can consequently study the following system (with $p=a\, \rho^\gamma$; and $a,\,\gamma$ are constants determined from the initial conditions): $$\label{eq:equilibriumEulerian-iso}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\rho + \nabla\cdot(\rho \,{u}) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t(\rho\, y_s) + \nabla\cdot(\rho\, y_s \,{u}) = 0,
\\
&\partial_t (\rho \,{u}) + \nabla\cdot (\rho \,{u}\otimes \,{u}
+ %a \,\rho^\gamma
p\,\mathbbm{I} - \mathbbm{T}) =
% \\
% \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
\rho\, {g}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Here the iso-entropic assumption is justified. Indeed, since the Reynolds number is typically much greater than 1, and the Prandtl number is of the order of $10$, the two dissipation terms $\mathbbm{T}:\nabla \,{u}$ and $\nabla\cdot q$ (corresponding to the conduction of heat and its dissipation by mechanical energy) can be neglected. Moreover, since $C_v\sim C_s$ and the temperature fluctuations are small, we can disregard the heat transfer from solid to fluid phase.
Observe that if $\rho_f=\textup{constant}$, $T=\textup{constant}$, and if we use the Boussinesq approximation, we get from the following system: $$\label{eq:Boussinesq}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\cdot {u} = 0,
\\
&\partial_t\rho_s + (u\cdot \nabla)\, \rho_s = 0,
\\
&\partial_t \,{u} + \nabla\cdot (\,{u}\otimes \,{u} +
p\,\mathbbm{I} - \mathbbm{T}) = \rho_s {g}\,,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ which is exactly the Boussinesq equations, except that there is no diffusion for the density perturbation (i.e., infinite Prandtl number). Thus, numerical results concerning are comparable with results from the classical Boussinesq equations, see [@OIFSD2007; @BFIO2011].
Numerical results {#sec:numerical_results}
=================
To validate the Eulerian model for multiphase flows , we use it to perform both DNS and LES of a dam-break (lock-exchange) problem.
Model configuration
-------------------
Since we want to compare our results with accurate results available in the literature, we use a setting which is very close to that in [@OIFSD2007], in terms of both equations and initial conditions. In particular, we consider a two dimensional rectangular domain $-L/2\leq x\leq L/2$ and $0\leq z \leq H$ with an aspect ratio large enough ($L/H=5$) in order to obtain high shear across the interface, and to create Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instability. We use this setting because in a domain with large aspect ratio, the density interface has more space to tilt and stretch.
For this test case, the typical velocity magnitude is (for further details see e.g. [@OIFSD2007]) $U_0=\sqrt{g\rho_s h (H - h)/\rho_0
H}$, where $H$ is the layer thickness and $h$ the volumetric fraction of denser material times $H$. From now on, with a slight abuse of notation, we denote by $g$ the modulus of the gravity acceleration. In our simulation we set $h=H/2$, from which we get $$U_0 = \frac{1}{2}\,\sqrt{\frac{g \rho_s H}{\rho_0}}.$$ We use the characteristic length-scale $\ell$ to non-dimensionalize all the equations in . In order to have $\tau = \ell/U_0$ when $H=2\ell$, we need to set $\rho_0/g =
\rho_s/2$. Moreover, we choose a dimensional system where the initial solid bulk density is $\rho_{s,0} = 1$, which yields $g =
2\rho_0$. The Froude number is $2^{-1/2}$ for all the simulations, so we are free to choose a $\rho_0$ such that $\rho_0 \gg \rho_s$. We set $\rho_0 =100$. In these non-dimensional units, the Reynolds number is $Re = (\rho+\rho_s)U_0\ell/\mu = (\rho_0 + 1)/\mu$, we set the dynamic viscosity $\mu=0.02348837$ such that the maximum Reynolds number we consider is $$Re =4300.$$ One of the inherent time-scales in the system is the (Brunt-Väisälä) buoyancy period $$T_b = 2\pi\sqrt{\frac{\rho_0 H}{g \rho_s}} = 2\pi,$$ which is the natural time related to gravity waves. In order to have a quasi-incompressible flow, we set $\textup{Ma}=U_0/c=0.01$. Using our non-dimensional variables, the perfect gas relationship is $p_0=\rho_0
R$ and the speed of sound is $c=\gamma R$. We want $c=100$ and $\gamma=1.4$, so we set $R=7142.857143$ and $p_0=7.142857143*10^5$. Experiments are performed at different resolutions (from about $10^4$, up to about $10^6$ grid cells), see the next section for details.
The initial condition is a state of rest, in which the fluid with particles on the left is separated from the fluid (without particles) on the right by a sharp transition layer. Since the tilting of the density interface puts the system gradually into motion, the system can be started from a state of rest. Due to the (slight) compressibility of the fluid some peculiar phenomena occur close to the initial time. These effects are not present in the incompressible case, cf. the discussion below.
We consider the isolated problem, so that the iso-entropic approximation is valid and consequently we supplement system with the following boundary conditions: The boundary condition for the density perturbation $y_s$ is no-flux, while free-slip for the velocity: $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& u\cdot n=0,
\\
&n\cdot (\mathbbm{T}-p\,\mathbbm{I})\cdot \tau=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\qquad \text{and}\qquad n\cdot\nabla y_s=0,$$ where $n$ is the unit outward normal vector, while $\tau$ is a tangential unit vector on $\partial \Omega$. In the two dimensional setting we use for the numerical simulation (the two dimensional rectangular domain $\Omega=]-L/2,L/2[\times]0,H[$) the boundary conditions become: $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial z}=0, \quad u_2=0,\quad
\frac{\partial y_s}{\partial z}=0,\quad \text{ at }z=0,H,\
-\frac{L}{2}<x<\frac{L}{2},
\\
& \frac{\partial u_2}{\partial x}=0, \quad u_1=0,\quad
\frac{\partial y_s}{\partial x}=0, \quad \text{ at }x=\pm
\frac{L}{2},\ 0<z<H.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
On the initial conditions
-------------------------
We considered as initial datum the classical situation used in the dam-break problem, with all particles confined in the left half of the physical domain (with uniform distribution), while a uniform fluid fills the whole domain. Moreover, we have an initial uniform temperature $T(x,z,0)=T_{0}$ and pressure distribution $p(x,z,0)=p_{0}$. Suddenly the wall dividing the two phases is removed and we observe the evolution.
Even if our numerical code is compressible, we started with this setting, widely used to study incompressible cases, since we are in the physical regime of quasi-incompressibility. The compressibility is mostly measured by the Mach number. For air we have a typical velocity $U_0\sim 4m/s$, hence the Mach number of air in this condition is around 0.01, as we choose for our simulations. On the other hand, for water we would obtain $U_0\sim 0.04m/s$ and $\textup{Ma}\sim 2.5\
10^{-5}$. Nevertheless, as we will see especially in Fig. \[fig:BGE\], even this very small perturbation creates a new instability and new phenomena for times very close to $t=0$. In particular, new effects appear for $0 < t < T_b$. These effects seem limited to the beginning of the evolution. The characteristic time of the stratification (for a DNS) is defined as (see [@CRB2011 § 11]) $$T_a=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{\rho H}{g \Delta\rho_f}},$$ where $\Delta \rho_f$ is the density difference between the ground level and the height $H$ of the upper boundary wall. In particular, we know that for the gaseous-phase, the stable solution is the barotropic stratification, due to the gravity acceleration: $$T(z)=T_{0}-\frac{g\,z}{\gamma C_{v}},\quad
\rho(z)=\rho_{0}\left(\frac{T(z)}{T_{0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}},
\quad
p(z)=\rho_{0}\left(\frac{T(z)}{T_{0}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}},$$ and in the case of perfect gases we recover the fact that the typical stratification height for the atmosphere ($R\sim287$) is $$z_{gas}=\frac{1}{ \eta_{gas}}=\frac{\gamma\,R\,T}{g}\sim 10^4m,$$ while for water in the iso-thermal case we would obtain $$z_{water}=\frac{1}{ \eta_{water}}=\frac{1}{\alpha \rho_0 g}\sim 10^5m.$$ Since $\eta$ is small in both cases, we can use the following approximation: $$\rho(z)\sim\rho_{0}\left(1-\frac{g\,z}{\gamma\,R\,T_{0}}\right)
:=\rho_{0}\left(1-\eta \,z\right)\,.$$ For a domain with volume $V$ and mass $m$, in the incompressible case the stable stationary configuration is with vanishing velocity and $\rho_{homog.}=\frac{m}{V}$. On the contrary, in our slightly compressible case, the stable stationary configuration is: $$\frac{\rho(z)}{\rho_{homog.}}=\frac{1-\eta\, z}{1-\eta\,\frac{ {H}}{2}}.$$ The length $\eta$ has to be compared with the height of the domain $H$, in order to evaluate the importance of stratification. For instance, if we use realistic values of density, pressure, and gravity acceleration for air (to come back to dimensional variables) we get that the height of the domain is $H_{air}\sim 600m$, while for water we get $H_{water}=0.6m$. In the case of air we obtain density variations due to gravity which are of the order of $5\%$, while for water they should be of the order of $0.0003\%$. This explains that in the case of water, the dominant variations of density, which are of the order of $1\%$, are those imposed by the initial configuration of particles. On the other hand, in the case of particles in air, the one we are mostly interested to, the two phenomena create fluctuations which are comparable in magnitude, and this can be seen in Fig. \[fig:BGE\_irreversible\]. In particular, in Fig. \[fig:BGE\_irreversible\], one can see that the fluctuations created by the non-stratified initial condition affect the behavior of the background potential energy defined below. In the case of air, we have that $T_a<T_b$, and thus the effects of these instabilities (due to the initial heterogeneity) will be observed before the mixing effects, which are dominant in the rest of the evolution. On the other hand, this effect can not be seen by analyzing just the mixed fraction, see Fig. \[fig:mass-fraction\] and the discussion below.
We will also compare the results obtained from DNS with those obtained by different LES models, as discussed later on. The accuracy of the LES models is evaluated through *a posteriori* testing. The main measure used is the background/reference potential energy (RPE), which represents an appropriate measure for mixing in an enclosed system [@WLRD1995]. RPE is the minimum potential energy that can be obtained through an adiabatic redistribution of the masses. To compute RPE, we use directly the approach in [@WLRD1995], since the problem is two-dimensional and computations do not require too much time $$RPE(t) := g \int_\Omega \rho_s(x,z,t) \,z_r(x,z,t)\,dxdz,$$ where $z_r(\rho')$ is the height of fluid of density $\rho'$ in the minimum potential energy state. To evaluate $z_r(\rho')$, we use the following formula: $$z_r(x,z,t)=\frac{1}{L}\int_\Omega
\mathcal{H}(\rho_s(x',z',t)-\rho_s(x,z,t))\, dx'dz',$$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is the Heaviside function. It is convenient to use the non-dimensional background potential energy $$RPE^*(t):= \frac{RPE(t)-RPE(0)}{RPE(0)}\,,
\label{rpenondimensional}$$ which shows the relative increase of the RPE with respect to the initial state by mixing. Further discussion of the energetics of the dam-break problem can be found in [@CRB2011; @OIF2009b; @OIF2009; @OIFSD2007].
With these considerations we are now able to compute the maximum particle diameter fulfilling our hypothesis ($\textup{St}<10^{-3}$). First, we must evaluate the smallest time-scale of the dynamics. As described in Tab. \[tab:resolutions\], we used three different resolutions. The ultra-res resolution can be considered as a DNS, so the smallest time-scale of the simulation is the Kolmogorov time $\tau_\eta =
\textup{Re}^{-\frac{1}{2}} = 1.525*10^{-2}$, while the smallest length-scale is $\eta = \textup{Re}^{-\frac{3}{4}}=1.883*10^{-3}$. The other two resolutions have been used for LES: We have $\xi =
8.696*10^{-3}$ and $\xi = 4.348*10^{-2}$ for the mid-res and low-res resolutions, respectively. By using the relationship $\tau_\xi =
\tau_\eta (\xi/\eta)^{\frac{2}{3}}$, we found $\tau_\xi =
4.229*10^{-2}$ and $\tau_\xi = 1.237*10^{-1}$, respectively. In Tab. \[tab:diameter\] we report the dimensional maximum particle diameter for which the dusty gas hypothesis is fulfilled (cf. Eqs. ) at various resolutions.
------- ----------- --------- ---------
ultra-res mid-res low-res
water 6.3 10 18
gas 82 140 240
------- ----------- --------- ---------
: The dimensional maximum particle diameter fulfilling the dusty gas hypothesis.[]{data-label="tab:diameter"}
Numerical methods and results
-----------------------------
We tested our numerical code on a well documented test case. At the initial time the particles occupy only one side of the computational domain. Then –abruptly– the wall dividing the fluid with particles from the fluid without particles is removed and the two fluids start mixing under the effect of gravity. The situation is complex even in the two dimensional case. Results of numerical simulations with the DNS and also LES models are presented in this section. All simulations are obtained by using OpenFOAM$^\textup{\textregistered}$, which is an Open Source computational fluid dynamics code used worldwide. The numerical algorithm we used is PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators [@FP1999; @Iss1986]), which allows the user to choose the numerical scheme and order for both the time and space discretization. In particular, we choose a second order unbounded and conservative scheme for the Laplacian terms; a central second order scheme for interpolation from cell center to cell faces; a second order scheme for the gradient terms; and a bounded second central scheme for the divergence term [@Jas1996]. On the other hand, we choose a second order bounded and implicit time scheme (Crank-Nicolson), with an adaptive time stepping based on the maximum initial residual of the previous time step [@KGGS], and on a threshold that depends on the Courant number ($\textup{C} < 0.2$).
The linear system is solved by using the PbiCG solver (Preconditioned bi-Conjugate Gradient solver for asymmetric matrices) and the PCG (Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient solver for symmetric matrices), respectively, preconditioned by a Diagonal Incomplete Lower Upper decomposition (DILU) and a Diagonal Incomplete Cholesky (DIC) decomposition. The tolerance has been set to $0.01$ for the initial residual and to $10^{-15}$ for the final one.
The high-resolution DNS, denoted ultra-res in the remainder of the paper, were performed on a HPC architecture (BLUGENE/Q system installed at CINECA) with 1024 cores. These ultra-res runs took about 5 days. The medium-resolution simulations, denoted by mid-res, were performed on 62 cores (using the HPC infrastructure of INGV, Pisa section) for about 2 days. Since many options for LES of compressible multiphase flows are available, we chose to compare the ones that OpenFOAM has built-in, to detect the most promising for our test case. In Fig. \[fig:LESmodel\]-\[fig:mixed-mass\]-\[fig:BGE\] we especially address this topic. More specifically, the LES runs were performed using either the compressible Smagorinsky model or the one equation eddy model, that is in Eq. the stress tensor $\mathbbm{T}$ is replaced by $$\mathbbm{T}_\textup{LES} :=
2(\mu(T) + \mu_\textup{SGS})\,\left[\frac{\nabla{u}+\nabla{u}^{T}}{2}-
\frac{1}{D}(\nabla\cdot{u})\,\mathbbm{I}\right].$$ In both cases we define a subgrid-scale (SGS) stress tensor as in [@Fur1996] by $$\mathbbm{B} = \frac{2}{D}k\,\mathbbm{I} - 2 C_k \sqrt{k}\, \delta
\operatorname{dev}(\mathbbm{D})\,,$$ where $k$ is the SGS kinetic energy, $C_k = 0.02$, $\delta$ is the grid-scale, $\mathbbm{D}= \operatorname{sym}(\nabla u$), and $\operatorname{dev}(\mathbbm{D}) = \mathbbm{D} -
\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbbm{D})\mathbbm{I}/D$. In the Smagorinsky model, $k$ is obtained by using the equilibrium assumption $$\rho\,
\mathbbm{D}:\mathbbm{B} + \frac{C_e\rho}{\delta} k^{3/2} = 0\,,$$ where $C_e=1.048$. Finally, the SGS viscosity is $\mu_\textup{SGS}=C_k \rho\, \delta\, \sqrt{k}$.
On the other hand, in the one equation eddy viscosity model (which is the compressible counterpart of the so called TKE model [@CRR2014]), $k$ is obtained through the following balance law: $$\partial_t(\rho\, k) + \nabla\cdot (\rho\, u\, k) - \nabla\cdot \left((\mu
+ \mu_\textup{SGS}) \nabla
k\right) = - \left(\rho\, \mathbbm{D}:\mathbbm{B} + \frac{C_e\rho}{\delta}
k^{3/2}\right)\,,$$ keeping $\mu_\textup{SGS} = C_k \rho\, \delta\, \sqrt{k}$. We perform our simulations at three different resolutions, see Table \[tab:resolutions\].
----------- -------------
low-res N=10,580
mid-res N=264,500
ultra-res N=1,058,000
----------- -------------
: $N$ is the number of nodes of the different homogeneous meshes for our simulations.[]{data-label="tab:resolutions"}
Together with the DNS simulation done on the ultra-res mesh and the four LES done on low-res and mid-res meshes, we also performed two under-resolved simulations without SGS model, denoted by low-res DNS\* and mid-res DNS\*.
To illustrate the complexity of the mixing process that we investigate, in Fig. \[fig:one\] we present snapshots of DNS for the density $\rho_s$ of particles’ concentration at different times (it is represented in a linear color scale for $0\leq \rho_s \leq 1$). We notice that the results are similar to those obtained in [@BFIO2011; @OIF2009]. Thus, the DNS time evolution of the density perturbation will be used as benchmark for other numerical simulations, since (as in [@OIFSD2007]) the number of grid points is large enough to resolve all the relevant scales and to consider simulations at ultra-res as a DNS.
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at a) $t/T_{b}=0.637$, b) $t/T_{b}=1.114$, c) $t/T_{b}=4.297$, d) $t/T_{b}=8.276$, in ultra-res DNS at $Re=4300$.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](rhoStime0637){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at a) $t/T_{b}=0.637$, b) $t/T_{b}=1.114$, c) $t/T_{b}=4.297$, d) $t/T_{b}=8.276$, in ultra-res DNS at $Re=4300$.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](rhoStime1114){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at a) $t/T_{b}=0.637$, b) $t/T_{b}=1.114$, c) $t/T_{b}=4.297$, d) $t/T_{b}=8.276$, in ultra-res DNS at $Re=4300$.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](rhoStime4297){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at a) $t/T_{b}=0.637$, b) $t/T_{b}=1.114$, c) $t/T_{b}=4.297$, d) $t/T_{b}=8.276$, in ultra-res DNS at $Re=4300$.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](rhoStime8276){width="\columnwidth"}
We study this problem varying both the mesh resolution (cf. Table \[tab:resolutions\]) and the SGS LES model (Smagorinsky and one equation eddy model). Fig. \[fig:mesh\] displays snapshots of the solid-phase bulk densities at time $t=4$ for the three different mesh resolutions: DNS at ultra-res, DNS\* at mid-res, and DNS\* at low-res. Fig. \[fig:LESmodel\] displays snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at time $t = 7$. To generate the plots in Fig. \[fig:LESmodel\], we use two LES models (the Smagorinsky and the one equation eddy model) at two coarse resolutions (mid-res and low-res). To assess the quality of the LES results, we used the DNS at ultra-res as benchmark. Fig. \[fig:LESmodel\] shows that the LES models yield similar results. From Fig. \[fig:LESmodel\] we can deduce that, even if the overall qualitative behavior is reproduced in four LES simulations, the results obtained at low-res are rather poor and only the bigger vortices are reproduced. On the other hand, the LES results at mid-res are in good agreement with the DNS and the one equation eddy model seems to be better performing when looking at the smaller vortices. The two LES models required a comparable computational time and a comparison based on more quantitative arguments will be discussed later on, see Fig. \[fig:mixed-mass\] and \[fig:BGE\] and discussion therein.
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=0.637$ evaluated with different resolutions, (a) low-res DNS\*, (b) mid-res DNS\*, (c) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:mesh"}](LimitedLinearTime4){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=0.637$ evaluated with different resolutions, (a) low-res DNS\*, (b) mid-res DNS\*, (c) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:mesh"}](midResDnsTime4){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=0.637$ evaluated with different resolutions, (a) low-res DNS\*, (b) mid-res DNS\*, (c) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:mesh"}](DNStime4){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=1.114$ evaluated with different LES models: (a) low-res Smagorinsky, (b) low-res one eq. eddy, (c) mid-res Smagorinsky, (d) mid-res one eq. eddy, (e) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:LESmodel"}](lowResSmaTime7){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=1.114$ evaluated with different LES models: (a) low-res Smagorinsky, (b) low-res one eq. eddy, (c) mid-res Smagorinsky, (d) mid-res one eq. eddy, (e) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:LESmodel"}](LimitedLinearOneEqTime7){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=1.114$ evaluated with different LES models: (a) low-res Smagorinsky, (b) low-res one eq. eddy, (c) mid-res Smagorinsky, (d) mid-res one eq. eddy, (e) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:LESmodel"}](midResSmaTime7){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=1.114$ evaluated with different LES models: (a) low-res Smagorinsky, (b) low-res one eq. eddy, (c) mid-res Smagorinsky, (d) mid-res one eq. eddy, (e) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:LESmodel"}](midResOneEqTime7){width="\columnwidth"}
![Snapshots of the solid-phase bulk density at $t/T_{b}=1.114$ evaluated with different LES models: (a) low-res Smagorinsky, (b) low-res one eq. eddy, (c) mid-res Smagorinsky, (d) mid-res one eq. eddy, (e) ultra-res DNS.[]{data-label="fig:LESmodel"}](rhoStime1114){width="\columnwidth"}
Figs. \[fig:one\]-\[fig:LESmodel\] show that, just as in the case of the Boussinesq equations, the system rapidly generates the Kelvin-Helmholtz billows along the interface of gravity waves, which are counter-propagating. These waves are reflected by the side walls and gradually both billows grow by entraining the surrounding fluid. Later the mixing increases so much that individual billows cannot be seen anymore.
In order to check whether our DNS results are an appropriate benchmark for the LES results, we compare our ultra-res DNS results with those in [@OIFSD2007]. Since we chose analogous initial conditions and since our two-phase model is comparable with the Boussinesq equations (cf. Eq. ), we expect similar qualitative results for all the flow variables. In Fig. \[fig:mass-fraction\] we compare our ultra-res DNS results with those from [@OIFSD2007]
![Time evolution of the mixed mass fraction. DNS results from the current study (solid) and from Ref [@OIFSD2007] (dashed). Both simulations use the same mesh resolution.[]{data-label="fig:mass-fraction"}](vsTraian.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
using the mixed mass fraction, which is a quantity measuring the mixing. The mixed mass fraction is defined as the fraction of volume were the density perturbation is partially mixed. In particular, in our simulations with homogeneous meshes, it is obtained evaluating the percentage of cells such that $1/3<\rho_s<2/3$ (cf. [@OIFSD2007]). The plots in Fig. \[fig:mass-fraction\] show that the two simulations yield similar results, as expected. The main difference is in the time interval $2<t/T_b<4$, where our simulation seems to mix slightly more than the simulation from [@OIFSD2007]. As we will discuss later, this is probably due to the mixing induced by the creation of stratification.
![Time evolution of the mixed mass fraction with $\frac{1}{3}<\rho_{s}<\frac{2}{3}$ for the various low resolution LES models. The DNS results (solid) serve as benchmark.[]{data-label="fig:mixed-mass"}](MMF.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:mixed-mass\] we plot the evolution of the mixed mass fraction for all our simulations. Fig. \[fig:mixed-mass\] yields the following conclusions: At the low-res, the one equation eddy model performs the best, followed by the DNS\*, and the Smagorinsky model (in this order). At the mid-res, the Smagorinsky model performs the best, followed by the one equation eddy model, and the DNS\* (in this order).
The main measure used in the assessment of the accuracy of the models employed to predict mixing in the dam-break problem is the non-dimensional background potential energy RPE\* defined in , cf. [@WLRD1995].
![Time evolution of the non-dimensional background energy ($\textup{RPE}^*$), for the LES models at various resolutions. The DNS results (solid) serve as benchmark. The time is normalized with $T_b$.[]{data-label="fig:BGE"}](RPE.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:BGE\] plots the background energy of the various LES models. The DNS results serve as benchmark. Fig. \[fig:BGE\] yields the following conclusions: At the low-res, the one equation eddy model performs the best, followed by the DNS\*, and the Smagorinsky model (in this order). At the mid-res, the one equation eddy model again performs the best, followed by the DNS\*, and the Smagorinsky model (in this order).
Apart from the above LES model assessment, we also observe that new important phenomena appear in the compressible case: While in the incompressible case the RPE is monotonically increasing, in our investigation it is initially decreasing, it then reaches a minimum, and it finally starts to increase monotonically, as expected. In order to better understand this phenomenon, we have to compare the background energy of the homogeneous initial condition with that of the stratified initial condition. Evaluating the initial potential energy ($\textup{PE}_0$), the available energy ($\textup{APE}_0$), and the background energy ($\textup{RPE}_0$) for the homogeneous initial density of the solid-phase, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:iniHom}
\textup{PE}_0/g & = 10, & \textup{APE}_0 & = 5, & \textup{RPE}_0/g =
5.\end{aligned}$$ If we consider the initial distribution of fluid and particles in the stratified case, with $\rho_s(x,z,0)=0.01\,\rho_f(x,z,0)$, and $\rho_{f,\textup{homog.}} = 100$, we get $$\label{eq:rhoSstrat}
\rho_{s}(x,z)=\frac{1-\eta\,
z}{1-\eta \frac{H}{2}} \mathcal{H}(-x)\,,$$ where $\mathcal{H}(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. Evaluating the same energies (as those in ) for the stratified density distribution considered and using $H=2$ and $L=10$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{PE}_\textup{str.}/g & = \frac{10}{3}\frac{(3 - 4\eta)}{1 -
\eta}, & \textup{APE}_\textup{str.} & = \frac{1}{2}
\textup{PE}_\textup{str.}, & \textup{RPE}_\textup{str.} =
\frac{1}{2} \textup{PE}_\textup{str.}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and also $$\textup{RPE}_\textup{str.}^* = \frac{\textup{RPE}_\textup{str.} -
\textup{RPE}_0}{\textup{RPE}_0} =
\frac{-\eta}{3(1-\eta)} < 0\,.$$ These analytical computations show that the RPE of the stratified state is smaller than that of the homogeneous state. In the next section we will discuss this issue in more detail.
A few remarks on the model without the barotropic assumption.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we compare the results of the previous sections with some low-res simulations obtained from the same test case, by using system , i.e. without the assumption of a barotropic fluid. The simulations with model are more time-consuming and so we performed them only at low-res (simulations with finer mesh resolution are in preparation and their results will appear in the forthcoming report [@Cer2014]).
The barotropic assumption is based on the fact that the thermal and kinematic diffusion ($\nabla \cdot q$ and $\mathbb{T}:\nabla u$) in Eq. are negligible, so that the entropy $s$ of the system is constant along streamlines, i.e. (cf. [@Fei2004] for the one-phase case and [@Cer2014] for the multiphase case): This is a reversibility assumption. Indeed, the background energy can be considered as a sort of entropy, measuring the potential energy dispersed in the mixing [@WLRD1995]. The fact that the transformation is reversible allows the background energy to decrease. On the contrary, if we remove this assumption, coming back to the full multiphase model (including the energy equation), we find that the background energy becomes monotone, see Fig. \[fig:BGE\_irreversible\]. This figure suggests that the barotropic assumption may be not completely justified during the initial time-interval needed to adjust from the homogeneous to the stratified condition (probably this transformation can not be considered fully iso-entropic). Nevertheless, the barotropic assumption seems justified after the time $T_a$.
Moreover, the stratified initial condition makes the simulation more stable and accurate, but also less diffusive, even at low-res. The RPE\* is monotonically increasing when using model (low-res irreversible) and, starting with the stratified initial condition, decreases the mixing and brings it closer to that of the DNS.
![Plot of RPE\* obtained by using model . Low res DNS\* compared with the ultra-res DNS and the low-res DNS\*. The line with “$\cdot\!\cdot\!\square\!\cdot\!\cdot$” represents RPE\* starting from the initial condition , while the line with “- -$\ast$- -” represents the same quantity starting from the homogeneous initial state. The solid line and the line with “- -$\times$- -” are the RPE\* obtained with the barotropic model with homogeneous initial state, with the ultra-res DNS and the low-res DNS\*, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:BGE_irreversible"}](RPE_irreversible){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Note that the low-res DNS\* irreversible with homogeneous initial data and the ultra-res DNS start from the same datum. Even if the low-res DNS\* is under-resolved, the behavior of the RPE\* is correct and it is monotonically increasing. The behavior, at the beginning of the evolution, is closer to the DNS than the behavior of the LES described in Fig. \[fig:BGE\], obtained from the barotropic model . On the other hand, after this transient time the behavior becomes comparable with that of the previous low-res barotropic simulation (low-res DNS\* vs. low-res DNS\* irreversible and homogeneous). The comparison of the results obtained at various resolutions and with different LES models for the barotropic and non-barotropic equations deserves further investigation and we plan to perform it in the near future.
Conclusions
===========
We examined a two-dimensional dam-break problem were the instability is due to the presence of a dilute suspension of particles in half of the domain. The Reynolds number based on the typical gravity wave velocity and on the semi-height of the domain is $4300$, the Froude number is $2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, the Mach number is $10^{-2}$, and the Prandtl number is $1$. The particle concentration is $10^{-3}$, and the Stokes number is smaller than $10^{-3}$ (fine particles). The importance of stratification, measured as the density gradient times the domain height ($-\partial_y\rho_f/\rho_f\,H$), is about a few percent ($\sim5\%$). Even if the problem is quasi-incompressible and quasi-isothermal, we used a full compressible code, with a barotropic constitutive law. We employed a homogeneous and orthogonal mesh with three different grid refinements ranging from $10^4$ to $10^6$ cells. *A posteriori* tests confirm that the finer grid can resolve all the scales of the problem. The code that we used was derived from the OpenFOAM$^{\textup{\textregistered}}$ `C++` libraries.
We compared our quasi-isothermal two-phase simulations with the analogous mono-phase problem, where the mixing occurs between the same fluid at two different temperatures, as reported in [@OIFSD2007]. As we showed in Section \[sec:models\], this is possible since the two physical problems become mathematically equivalent in the regimes under study. As expected, we found a good agreement between the two sets of numerical results. We reported the evolution of the background (or reference) potential energy (RPE), a scalar quantity measuring the mixing between the two fluids. The main contributions of this report are the following: We implemented a multiphase Eulerian model (that can be used in more complex physical situations, with more than two phases, and also involving chemical reactions between species, as in volcanic eruptions). We also showed the effectiveness of the numerical results obtained programming with an open-source code. More importantly, we discovered that peculiar effects due to compressibility influence the mixing. In the literature we found that the mono-phase, incompressible Boussinesq test case has a monotonically increasing RPE. On the other hand, in our numerical experiments with slightly compressible two-phase flow, we found that the RPE initially decreases because of the stratification instability, and then it increases monotonically because of the mixing between the particles and the surrounding fluid. Indeed, even if the flow is quasi-incompressible ($\textup{Ma}=0.01$), it turns out that stratification effects are not negligible. We reported the preliminary results in the two-dimensional case. We plan to perform three-dimensional numerical simulations of the same problem in a future study. \#1[0=0=0 0 by1pt\#1]{} \#1[0=]{}
[10]{} S. Balachandar and J.K. Eaton. Turbulent dispersed multi-phase flow. *Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.*, vol. 42, pp. 399–434. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, 2010.
L.C. Berselli, P. Fischer, T. Iliescu, and T. Özgökmen. Horizontal [L]{}arge [E]{}ddy [S]{}imulation of stratified mixing in a lock-exchange system. *J. Sci. Comput.*, 49:3–20, 2011.
R. E. Britter and J.E. Simpson. Experiments on the dynamics of a gravity current head. *J. Fluid Mech.*, 88:223–240, 1978.
G.F. Carrier. Shock waves in a dusty gas. *J. Fluid Mech*, 4:376–382, 1958.
M. Cerminara. *Multiphase flows in volcanology*. PhD thesis, Scuola Normale Superiore, 2014. To appear.
M. Cerminara, L.C. Berselli, T. Esposti Ongaro, and M.V. Salvetti. Direct numerical simulation of a compressible multiphase flow through the eulerian approach. In *Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation IX,* vol. 12 of *ERCOFTAC Series*. Springer, 2013. At press.
T. Chacón Rebollo and R. Lewandowski. *Mathematical and numerical foundations of turbulence models and applications*. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2014.
B. Cushman-Roisin and J.-M. Beckers. *Introduction to Geophysical Fluid Dynamics*. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-12-088759-0.
Ä. Dörnbrack. Turbulent mixing by breaking gravity waves. *J. Fluid Mech.* 375:113–141, 1998.
T. Esposti Ongaro, C. Cavazzoni, G. Erbacci, A. Neri, and M.V. Salvetti. A parallel multiphase flow code for the 3d simulation of explosive volcanic eruptions. *Parallel Comput.*, 33(7-8):541–560, 2007.
E. Feireisl. *Dynamics of viscous compressible fluids*, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
H.J.S. Fernando. Aspects of stratified turbulence. In: Kerr, R.M., Kimura, Y. (Eds.), Developments in Geophysical Turbulence, pp. 81–92, 2000.
J.H. Ferziger and M. Peri[ć]{}. *Computational methods for fluid dynamics*, revised ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
U. Frisch. *Turbulence, The [L]{}egacy of [A]{}.[N]{}. [K]{}olmogorov*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
C. Fureby. On subgrid scale modeling in large eddy simulations of compressible fluid flow. *Phys. Fluids*, 8(5):1301–1311, 1996.
J. Hacker, P. F. Linden, and S. B. Dalziel. Mixing in lock-release gravity currents. *Dyn. Atmos. Oceans*, 24(1-4):183–195, 1996.
M.A. Hallworth, H.E. Huppert, J.C. Phillips, and R.S.J. Sparks. Entrainment into two-dimensional and axisymmetric turbulent gravity currents. *J. Fluid Mech.*, 308:289–311, 1996.
M.A. Hallworth, J.C. Phillips, H.E. Huppert, and R.S.J. Sparks. Entrainment in turbulent gravity currents. *Nature*, 362:829 – 831, 1993.
R.I. Issa. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting. *J. Comput. Phys.*, [62]{}(1):40–65, 1986.
H. Jasak. *Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Volume Method with Applications to Fluid Flows*. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London, 1996.
L.H. Kantha and C.A. Clayson. *Small Scale Processes in Geophysical Fluid Flows*, vol. 67 of *Int. Geophysics Series*. Academic Press, 2000.
D.A. Kay, P.M. Gresho, D.F. Griffiths, and D.J. Silvester. Adaptive time-stepping for incompressible flow. [II]{}. [N]{}avier-[S]{}tokes equations. *SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*, 32(1):111–128, 2010.
F. Marble. Dynamics of dusty gases. *Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.*, vol. 3, pp. 397–446. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, 1970.
B. R. Morton, G. Taylor, and J.S. Turner. Turbulent gravitational convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A*, [234]{}, 1–23 1956.
T. Özgökmen, T. Iliescu, and P. Fischer. Large eddy simulation of stratified mixing in a three-dimensional lock-exchange system. *Ocean Modelling*, 26:134–155, 2009.
T. [Ö]{}zg[ö]{}kmen, T. Iliescu, and P. Fischer. Reynolds number dependence of mixing in a lock-exchange system from direct numerical and large eddy simulations. *Ocean Modelling*, 30(2):190–206, 2009.
T. Özgökmen, T. Iliescu, P. Fischer, A. Srinivasan, and J. Duan. Large eddy simulation of stratified mixing in two-dimensional dam-break problem in a rectangular enclosed domain. *Ocean Modelling*, 16:106–140, 2007.
J.J. Riley and M.-P. Lelong. Fluid motions in presence of strong stable stratification. In *Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.*, vol. 32, pp. 613–657. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, 2000.
D.A. Siegel and J.A. Domaradzki. Large-eddy simulation of decaying stably stratified turbulence. *J. Phys. Oceanogr.*, 24:2353–2386, 1994.
Y.J. Suzuki, T. Koyaguchi, M. Ogawa, and I. Hachisu. A numerical study of turbulent mixing in eruption clouds using a 3D fluid dynamics model. *J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth*, 110(B8):B08201, 2005.
S.A. Valade, A.J.L. Harris and M. Cerminara. Plume Ascent Tracker: Interactive Matlab software for analysis of ascending plumes in image data. *Comput. & Geosci.*, 66(0):132–144, 2014.
K.B. Winters, P.N. Lombard, J.J. Riley, and E.A. D’Asaro. Available potential energy and mixing in density-stratified fluids. *J. Fluid Mech.*, 289:115–128, 4 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Search for high-mass Z$\gamma$ resonances in $\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma$ and $\mu^+\mu^-\gamma$ final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13'
---
=1
$Revision: 377291 $ $HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/EXO-16-021/trunk/EXO-16-021.tex $ $Id: EXO-16-021.tex 377291 2016-12-14 14:30:58Z pandolf $
Introduction
============
The ATLAS and CMS experiments have observed [@atlasHiggs; @cmsHiggs; @long] a standard model(SM) like Higgs boson at 125 [@cms_properties]. While this discovery has reaffirmed the SM, it is widely believed that the SM is a low-energy approximation of a more complex theory [@altarelli]. An enhancement with respect to the SM in the rate of rare decays of the 125boson or the discovery of additional scalar or pseudoscalar bosons would provide evidence that this is the case. Searches for the rare decay of the 125Higgs boson into a boson and a photon have been conducted by both ATLAS and CMS [@cms_hzg; @Aad:2014fia], but have insufficient sensitivity to probe the SM Higgs boson hypothesis.
In the context of the wider search for new resonances in the diphoton final state [@ATLASbump; @diphotons; @CMSdiphotons2016], information from the Z$\gamma$ channel provides important complementary information. For example, an extended SM incorporating a scalar (or pseudoscalar) decaying to two photons would imply that Z$\gamma$ decays should be observed as well [@Buttazzo:2015txu].
We present the results for a search for a high-mass scalar, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}$, with mass between 200and 2, decaying to $\Z\gamma$. The analysis is performed by studying proton-proton collisions recorded with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The analyzed data samples correspond to integrated luminosities of 19.7 and 2.7, recorded at center-of-mass energies of 8 and 13, respectively. The search is for localized excesses in the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}\to\Z\gamma$ channel, with the boson identified by means of its decays into an electron or a muon pair. The dominant backgrounds consist of the irreducible contribution from the continuum $\Z\gamma$ production and the reducible backgrounds from either final-state radiation in boson decays or boson production in association with one or more jets (plus jets), where a jet is misidentified as a photon. The background is determined directly from data. Searches for a scalar singlet decaying to $\Z\gamma$ have been performed at the LHC by ATLAS at center-of-mass energies of 8 [@atlas_hzgHigh] and 13 [@ATLAS2016].
The CMS detector
================
A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with the definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found elsewhere [@cms]. The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid, 13 in length and 6 in diameter, which provides an axial magnetic field of 3.8. Within the field volume there are several particle detection systems. Charged-particle trajectories are measured by silicon pixel and strip trackers, covering $0 < \phi < 2\pi$ in azimuth and $\abs{\eta}< 2.5$ in pseudorapidity. A lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) is partitioned into a barrel region with $\abs{\eta}< 1.48$ and two endcaps that extend up to $\abs{\eta}= 3$. A brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter surrounds the ECAL volume and covers the region $\abs{\eta}< 3$. Iron forward calorimeters with quartz fibers, read out by photomultipliers, extend the calorimeter coverage up to $\abs{\eta}= 5$. The calorimeters provide measurements of the energy of photons, electrons, and hadronic jets. Lead and silicon-strip preshower detectors are located in front of the endcap electromagnetic calorimeter. Muons are identified and measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The detector is nearly hermetic, allowing energy balance measurements in the plane transverse to the beam direction. A two-tier trigger system selects proton-proton collision events of interest.
Particle reconstruction and event selection
===========================================
The selected events are required to pass a dielectron trigger, which has transverse momentum, $\pt$, thresholds of 17 and 12, respectively, on the two electrons, or a dimuon trigger, with thresholds of 17 and 8on the two muons. The analysis of the 13data also makes use of trigger paths that require the presence of only one muon, with a transverse momentum threshold of 20. The trigger efficiencies for events containing two leptons satisfying the subsequent event selection requirements are measured to be between 90% and 98% for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ channel depending on the electron transverse momenta, and about 91% for the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ channel. These efficiencies are determined with a data sample enriched in boson events.
Events with two opposite-sign, same-flavor leptons (electrons or muons) and a photon are selected. All particles are required to be isolated, and the lepton with the highest [$\pt$]{} is required to satisfy $\pt> 20\,(25)$in the analysis of 8(13)data, while the second-leading lepton must have $\pt>$ 10 (20). The photon is required to satisfy $\pt > 40$. The electrons and photon must have $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$, while the muons must have $\abs{\eta} < 2.4$. Photons and electrons in the ECAL barrel-endcap transition region $1.44 < \abs{\eta} < 1.57$ of the electromagnetic calorimeter are excluded. More details on reconstruction of photons, electrons, and muons can be found in Refs. [@photons; @CMS:2013ele; @muons].
Events are required to have at least one vertex [@Veszpremi:2014hpa], with the reconstructed longitudinal position within 24 of the geometric center of the detector and the transverse position within 2 of the beam interaction region. There are multiple reconstructed vertices associated with additional interactions (pileup), and the vertex with the highest sum of the ${\pt^2}$ of its associated tracks is chosen as the primary vertex. The leptons are required to originate from the same primary vertex by requiring, for each track, that its transverse impact parameter with respect to the primary vertex is smaller than 2 and that its longitudinal impact parameter is smaller than 2(5) for electrons (muons).
The observables used in the photon selection are as follows: isolation variables based on a particle-flow (PF) algorithm [@pflow; @pflow2], kinematic variables corresponding to the location and energy of the photon, shower shape variables that provide information on the size and shape of the energy deposition in the ECAL, and a variable taking into account the energy deposited by pileup interactions, calculated with the package [@Cacciari:2007fd]. Identification and isolation requirements in the analysis of the 8data are enforced through the use of a multivariate discriminant, whereas simple, cut-based selection is used in the analysis of 13data. The search conducted in 8data targets a lower mass range, so the photon identification criteria with the most efficient rejection of the jet-induced background were chosen.
Photon candidates are rejected if a cluster of hits in the tracker pixel detector is found to be compatible with the ECAL energy cluster position. The efficiency of the photon identification is measured from $\Z \to \Pe\Pe$ data [@cite:tagandprobe] by treating the electrons as photons [@long], and is found to be 90% for photons with $\pt > 40$. These efficiencies include the losses due to photon conversions caused by the pixel tracker veto requirement, estimated with $\Z\to\mu\mu\gamma$ events, where the photon is produced via final-state radiation.
Isolation requirements are based on objects reconstructed with the PF algorithm within $\Delta R = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^2 + (\Delta\phi)^2}} = 0.3$ from the photon candidate direction, where $\Delta\eta$ and $\Delta\phi$ are, respectively, the differences in the pseudorapidity and azimuth angles between the photon and the given reconstructed object. Only charged candidates are considered in the enforcement of isolation criteria in the analysis of 13data, whereas additional photons are also considered in the analysis of 8data.
Electron candidates are reconstructed as clusters of energy deposits in the ECAL matched to signals in the silicon tracker [@CMS:2013ele]. The electron energy resolution is improved by using a multivariate regression technique resulting in improvements of 10 and 30% in the mass resolution for $\Z\to \Pe\Pe$ events over the standard CMS electron reconstruction in the barrel and endcap calorimeters, respectively [@CMS:2013ele]. Electrons are identified via loose requirements on the shape of these energy deposits, on the ratio of energies in associated hadron and electromagnetic calorimeter cells, on the geometrical matching between the energy deposits and the associated track, and on the consistency between the energy reconstructed from the calorimeter deposits and the momentum measured in the tracker. The electron selection criteria used in the analysis of 8data are optimized further for background rejection using a multivariate approach. The training of the multivariate electron reconstruction is performed using simulated events, while the performance is validated using data.
Muon candidates [@muons] are reconstructed from tracks found in the muon system that are associated with the tracks in the silicon detectors. Muon identification criteria are based on the quality of the track fit and the number of associated energy deposits in the pixel and strip tracking detectors. The total efficiencies for the combined muon identification and pileup-corrected isolation criteria are better than 95%.
Electrons and muons from $\Z$ boson decays are expected to be isolated from other particles. A fixed cone of size $\DR = 0.4$ is constructed around the direction of each lepton candidate in the search performed in 8data, while $\DR$ varies with the lepton in the selection used in the analysis of 13data according to the relation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta R &=\begin{cases}
0.2, & \pt < 50\GeV\\
\frac{10\GeV}{\pt}, & 50 < \pt < 200\GeV\\
0.05, & \pt > 200\GeV.
\end{cases}\label{eq:miniIso}
\end{aligned}$$
This ensures high lepton identification efficiency even for highly-boosted $Z$ boson decays, as expected in the decay of high-mass resonances. The relative isolation of the lepton is quantified by summing the transverse momenta of the relevant PF candidates within this cone, excluding the lepton itself. To account for the contamination from pileup interactions, charged particles originating from additional vertices are excluded from the estimate, and a correction is applied to account for the neutral PF objects originating from pileup activity, which cannot be excluded by vertex identification. The resulting quantity, divided by the lepton transverse momentum, is required to be less than 0.4 for both electrons and muons in the analysis of 8data, and less than 0.1 (0.2) for electrons (muons) in 13data. This requirement rejects misidentified leptons and background arising from hadronic jets. Finally, the separation between each lepton and the photon must satisfy $\DR> 0.4$ in order to reject events with final-state radiation.
The invariant mass of the dilepton system is required to be greater than 50. In the selection used in 8data, no upper dilepton mass condition is needed, while in the selection used in 13data the dilepton mass is required to be below 130. The minimum dilepton mass requirement rejects contributions from $\Pp\Pp\to\gamma\gamma^*$, where an internal conversion of the photon produces a dilepton pair. In the rare cases where more than one dilepton pair is present, the one with an invariant mass closest to the $\Z$ boson mass is taken. The final set of requirements combines the information from the photon and the leptons: (i)the invariant mass ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ of the $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ system (where $\ell = \Pe,\mu$), is required to be above 150(200)in the analysis of 8(13)data; and (ii)the ratio of the photon transverse energy to ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ must be greater than 0.27. This latter requirement suppresses backgrounds due to misidentification of photons, without significant loss in signal sensitivity and without introducing a bias in the ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ spectrum.
Background modelling
====================
Simulations indicate that 80–90% of the background after the full event selection is due to SM $\Z\gamma$ production with initial-state radiation, with the remainder mostly due to the contribution from plus jet events, where the jet is misreconstructed as a photon. The ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ distributions are steeply and smoothly falling with increasing mass. The background is measured directly in the data, through an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ distributions, separately in the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ channels. The background is parametrized with empirical formulae.
In the 8analysis the background shape is parameterized with the sum of three exponential decay functions. The fit is performed for values of ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}> 150$. The potential bias in the background measurement is studied by using pseudo-data generated from different functional forms and fitted with the function under test. The results of these fits are used to determine an appropriate model for the background, such that the bias introduced in the signal measurement is smaller than 1/5 of the statistical uncertainty in its determination. The chosen model (sum of three exponential decay functions) is found to satisfy this criterion across the search mass range. The observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in 8data are shown in Figure \[fig:8tev\_fits\]. The results of the fit is represented by a line, with the 68% uncertainty band as grey shading.
![Observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in the 8data, for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (left) and the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (right) channels. The fitted function is represented by a line, with the 68% uncertainty band as grey shading. The lower panels show the difference between the data and the fit, divided by the uncertainty $\sigma_\text{stat}$, that includes the statistical uncertainty in both the data and the fit. For bins with a low number of data entries, the error bars correspond to the Garwood confidence intervals. []{data-label="fig:8tev_fits"}](figures/PaperCombo_fit_el "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in the 8data, for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (left) and the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (right) channels. The fitted function is represented by a line, with the 68% uncertainty band as grey shading. The lower panels show the difference between the data and the fit, divided by the uncertainty $\sigma_\text{stat}$, that includes the statistical uncertainty in both the data and the fit. For bins with a low number of data entries, the error bars correspond to the Garwood confidence intervals. []{data-label="fig:8tev_fits"}](figures/PaperCombo_fit_mu "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The 13search employs a strategy similar to the 8search. The fit is performed for values of ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}> 200$. The function chosen for the background estimate,
$$f(x) = x^{a + b\log x},$$
describes the background shape well and does not create a significant bias. The absence of significant bias has been verified by fitting a large number of pseudo-datasets generated from various background models, and measuring the difference between the true and fitted background yields in different ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ windows; in each window a pull variable is defined as the difference between the true and fitted yields, divided by the statistical uncertainty. If the absolute value of the median of this distribution is found to be above 0.5 in an interval, an additional uncertainty is assigned to the background parametrization. A modified pull distribution is then constructed, increasing the statistical uncertainty in the fit by an extra term, denoted the *bias term*. The bias term is parametrized as a smooth function of ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$, which is tuned in such a manner that the absolute value of the median of the modified pull distribution is less than 0.5 in all intervals. This additional uncertainty is included in the likelihood function by adding to the background model a component having the same shape as the signal, with a normalization coefficient distributed as a Gaussian of mean zero, and with a width equal to the integral of the bias term. This inclusion of the additional component takes into account the possible mismodeling of the background shape. The bias term which is used in this analysis amounts to about $5\times 10^{-3}$ events/ at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}= 600$, and smoothly falls to about $5\times 10^{-4}$ events/GeV around ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}=2\TeV$.
![Observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in the 13data, for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (left) and the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (right) channels. The fitted function is represented by a line, with the 68% uncertainty band as gray shading. The lower panels show the difference between the data and the fit, divided by the uncertainty $\sigma_\text{stat}$, which includes the statistical uncertainty in both the data and the fit. For bins with a low number of data entries, the error bars correspond to the Garwood confidence intervals. []{data-label="fig:13tev_fits"}](figures/bkg_fit_bkg_ee "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in the 13data, for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (left) and the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (right) channels. The fitted function is represented by a line, with the 68% uncertainty band as gray shading. The lower panels show the difference between the data and the fit, divided by the uncertainty $\sigma_\text{stat}$, which includes the statistical uncertainty in both the data and the fit. For bins with a low number of data entries, the error bars correspond to the Garwood confidence intervals. []{data-label="fig:13tev_fits"}](figures/bkg_fit_bkg_mm "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The observed ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ invariant mass spectra in 13data are shown in Fig. \[fig:13tev\_fits\], for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (left) and ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (right) channels. The results of the fit and its uncertainty are shown with a line and a band.
No events with invariant mass larger than 1275(1220)pass the selection on 8(13)data.
Signal modeling
===============
We focus on narrow-width signal models, where the intrinsic width of the resonance is negligible compared to the experimental resolution. Scalar resonances decaying to $\Z\gamma$ are generated at leading order with 8.175 [@Sjostrand:2007gs] and NNPDF2.3 [@nnpdf23] parton distribution functions (PDF). The 8generator uses the Z2\* tune [@z2] to describe the underlying event and the 13generator, the CUETP8M tune [@cuetp8m]. Several samples are generated with masses ranging from 200(350)to 1.2(2), in the 8(13)analysis. The search performed in 13data begins at higher invariant mass in order to avoid the region where the background is sculpted by the kinematic selections imposed on the final-state objects. As far as the upper range, the analysis of the 8data ends where the results based on the 13analysis dominate the combination.
The signal distribution in ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ is obtained from the generated events that pass the full selection. The signal shape is parametrized with empirical functions; the function chosen is the sum of a Gaussian and Crystal Ball function [@crystalball] for the 8analysis, and an extended form of the Crystal Ball function, with a Gaussian core and two power-law tails, for the 13 TeV analysis. The fitted parameters are determined from the simulated samples at each mass point, separately for the electron and muon channels, and then interpolated through polynomial fits to generic ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$ values in order to have smoothly varying signal shape parametrizations. The typical mass resolution for signal events is 1% for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ channel and 1–2% for the ${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$ channel, depending on the mass of the resonance.
The product of the expected signal acceptance and efficiency in the analysis of 8data rises from about 33% at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}= 200$to about 45% at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}= 1.2$. In the analysis of 13data it rises from about 25% (35%) at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}= 350$to about 45% (55%) at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}= 2$, for the ${\ensuremath{\Pe^+\Pe^-\gamma}\xspace}$ (${\ensuremath{\mu^+\mu^-\gamma}\xspace}$) channel.
Systematic uncertainties
========================
The background spectra are described by parametric functions of ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}$. The coefficients are obtained from a fit to the data events, and considered as unconstrained nuisance parameters in the fit. Thus the description of the background is derived from data. No systematic uncertainty related to the background description is considered, as possible biases are accounted for in the bias terms.
The systematic uncertainty in the signal description arises from the integrated luminosity measurement [@CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001; @lumi], the trigger efficiency, the effect on the signal acceptance from the choice of parton distribution functions [@pdf4lhc], the imperfect simulation of the lepton and photon efficiencies, and the signal mass scale and resolution. These uncertainties have been evaluated separately at 8 and 13, and their magnitudes are summarized in Table \[tab:syst\]. The photon efficiency uncertainty of the 13data analysis is larger because of the use of preliminary calibrations. The sources of uncertainty are considered to be completely uncorrelated between the two center-of-mass energies.
Source 8 13
----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------
Integrated luminosity 2.6% 2.7%
PDF choice 1% 1%
Trigger efficiency (ee, $\mu\mu$) 3%, 2% 3%, 2%
Lepton efficiency 5% 5%
Photon efficiency 1–2.6% 5%
Mass scale and resolution (ee$\gamma$, $\mu\mu\gamma$) 1%, 1–10% 1%, 1–5%
Total systematic uncertainty (ee$\gamma$, $\mu\mu\gamma$) 6.6–7.0%, 6.2–12% 8.3%, 8.3–9.6%
Results
=======
No significant excess is observed with respect to the SM background predictions. Upper limits are set on the production cross section of high-mass scalar resonances using the modified frequentist method, commonly known as CL$_\mathrm{s}$ [@cls2; @Junk:1999kv]. An example of its usage is found in [@cmsHiggs]. Asymptotic formulae [@asympt] are used in the calculation. The individual expected and observed upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the product of the cross section and the branching fraction for ${{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}}\to\Z\gamma$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:rawlimit\].
![Expected and observed upper limits, at 95% CL, on the cross section times branching fraction for ${{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}}\to\Z\gamma$ obtained with the searches performed at 8 (left) and at 13 (right). []{data-label="fig:rawlimit"}](figures/limitPlot8TeV "fig:"){width="1.2\cmsFigWidth"} ![Expected and observed upper limits, at 95% CL, on the cross section times branching fraction for ${{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}}\to\Z\gamma$ obtained with the searches performed at 8 (left) and at 13 (right). []{data-label="fig:rawlimit"}](figures/limit_Zgamma_w0p014_fit_em_long.pdf "fig:"){width="1.2\cmsFigWidth"}
The combination of the two results accounts for the different parton luminosities for collisions at 8 and 13, which have been calculated with the NNPDF2.3 parton distributions [@nnpdf23]. The effect of using different PDFs for the scaling has been evaluated and affects the limits by at most a few percent, mainly in the low-mass region. The signal is assumed to be produced solely through gluon-gluon fusion, and the 8limit is scaled up by the corresponding parton luminosity ratio, which ranges between 3 and 7 in the 0.2 to 1.2mass region, and is about 4.3 for a signal with a mass of 750.
![Left: expected and observed upper limits, at 95% CL, on the 13cross section $\sigma_{13\TeV}({{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}} \to\Z\gamma)$ for the scaled 8 (blue, lighter) and 13 (red, darker) searches, together with their combination (black). Expected limits are shown with dashed lines, observed ones with solid lines. Right: 95% CL upper limit for the combination of 8and 13data. The solid (dashed) line represents the observed (expected) limit, whereas the inner green (outer yellow) bands represent the 68% (95%) uncertainty bands. []{data-label="fig:ul"}](figures/limit_comb_w0p014_logx.pdf "fig:"){width="1.2\cmsFigWidth"} ![Left: expected and observed upper limits, at 95% CL, on the 13cross section $\sigma_{13\TeV}({{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}} \to\Z\gamma)$ for the scaled 8 (blue, lighter) and 13 (red, darker) searches, together with their combination (black). Expected limits are shown with dashed lines, observed ones with solid lines. Right: 95% CL upper limit for the combination of 8and 13data. The solid (dashed) line represents the observed (expected) limit, whereas the inner green (outer yellow) bands represent the 68% (95%) uncertainty bands. []{data-label="fig:ul"}](figures/limit_comb_w0p014_bands_logx.pdf "fig:"){width="1.2\cmsFigWidth"}
![Observed background-only local $p$-values for the scaled 8search (blue, dotted), the 13search (red, dashed), and the combination (black, solid). []{data-label="fig:pvalue"}](figures/pvalue_comb_w0p014_logx.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:ul\] (left) shows the 95% CL upper limits on the 13cross section, $\sigma_{13\TeV}({{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}}\xspace}} \to\Z\gamma)$, as a function of the resonance mass, for the 8 (blue, lighter) and 13 (red, darker) analyses, and their combination (black). The expected (observed) limits are shown as dashed (solid) lines. Figure \[fig:ul\] (right) shows the combined 8 and 13limit with its 68% (inner green) and 95% (outer yellow) uncertainty bands. The discontinuities in the limits are an artifact of the different ranges exploited by the two searches.
Background-only local $p$-values are defined as the probability of obtaining, under the background-only hypothesis, a result equal or larger than the one observed in the data. Figure \[fig:pvalue\] shows the observed background-only $p$-values for the 8search (blue, dotted), the 13search (red, dashed), and their combination (black). The fluctuation at ${\ensuremath{{M}_{\ell\ell\gamma}}\xspace}\approx 370$corresponds to a local significance of 2.6 $\sigma$, and a global significance smaller than one standard deviation, once the ‘look-elsewhere’ effect has been taken into account [@lee]. This has been computed by counting the fraction of times the background-only $p$-value crosses the level corresponding to 0.5 standard deviations in the full mass range in which limits are set.
Summary {#sec:conclusions}
=======
A search for heavy resonances decaying to $\Z\gamma$, with further decay $\Z\to \ell^+\ell^-$, with $\ell = \Pe$ or $\mu$, has been presented. The search makes use of proton-proton data collected by the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 19.7 and 2.7at 8 and 13, respectively. The background is measured directly from data and localized excesses are looked for. No significant deviation with respect to the standard model expectation is found. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the production cross section of narrow resonances, ranging from 280 to 20 for resonance masses from 200 to 2000.
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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and EPLANET (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 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science 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 2013/11/B/ST2/04202, 2014/13/B/ST2/02543 and 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Clarín-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845.
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An optimal control strategy is developed to construct nanostructures of desired geometry along line segments by means of directed self-assembly of charged particles. Such a control strategy determines the electric potentials of a set of electrodes located at fixed points in the line segment. The particles move under the electric forces generated by these electrodes and by the interactions between the particles themselves to form a desired pattern eventually. Due to technology limitations, the particle positions cannot be measured during the course of control, so that the control is open-loop in nature. Such an open-loop control optimally changes the electrode potentials in time in order to create a desired pattern with the highest probability, despite the inherent uncertainty in the initial positions and the dynamical behaviors of the particles. Two models are proposed to describe the uncertain dynamics of the particles: a continuous model relying on a set of nonlinear stochastic differential equations, and a discrete Ising model consisting of a large dimensional continuous-time Markov chain. While the first model is more mathematically tractable, the second one more precisely describes particles at the nanometer scale. The control design procedure begins with the continuous model and identifies the structure of its stable equilibria, which is used later to propose a piecewise constant structure for the control and to demonstrate that the optimal value of each piece is independently obtained from a certain static optimization problem. It is shown next that the design procedure can be applied to the discrete model with only minor modifications. A numerical example of control design is presented.'
author:
- 'Arash Komaee and Paul I. Barton [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: 'Directed Self-Assembly of Linear Nanostructures by Optimal Control of External Electrical Fields'
---
Directed self-assembly, Fokker-Planck equation, Ising model, nanostructure, optimal control.
Introduction
============
Self-assembly is the process of forming an ordered structure from initially disordered components that only interact locally, without external direction. At the molecular level, this process is a common technique for fabrication of nanostructures with periodic patterns [@ART.WhitesidesGrzybowski.02; @ART.WhitesidesBoncheva.02; @ART.AmirParvizEtAl.03; @ART.Zhang.03; @ART.KimEtAl.03; @ART.ParkEtAl.03; @ART.ChengEtAl.04; @ART.LoveEtAl.05; @ART.KhaledEtAl.05; @ART.OzinEtAl.09]. Due to the important role of this fabrication technique in nanotechnology, several researchers have studied self-assembly phenomena at a theoretical level based on abstract models [@TECH.Adleman.00; @PROC.AdlemanEtAl.01; @COLL.CarboneSeeman.04; @ART.SoloveichikWinfree.07; @ART.MajumderEtAl.08; @ART.HormozBrenner.11; @ART.Chandran.12; @ART.Patitz.13].
Self-assembled nanostructures usually demonstrate periodic patterns that only depend on the nature of their components and the environmental conditions under which the patterns are formed. However, several applications require fabrication of nanostructures with certain non-periodic geometries [@ART.RosiMirkin.05; @ART.StephanopoulosEtAl.05; @ART.WinklemanEtAl.05; @ART.StoykovichEtAl.07; @PROC.Kiehl.07; @ART.LalanderEtAl.10]. Given the major role of molecular self-assembly in fabrication of periodic nanostructures, it is reasonable to ask if this process can be externally directed to fabricate nanostructures of desired geometry which are not necessarily periodic. Such a *directed self-assembly* process is the focus of this paper.
In directed self-assembly, a number of charged nanoparticles (e.g., DNA tiles) are manipulated by external electrical fields to form a nanostructure of desired geometry. The directing electrical fields are generated and controlled by relatively small number of electrodes (compared to the number of particles) located at fixed locations on the substrate containing the particles. The dynamics of the particles are primarily governed by the interactions between them (self-assembly), and is modified to some extent by manipulation of the electrical potentials of these electrodes (external direction). The particles are initially distributed randomly on the substrate and are perturbed by random disturbances during the assembly process. Since the particle positions cannot be measured during the course of control, a feedback loop cannot be established and the electrodes are actuated only by open-loop controls.
The control objective is to direct the particles towards formation of a desired pattern despite the uncertainty in their dynamics and initial positions. Under an optimal design, this control must maximize the probability of forming the desired pattern by the end of the assembly process, and maintain the formed structure under a static control afterward. Such a constant static control creates a stable equilibrium representing the desired pattern. In addition to this intended stable equilibrium, the static control inherently creates multiple undesired stable equilibria, and a major challenge of an optimal control is to prevent the system falling into such *kinetic traps*. Given the large number of these kinetic traps and the inherent uncertainty in the initial distribution and dynamics of the particles, the system will most likely be trapped by an undesired stable equilibrium (formation of a wrong pattern), unless a phase of dynamic control (time-dependent) is applied prior to the static control.
This paper intends to develop an analytic framework for study of directed self-assembly, including a systematic method for control design. Rather than focusing on a detailed model of the physical process, the main emphasis is on providing a clear understanding of the fundamental concepts such as static control, kinetic traps, and dynamic control. To be consistent with this approach, the models and control problem considered in this paper are abstractions of real-world directed self-assembly: they capture the essence of this phenomenon but do not reflect all its details. In particular, the paper focuses on directed self-assembly of linear structures (one-dimensional patterns along straight lines), a simplified model also adopted in [@PROC.AdlemanEtAl.01; @ART.Chandran.12] to study “undirected” self-assembly. This special case of the more general planar patterns demonstrates certain properties that facilitate exact characterization of the stable equilibria of the system, which in turn, allows for a rigorous analysis and control design methodology. The concepts and methods developed here for linear patterns are equally valid in two dimensions, while generalization of some computational procedures might not be immediate. Such a generalization, at least approximately, is the subject of our future work.
This paper adopts two different but closely related models to describe directed self-assembly. A continuous model is presented in Section \[LinearGeometry.ModelSection\] which allows the particles to position continuously at any arbitrary point in a line segment. This model is precise for larger particles of micrometer diameter and its continuous nature facilitates our analysis in Section \[LinearGeometry.ControlDesignSection\]. Later in Section \[LinearGeometry.DiscreteModelSection\], a discrete model is presented for nano-scale particles, and it is shown how the results of Section \[LinearGeometry.ControlDesignSection\], originally developed for the continuous model, can be tailored to this discrete model only with minor modifications. Our main results on the structure of the kinetic traps, control design, and optimization of the electrodes are presented in Section \[LinearGeometry.ControlDesignSection\].
Model and Problem Statement {#LinearGeometry.ModelSection}
===========================
The system of particles considered in this paper is described at the nano-scale ($\sim10\mbox{nm}$) by a discrete Ising model and a master equation [@ART.SolisEtAl.10A; @ART.SolisEtAl.10B; @ART.LakerveldEtAl.12]. In this model, the particles can occupy only a finite set of positions along a line segment, in contrast to a continuous model used for larger particles ($\sim1\mu\mbox{m}$) in which the particles can position continuously at any arbitrary point along the line segment. The latter model is directly derived from the classical Newton’s second law of motion, and Coulomb’s law that governs the interactions between the particles and the forces applied to the particles by the electrodes. Such a continuous model is more intuitive and mathematically more tractable, thus it is a convenient point of departure to explain the concepts and control design methodology developed in this paper. We begin with this continuous model and construct our control design method on this basis. Later in Section \[LinearGeometry.DiscreteModelSection\], we present the discrete model and show that for the purpose of control design using our proposed method, the two models are mathematically equivalent and can be interchanged with minor modifications. In particular, our control design relies on the steady-state behaviors of these models which match closely despite their different dynamical behaviors. It is emphasized that the two models describe different physical phenomena and they are not necessarily interchangeable for other purposes such as simulations.
Throughout this paper, the time-dependent state and control vectors are shown by the boldface letters $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$, so that $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{u}$ are mappings from time into the state space and the control set, respectively. The values of the state and the control vectors at time $t$ are denoted by $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ and $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)$ or simply by $x$ and $u$ as a shorthand. All constant vectors and other functions of time or other variables are shown in plain letters.
Referring to [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.ControlsParticles\], consider a line segment and assume that $c+1$ electrodes are located at the fixed points $$0=q_0<q_1<\cdots<q_c$$ in this line segment. Suppose that ${n}$ identical charged particles are located between $q_0$ and $q_c$ at the points $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{n}$. The particle positions specify the state vector $x=\left(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{n}\right)$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The control vector $u=\left(u_0,u_1,u_2,\dots,u_c\right)$ is defined in such a manner that its $k$th component $u_k$ represents the electric charge of the electrode $k=0,1,,\ldots,c$ normalized to the charge of a single particle. It is assumed that at any time, the value of the control vector $u$ can be arbitrarily chosen within the control set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{R}^{c+1}$.
![Geometry of the charged particles and the control electrodes along a line segment. The disks represent the particles while the boxes stand for the electrodes.[]{data-label="LinearGeometry.ControlsParticles"}](Fig1_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
The total energy associated with the state $x$ of the particles and the control value $u$ is given by ${\kappa}V\left(x,u\right)$, where the normalized energy function $V:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^{c+1}\to\mathbb{R}$ is given by $$\label{LinearGeometry.EnergyFunction}
V\left(x,u\right)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{{n}}\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{i}}}^{{n}}
\frac{1}{\left|x_i-x_j\right|}+\sum_{i=1}^{{n}}\sum_{j=0}^{c}\frac{u_j}{\left|x_i-q_j\right|}\,.$$ Here, $\kappa>0$ is a constant defined as $$\kappa=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}\,,$$ where $e$ denotes the charge of a single particle, $\varepsilon_0$ stands for the permittivity of free space, and the dimensionless constant $\varepsilon$ is the relative permittivity of the environment containing the particles. The negative gradient $-{\kappa}\nabla_xV\left(x,u\right)$ of the total energy ($\nabla_x$ denotes the gradient operator with respect to the first argument) is a vector in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose $k$th component is the total force applied to the $k$th particle by the remaining $n-1$ particles (first term on the right-hand side of ) and by the $c+1$ electrodes (second term on the right-hand side of ).
Assume that the particles start from the initial state $x_0$ at time $t=0$ and their state $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\in\mathbb{R}^n$ evolves in time under a time-varying control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\in\mathcal{U}$. The dynamics of the particles is determined by three factors: the Coulomb forces caused by the interactions between the particles and the electrodes and the interactions between the particles themselves, the friction between the particles and their surrounding fluid (drag), and the Brownian motion. In the absence of the Brownian motion, the particles accelerate under the Coulomb forces and the opposing resistance of the surrounding fluid. By Stokes’ drag law [@BOOK.Probstein.94], such resistive forces are negatively proportional to the velocity of the particles with a proportionality constant $\mu>0$. In response to a sudden change in the control Coulomb forces, the particles accelerate for a short period of time before the opposing drag forces balance this change in the control forces. In a large friction regime, this acceleration period is short and negligible [@ART.Felderhof.87], so that it is a reasonable approximation to take the drag and the Coulomb forces as equal. Then the velocity of each particle will be proportional to its applied Coulomb force (Smoluchowski approximation). By normalizing time to $\mu/\kappa$, the proportionality constant is unit and the equation of motion of the particles can be simply written as $$\label{LinearGeometry.DeterministicEquationMotion}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)=-\nabla_xV\left(\mathbf{x}\left(t\right),\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right).$$ The contribution of the Brownian motion is incorporated into the equation of motion using a ${n}$-dimensional standard Wiener process $\left\{\mathbf{w}\left(t\right)\right\}$ as described by the Itô stochastic differential equation [@BOOK.Oksendal.03] $$\label{LinearGeometry.StochasticEquationMotion}
d\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)=-\nabla_xV\left(\mathbf{x}\left(t\right),\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)dt+\sigma{d\mathbf{w}\left(t\right)}.$$ Here, $\sigma=\sqrt{2{\kappa}k_BT}$ is a constant depending on the Boltzmann constant $k_B$, the temperature $T$ in Kelvin, and the normalizing factor $\kappa$ of the energy function. It is assumed that the initial state $\mathbf{x}\left(0\right)=x_0$ is a random vector with the known probability density function $p_0\left(x\right)$ satisfying $$p_0\left(x\right)=0,{\quad}x\notin\left[q_0,q_c\right]^n.$$ The stochastic differential equation represents the Langevin equation for the particle positions [@ART.UhlenbeckOrnstein.30; @ART.Roux.92].
Suppose that the interval $\left[q_0,q_c\right]$ is partitioned into $N$ subintervals $\mathscr{I}_1,\mathscr{I}_2,\ldots,\mathscr{I}_N$ of the equal length $d_0$. It is assumed that the number $N$ of these subintervals is larger than the number ${n}$ of the particles. Further, assume that the distance $q_k-q_{k-1}$ between the electrodes is an integer multiple of the grid size $d_0$.
A pattern $\mathcal{P}\in\left\{0,1\right\}^N$ is defined as a binary vector of dimension $N$ with exactly ${n}$ ones ($1$’s) and $N-{n}$ zeros ($0$’s). The total number of patterns is given by the combination $S=\left(\substack{N\\{n}}\right)$. Each binary component of a pattern represents one of the subintervals $\mathscr{I}_k$. It is said that a pattern $\mathcal{P}$ is formed by the particles, if exactly one particle is inside the subintervals associated with the components of value $1$ in $\mathcal{P}$. Notice that every state of the particles does not necessarily define a pattern since it is possible that more than one particle belong to a certain subinterval. [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample\] illustrates a nanostructure created by $n=8$ particles in a grid of $N=16$ cells with $c+1=5$ electrodes. The binary vector $\mathcal{P}=\left(0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1\right)$ represents this nanostructure (pattern) in such a manner that each occupied cell corresponds to a $1$ in this vector.
![Nano-structure created by $n=8$ particles in a grid of $N=16$ cells with $c+1=5$ electrodes. The pattern is represented by the binary vector $\mathcal{P}=\left(0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1\right)$, where each filled cell is corresponding to a $1$ in this vector. The boxes mark the locations of the electrodes and the disks show the locations that the particles can occupy in the discrete model of Section \[LinearGeometry.DiscreteModelSection\].[]{data-label="LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample"}](Fig2_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
Each pattern $\mathcal{P}$ is uniquely mapped into a subset $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ of the state space $\left[q_0,q_c\right]^{n}$ such that the formation of that pattern at time $t$ occurs if $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$. Let $\iota_k$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$ denote the indices of the $k$th $1$ in the binary vector (pattern) $\mathcal{P}$. Then the value of the mapping $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ is defined as the union $$\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}\right)=\bigcup\mathscr{I}_{i_1}\times\mathscr{I}_{i_2}\times\cdots\times\mathscr{I}_{i_{n}}$$ taken over the set of all ${n}!$ permutations of $\left(\iota_1,\iota_2,\ldots,\iota_{n}\right)$.
The control goal is to move the particles in such a manner that they form a desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ with the highest probability at a final time $t_f$. This must be achieved despite the inherent uncertainty in the system dynamics and the initial state and by means of an open-loop control since the particle positions (components of the state vector) cannot be measured during the course of control due to technology limitations. Therefore, the objective is to obtain an open-loop control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\in\mathcal{U}$ on $t\in\left[0,t_f\right]$ to form a desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ at the final time $t_f$ with the highest possible probability, and to maintain this maximum probability under the constant control $u_\mathrm{ss}\triangleq\mathbf{u}\left(t_f\right)$ afterward ($t>t_f$). These requirements are mathematically expressed by maximizing the payoff function $$\label{LinearGeometry.MaximumProbabilityCondition}
J=\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t_f\right)\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}$$ under the inequality constraint $$\label{LinearGeometry.SteadyStateProbabilityCondition}
\left|\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}-\lim_{t^\prime\to+\infty}
\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t^\prime\right)\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}\right|\leqslant\epsilon$$ for all $t\geqslant{t_f}$ and some small $0<\epsilon<1$. The final time $t_f>0$ is a free parameter that is preferred but not constrained to be reasonably short.
This optimization problem can be formulated as an optimal control problem with deterministic but infinite-dimensional dynamics. It is well known that the probability density function $p\left(x,t\right)$ of $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ solves the Fokker-Planck equation [@BOOK.Soize.94] $$\frac{{\partial}p}{\partial{t}}\left(x,t\right)=\nabla_x\cdot\left(\nabla_xV\left(x,\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)p\left(x,t\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\;\!\sigma^2\nabla_xp\left(x,t\right)\right)$$ with the initial condition $p\left(x,0\right)=p_0\left(x\right)$, where $\nabla_x\cdot$ denotes the divergence operator with respect to the first argument. Then, subject to this infinite-dimensional dynamics, an admissible control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\in\mathcal{U}$ is sought on $t\in\left[0,t_f\right]$ to maximize the payoff function $$J=\int_{\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}p\left(x,t_f\right)dx$$ while maintaining the terminal condition $$\left|\int_{\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}p\left(x,t_f\right)dx-\lim_{t\to+\infty}
\int_{\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}p\left(x,t\right)dx\right|\leqslant\epsilon$$ under the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t_f\right)$ for $t>t_f$.
This new formulation represents a standard optimal control problem[^4] although its solution is complicated by the infinite dimensions of the Fokker-Planck equation. In Section \[LinearGeometry.ControlDesignSection\], we obtain a solution to this optimal control problem within a certain class of piecewise constant controls. This solution exploits a certain structure of the nonlinear system to convert the optimal control problem above to a sequence of static optimization problems with tractable computational complexity.
Control Design {#LinearGeometry.ControlDesignSection}
==============
Our control design procedure consists of two steps: design of a static control, and design of a dynamic control. The static control $u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U}$ is a constant control intended to create a stable equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ inside the subset $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ of the state space that represents a desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$. In the absence of the Brownian motion, a stable equilibrium is a point of the state space with a sustainable balance of forces under which the particles are at rest, i.e., the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ settles at this point in the steady-state so that $\dot{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)=\mathbf{0}$. In the presence of the Brownian motion, the state vector moves towards the stable equilibrium and eventually reaches a stationary regime under which it randomly jitters in the vicinity of $x_\mathrm{ss}$. The desired pattern is formed in this regime as $x_\mathrm{ss}$ is inside $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and the state vector remains close to this point. The optimal design of the static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ is discussed in Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\].
The static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ and the corresponding equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}$ must jointly satisfy the conditions[^5]
$$\begin{aligned}
-&\nabla_xV\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}\label{LinearGeometry.EquilibriumEquation}\\
&H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\succ0\label{LinearGeometry.PositiveDefiniteHessian}\\
&x_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\\
&u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U},\end{aligned}$$
where $H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times{n}}$ is the Hessian matrix $$H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\frac{\partial^2V}{\partial{x^\mathrm{T}}\partial{x}}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right).$$ For a fixed $u_\mathrm{ss}$, the solution $x_\mathrm{ss}$ of the algebraic equation is a stationary point of the energy function $V\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$, and if this stationary point is a strict local minimum of $V\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$, it is a stable equilibrium of the deterministic dynamical system . As noted in , if the Hessian matrix $H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is positive definite, the stationary point is a strict local minimum.
For any given static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$, the algebraic equation can have multiple stable solutions for $x_\mathrm{ss}$, not necessarily inside $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ to form a desired pattern. This is caused by the fact that the energy function $V\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ can have multiple strict local minima (see [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima\](a)) that allow for the formation of multiple stable patterns. As shown in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima\](a), the energy function consists of several *potential wells* with a single stable equilibrium (a strict local minimum) at the bottom of each one. Each potential well specifies a *region of attraction* (ROA)—an open subset of the state space containing exactly one stable equilibrium and marked by the property that if the state $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ of the dynamical system is initially inside a certain ROA, it remains inside that ROA and moves towards its equilibrium. This property is demonstrated by the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}V\left(\mathbf{x}\left(t\right),u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&
=\dot{\mathbf{x}}^\mathrm{T}\left(t\right)\nabla_xV\left(\mathbf{x}\left(t\right),u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\nonumber\\
&=-\left\|\nabla_xV\left(\mathbf{x}\left(t\right),u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right\|^2\\
&\leqslant0,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality holds if and only if $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ is an equilibrium. This implies that the total energy inside a single ROA monotonically decreases before the system settles at the stable equilibrium at the bottom of the potential well. Since the energy level inside a ROA can never exceed its initial value, the state vector cannot escape its initial ROA.
![Multiple equilibria, regions of attraction, and potential wells: (a) multiple potential wells of a dynamical system of one dimension; (b) the state space is partitioned by the ROAs. The depth of a potential well is marked in (a) as the energy difference between the deepest point of that well and the lowest energy level on its boundary. In (b), each ROA contains a single stable equilibrium represented by a dot and the shaded region specifies the ROA containing the desired equilibrium. Without a dynamic control, only the initial states inside this ROA lead to a desired pattern.[]{data-label="LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima"}](Fig3_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
For a static control with multiple stable equilibria, the state space is partitioned[^6] by the set of ROAs as illustrated schematically in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima\](b). However, only a certain equilibrium forms the desired pattern, and only those initial states belonging to the ROA of that equilibrium end up with the desired pattern (see [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima\](b)). Thus, before starting the phase of static control, it is necessary to bring the initial state inside the desired ROA. This task is performed by a dynamic control, a time-varying open-loop control that drives the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ towards the desired ROA regardless of the inherent uncertainty in the initial state. Notice that the state vector—particle locations—is not known to the controller during the course of control. It is shown in Section \[LinearGeometry.DynamicControlSection\] that the dynamic control can be decomposed into a sequence of static controls, so that a piecewise constant structure is proposed for this control.
Before proceeding with the control design in Sections \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\] and \[LinearGeometry.DynamicControlSection\], the structure of the ROAs and their stable equilibria is studied in Section \[LinearGeometry.ROAStructureSection\].
Structure of the Regions of Attraction {#LinearGeometry.ROAStructureSection}
--------------------------------------
In the deterministic system under the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$, the state vector remains in the same ROA that it takes its initial value. This property does not generally hold for stochastic systems perturbed by a Wiener process. For such stochastic systems, the random disturbance causes the state vector to jitter around one of the equilibria, often inside the same ROA. Occasionally, the deviations from the equilibrium are large enough to drive the state vector outside that ROA, allowing other stable equilibria to attract it. This migration from one potential well to another can be viewed as being caused by a high level of energy absorbed from a disturbance that exceeds the depth of the departure potential well. As illustrated in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.MultipleEnergyMinima\](a), the depth of a potential well is defined as the energy difference between its deepest point and the lowest energy on its boundary. In the stochastic system , however, the state vector cannot leave its initial ROA (almost surely), even though the system is disturbed by a Wiener process. This unusual property is a consequence of the infinite depth of the potential wells in this system.
To show this property, consider an electrode charged with the same polarity as the particles (assumed positive), and a particle that is pushed towards the electrode by an external force. For example, in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.ControlsParticles\] suppose that the particle located at $x_1$ is pushed left towards the electrode at $q_0=0$. The external force required to maintain the particle at the distance $x_1$ from the electrode is proportional to $1/x_1^2$ which increases unboundedly as $x_1$ tends to $0$. This implies that the particle cannot reach the electrode using a bounded external force, and clearly cannot pass through it. With a similar argument, two particles cannot hit each other under bounded external forces that squeeze them together.
Assume that all electrodes have constant positive charges (same polarity as the particles), i.e., $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$ is a vector of positive components. Let $\nu_k$, $k=1,2,\ldots,c$ be the number of particles in the interval $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$ so that $\nu_1+\nu_2+\cdots+\nu_c={n}$. Based on the above argument, the integers $\nu_k$ remain constant over time, i.e., at any time after applying the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$, the number of particles in the interval $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$ is equal to its value just before application of this control. In addition, the order of the particles is preserved over time as the particles cannot jump over each other.
Since the particles are identical and their order does not change over the course of control, it can be assumed without loss of generality that they are labeled by $1,2,\ldots,{n}$ from left to right, as shown in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.ControlsParticles\]. This requires the initial distribution of the state vector to satisfy $$p_0\left(x\right)=0,{\quad}x\notin\mathscr{S}_0$$ where the simplified state space $\mathscr{S}_0$ is defined as $$\mathscr{S}_0=\left\{x|\,q_0<x_1<x_2<\cdots<x_{n}<q_c\right\}.$$ In addition, the fixed order of the particles allows the mapping $\mathscr{P}_0\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ to be simplified to $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ defined as $$\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)=\mathscr{I}_{\iota_1}\times\mathscr{I}_{\iota_2}\times\cdots\times\mathscr{I}_{\iota_{n}},$$ where $\iota_k$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$ denote the indices of the $k$th $1$ in the pattern $\mathcal{P}$.
Let $\nu=\left(\nu_1,\nu_2,\ldots,\nu_c\right)$ be a vector in $\mathbb{N}_0^c$ whose $k$th component is the number of particles in the interval $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$. Since the total number of particles is $n$, this vector must satisfy the constraint $\left\|\nu\right\|_1=n$. The total number of such vectors is the “*weak compositions of $n$ into $c$ parts*” [@BOOK.Bona.06 Thm. 5.2] and is given by the combination $$\label{LinearGeometry.ROANumber}
R=\left(\!\!\!\begin{array}{c}n+c-1 \\c-1 \end{array}\!\!\!\right)=\frac{\left(n+c-1\right)!}{n!\left(c-1\right)!}\,.$$ Each instance of $\nu$ uniquely specifies a convex subset of $\mathscr{S}_0$ defined as[^7] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LinearGeometry.ROCSetDefinition}
&\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)=\bigl\{x|\,q_{k-1}<x_{i_k+1}<\cdots<x_{i_k+\nu_k}<q_k,\nonumber\\
&{\qquad\quad}~i_k=\textstyle\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\nu_j,~k\in\left\{l=1,2,\ldots,c|\nu_l\neq0\right\}\bigr\}.\end{aligned}$$ The convexity of this set is straightforward to show.
These subsets are disjoint and their union is equal to the state space $\mathscr{S}_0$ excluding a zero-measure set $\mathscr{B}_0$ containing the boundaries of the open sets $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ in $\mathscr{S}_0$, i.e., $$\bigcup_{\left\|\nu\right\|_1=n}\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)=\mathscr{S}_0\backslash\mathscr{B}_0.$$ Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\] in this section states that each subset $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ of the state space $\mathscr{S}_0$ contains exactly one stable equilibrium of and that the energy function is convex over $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, concluding that each $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ is a ROA of the dynamical system .
\[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\] For any constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$ with positive components, the energy function $V\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is strictly convex over each convex subset $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ (with $\nu$ satisfying $\left\|\nu\right\|_1=n$), the dynamical system has exactly one equilibrium in $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, and that equilibrium is stable.
See Appendix.
Formation of a pattern $\mathcal{P}$ at time $t$ is confirmed if the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ is in the subset $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ of the state space $\mathscr{S}_0$. On the other hand, the definition of $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ and the structure of the ROAs imply that each $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ is entirely inside a single ROA. That specific ROA is characterized as follows. Assume that the pattern $\mathcal{P}$ has $\nu_k\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ particles in the interval $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$ and let $\nu\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ denote a vector in $\mathbb{N}_0^c$ containing the integers $\nu_k\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,c$. Then $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ is a subset of $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\left(\mathcal{P}\right)\right)$ as defined in . Thus, to form a pattern $\mathcal{P}$, it is necessary to first bring the state vector inside the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\left(\mathcal{P}\right)\right)$. For simplicity of notation in the rest of the paper, $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\left(\mathcal{P}\right)\right)$ is abbreviated into $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}\right)$ to represent the ROA containing the pattern $\mathcal{P}$.
Optimal Static Control {#LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection}
----------------------
Suppose that a dynamic control has been applied to the stochastic system during the time interval $t\in\left[0,t_d\right)$ to bring its state inside the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ that contains the desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$. In Section \[LinearGeometry.DynamicControlSection\], it is shown how to design such a dynamic control to maximize the probability of hitting the target set $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. At $t=t_d$, the constant static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ is applied to the system and the system gradually reaches the steady-state as $t\to+\infty$. In the steady-state regime, the probability of forming the desired pattern remains constant, i.e., the event of $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ has a constant probability. The objective of the static control is to maximize this constant probability assuming that at $t=t_d$ the state vector is inside the desired ROA, i.e., $\mathbf{x}\left(t_d\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. This goal is mathematically represented by the optimization problem $$\label{LinearGeometry.OptimalStaticControl}
\max_{u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}}\lim_{t\to+\infty}\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)
\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)|\,\mathbf{x}\left(t_d\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}.$$ In practice, the system can get arbitrarily close to the steady-state within a bounded but long enough settling time $t_f-t_d$. Since the problem statement in Section \[LinearGeometry.ModelSection\] does not constrain the final time $t_f$, this quantity can be chosen sufficiently large to ensure that the conditional probability $$\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t_f\right)\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)|\,\mathbf{x}\left(t_d\right)
\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}$$ is close enough to its final value in . Under this value of the final time, the static control that solves the optimization problem , nearly maximizes this conditional probability.
Here and in the rest of this paper, the static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ is chosen from the control set $\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ defined as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{c+1}$ with positive control charges at two end points $q_0$ and $q_c$, and nonnegative charges for the rest of the electrodes, so that $$\label{LinearGeometry.SteadyStateControlSet}
\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}=\left\{u|u_0>0,u_1\geqslant0,\ldots,u_{c-1}\geqslant0,u_c>0\right\}.$$ Under this assumption, Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\] is applied to the ROAs of the system. Notice that in the statement of Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\], all control charges are assumed positive, while allows some electrodes to be inactive with zero charges. This provides more flexibility to the control vector without jeopardizing the use of Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\]: when some electrodes are inactive, still this theorem is applied, albeit to a system with smaller number of electrodes (with a control vector of smaller dimension). In , only the electrodes at two end points $q_0$ and $q_c$ are constrained to be active to ensure that the particles cannot escape the line segment.
For $t\geqslant{t_d}$, define $\rho\left(x,t\right)$ as the conditional probability density function of $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ given $\mathbf{x}\left(t_d\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. The evolution of this function for $t>{t_d}$ is governed by the Fokker-Planck equation $$\frac{{\partial}\rho}{\partial{t}}\left(x,t\right)=\nabla_x\cdot\left({\nabla_x}V\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\rho\left(x,t\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\;\!\sigma^2{\nabla_x}\rho\left(x,t\right)\right).$$ The definition of $\rho$ implies that at $t=t_d$ this function is identically $0$ for every $x\notin\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. Since the state vector is almost surely inside $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ at $t=t_d$ and almost surely cannot leave this ROA, it stays in $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ for every $t\geqslant{t_d}$ with probability $1$. This implies $\rho\left(x,t\right)=0$ for every $x\notin\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and every $t\geqslant{t_d}$. Based on this analysis, the steady-state solution of this Fokker-Planck equation is given by [@BOOK.Soize.94] $$\label{LinearGeometry.FokkerPlanckSteadyState}
\rho\left(x,+\infty\right)=\frac{\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)d\xi}$$ for $x\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and by $\rho\left(x,+\infty\right)=0$ for $x\notin\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. Note that the normalizing factor in the denominator is an integral over $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ rather than the entire state space following the fact that the conditional probability distribution is identically $0$ outside this ROA.
Using the conditional density function , the conditional probability $$\label{LinearGeometry.PinfDefinition}
P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\triangleq\lim_{t\to+\infty}\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)
\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)|\,\mathbf{x}\left(t_d\right)
\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}$$ is expressed as $$\label{LinearGeometry.PinfExplititForm}
P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}
\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)d\xi}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)d\xi}\,.$$ The condition $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\leqslant1$ on probabilities is reflected in this expression by the fact that $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\subset\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. Using the explicit form , the optimal static control $u_\mathrm{ss}^*$ is obtained from the optimization problem $$\label{LinearGeometry.StaticControlOptimizationProblem}
u_\mathrm{ss}^*\in\arg\max_{u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}}P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right).$$ In this optimization problem, it is computationally expensive to determine $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ from , since numerical approximation of this expression requires computation of the energy function $V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ at a large number of points. The computational complexity can be significantly reduced by *saddle point approximation* [@BOOK.SeriesApproximationMethods.94; @BOOK.SaddlePoint.95] of the integrals in . This approximation relies on the fact that the negative exponential integrands in take their significant values in the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ only around the unique minimizer $x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ of the energy function. Hence, without significant loss of accuracy, $V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ can be replaced with a simpler function that approximates it well only around $x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$. A reasonable choice for such an approximation is the truncated Taylor series $$V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\simeq{V}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi-x_\mathrm{ss}\right)^\mathrm{T}\!H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\left(\xi-x_\mathrm{ss}\right)$$ in which the dependence of $x_\mathrm{ss}$ on $u_\mathrm{ss}$ is not explicitly shown for the sake of simplicity.
Substituting this approximate expression into and multiplying both its numerator and denominator by an appropriate constant, $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is approximated by $$\label{LinearGeometry.Pinfapproximation}
P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\simeq\tilde{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right),u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$$ in terms of the mapping $\tilde{P}_\mathrm{ss}:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^{c+1}\to\mathbb{R}$ defined as $$\label{LinearGeometry.PtildeInfDefinition}
\tilde{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(x,u\right)=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}
\Phi\left(\xi;x,\textstyle\frac{1}{2}\,\sigma^2H^{-1}\left(x,u\right)\right)d\xi}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}\Phi\left(\xi;x,\textstyle\frac{1}{2}\,\sigma^2H^{-1}\left(x,u\right)\right)d\xi}\,.$$ Here, $\Phi\left(\,\cdot\,;m,\Sigma\right)$ denotes a multivariate normal distribution with the mean vector $m$ and the covariance matrix $\Sigma$. Using the payoff function -, the optimization problem can be reformulated as the constrained optimization problem
\[LinearGeometry.GaussianApproximationOptimizationProblem\] $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\times\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}}&{\;\;}
\tilde{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\\
\mathrm{s.t.}\qquad\quad\,\,&{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}-\nabla_xV\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}.
\label{LinearGeometry.GaussianApproximationOptimizationProblemB}\end{aligned}$$
It is shown next that the approximate formula can be directly derived from a linearized model around the unique stable equilibrium of the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. Such a linear model is later used to provide an intuitive explanation for the static control design. Let $u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ be a fixed control and assume that $x_\mathrm{ss}$ is its associated equilibrium in $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. If the disturbance strength $\sigma$ is small compared to the norm of the Hessian matrix $H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$, the dynamical system can be linearized around $\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ to approximate the state vector as $$\label{LinearGeometry.DeterministicStochasticTerms}
\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\simeq{x_\mathrm{ss}}+\mathbf{\delta{x}}\left(t\right)$$ in which the small deviation $\mathbf{\delta{x}}\left(t\right)$ is the solution of the linear stochastic differential equation $$\label{LinearGeometry.LinearizedDynamicalSystem}
d\mathbf{\delta{x}}\left(t\right)=-H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\mathbf{\delta{x}}\left(t\right)dt+{\sigma}d\mathbf{w}\left(t\right).$$ The linearity of this equation indicates that $\mathbf{\delta{x}}\left(t\right)$ is a zero-mean Gaussian random vector with the steady-state covariance matrix $$\label{LinearGeometry.SteadyStateCovariance}
\Sigma_\mathrm{ss}=\frac{1}{2}\,\sigma^2H^{-1}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$$ that solves the algebraic Lyapunov equation [@BOOK.GajicQureshi.95] $$-H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\Sigma_\mathrm{ss}-\Sigma_\mathrm{ss}H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)+\sigma^2I=0.$$ It is concluded that $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ is approximately a Gaussian random vector with the mean vector $x_\mathrm{ss}$ and the covariance matrix $\Sigma_\mathrm{ss}$. For this approximation, $\tilde{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ defined in represents the conditional probability on the right-hand side of .
Based on the linear model -, an approximate design method is introduced below to provide further intuition on the optimal static control. To facilitate the discussion, $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is expressed as the ratio $$\label{LinearGeometry.PtildeAlternative}
P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\frac{A\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)}{A\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)+B\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)}$$ with $A\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ and $B\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
A\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&=\int_{\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)d\xi\\
B\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&=\int_{\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\backslash\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}
\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ To achieve the maximum of $P_\mathrm{ss}$, the value $A\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ must be kept as large as possible compared to $B\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$. This requires to shift the concentration of probability towards the central point of the desired set $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and push it away from the forbidden set $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\backslash\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. Let $\xi_d\in\mathbb{R}^n$ be a vector containing the mid points of the intervals $\mathscr{I}_k$ corresponding to $1$’s in the desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$. Then the problem is to keep the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ at steady-state as close as possible to $\xi_d$ with respect to some appropriate norm.
Since the desired set $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ is a hypercube, a reasonable choice of the distance measure is $$\lim_{t\to+\infty}\mathrm{E}\left[\,\left\|\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)-\xi_d\right\|_\infty\right]
\simeq\lim_{t\to+\infty}\mathrm{E}\left[\,\left\|x_\mathrm{ss}-\xi_d+\mathbf{{\delta}x}\left(t\right)\right\|_\infty\right].$$ However, this measure is not mathematically tractable unless the disturbance power $\frac{1}{2}\:\!\sigma^2$ is small enough to justify the approximation $\mathbf{{\delta}x}\left(t\right)\simeq0$. In this case, an approximation for the optimal static control is given by the optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\times\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}}&
{\;\;}\left\|x_\mathrm{ss}-\xi_d\right\|_\infty\\
\mathrm{s.t.}\qquad\quad\,\,&{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}-\nabla_xV\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}.$$ Such a suboptimal static control places the stable equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}$ as close as possible to $\xi_d$ that represents the desired pattern. When $\frac{1}{2}\:\!\sigma^2$ is not negligible, one can alternatively adopt the mean squared distance measure $$\lim_{t\to+\infty}\mathrm{E}\left[\,\left\|\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)-\xi_d\right\|^2\right]\simeq\left\|x_\mathrm{ss}-\xi_d\right\|^2
+\mathrm{tr}\left\{\Sigma_\mathrm{ss}\right\}$$ which leads to the optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\times\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}}&
{\;\;}\left\|x_\mathrm{ss}-\xi_d\right\|^2+\textstyle\frac{1}{2}\,\sigma^2\mathrm{tr}\left\{H^{-1}\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right\}\\
\mathrm{s.t.}\qquad\quad\,\,&{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}-\nabla_xV\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}.$$ It is reasonable at this point to ask whether the optimization problem has always a bounded solution or it is possible for the optimal static control to be unbounded. An informal treatment of this problem comes below. Let $u_\mathrm{ss}$ be a constant control in $\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ with a stable equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. For every $\xi\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$, the value $V\left(\xi,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ of the energy function tends to $+\infty$ as $\left\|u_\mathrm{ss}\right\|\to+\infty$ since the components of $u_\mathrm{ss}$ are nonnegative. Under this limit, the ratio tends to either $0$ or $1$, depending on which of the sets $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\backslash\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ or $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ contain $x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$. In particular, the limiting value of $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is explicitly given by $$\lim_{\left\|u_\mathrm{ss}\right\|\to+\infty}P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\left\{\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\vspace{0.05in}\\
0&x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\backslash\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right).
\end{array}
\right.$$ This implies that $u_\mathrm{ss}^*$ in can be unbounded if under this control the equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}^*\right)$ remains inside $\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$.
Assume that the desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ at least in one of the intervals $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$ has two or more particles. Any unbounded control, necessarily squeezes these particles together, and two particles closer than a grid length cannot form a valid pattern, i.e., the probability of forming $\mathcal{P}_d$ under an unbounded control is identically $0$. It is concluded that the optimal control $u_\mathrm{ss}^*$ can be potentially unbounded only for the sparse patterns with at most one particle in each interval $\left(q_{k-1},q_k\right)$. Thus, except for such sparse patterns (that are not of much practical interest), it is not necessary to impose an upper bound on the control set $\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ to secure a well defined solution for the optimization problem .
In theory, an unbounded control can achieve the probability $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}^*\right)=1$ for a sparse pattern. In this degenerate case, the number of particles is smaller than the number of controls ($n<c+1$) so that the algebraic equation $-\nabla_xV\left(\xi_d;u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}$ can have multiple solutions for $u_\mathrm{ss}$, including a solution with an infinite magnitude. Such an unbounded control leads to a Hessian matrix $H\left(\xi_d,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ with an unbounded norm, which in turn, results in a zero covariance matrix according to .
### Numerical Computation of a Stable Equilibrium {#LinearGeometry.NumericalComputationEquilibriumSection}
Two numerical techniques are proposed here to compute the stable equilibrium inside each ROA. The first method relies on the numerical solution of the ordinary differential equation . Starting from any arbitrary initial state inside the desired ROA, the solution to asymptotically approaches the unique stable equilibrium of that ROA. Although the exact equilibrium is approached only as $t\to+\infty$, after a bounded but long enough time, the solution of will be close enough to the equilibrium to provide an acceptable approximation for it.
The second method makes use of the proof of Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\] (see Appendix). This method starts from an initial vector $x^0\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ and generates the sequence of vectors $x^1,x^2,x^3,\ldots$ from the recursive equation $x^{k+1}=g\bigl(x^k\bigr)$, $k=0,1,2,\ldots$ until the distance between two successive vectors drops below a given threshold. Then the last vector in this sequence is taken as an approximation for the equilibrium. At each step $k$, the $i$th component of $g\bigl(x^k\bigr)$ is computed by numerically solving (e.g. using Newton’s method) the algebraic equation $$f_i\bigl(x_1^k,x_2^k,\ldots,x_{i-1}^k,y,x_{i+1}^k,\ldots,x_n^k,u_\mathrm{ss}\bigr)=0$$ for $y$, as explained in Theorem \[LinearGeometry.ExistenceUniquenessEquilibriumTheorem\].
### Approximate Settling Time {#LinearGeometry.SettlingTimeSection}
Determining an estimate for the settling time $t_f-t_d$ is the last step to complete the design of the static control. This quantity closely depends on the second smallest eigenvalue (in absolute value) of the Fokker-Planck operator [@ART.LiberzonBrockett.00] $$\mathcal{L}\left(\cdot\right)=\nabla_x\cdot\left({\nabla_x}V\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\left(\cdot\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\;\!\sigma^2{\nabla_x}\left(\cdot\right)\right).$$ Note that the first eigenvalue of this operator (smallest in the absolute value) is $0$ associated with the steady-state solution of the Fokker-Planck equation. Let $l_2\left(\mathcal{L}\right)<0$ be the second smallest eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}\left(\cdot\right)$ in the absolute value. Then a rule of thumb for computation of the settling time is given by $$t_f-t_d\simeq5\left|l_2\left(\mathcal{L}\right)\right|^{-1}.$$ Direct computation of $l_2\left(\mathcal{L}\right)$ is generally a difficult task. In the case of this paper, the settling time can be approximated using an alternative method. This approximation is based on the observation that the settling time $t_f-t_d$ is the time required for the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ to reach a stationary regime starting from an initial state inside the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. The temporal evolution of the state vector is governed by the stochastic differential equation under the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$. The sample trajectories of $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ almost surely remain inside the same ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and tend towards the equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}$. The large energy gradient near the boundary (large repulsive forces between closely placed point charges) of the ROA strongly pushes the trajectories towards the equilibrium so that they rapidly move away from the boundary and spend most of their transition time near the equilibrium. This justifies linearizing the nonlinear dynamics around the equilibrium $x_\mathrm{ss}$ and computing the settling time from the linear model rather than the original nonlinear model . Then the approximate settling time is expressed in terms of the smallest eigenvalue $l_1\left(\cdot\right)$ of the positive definite Hessian matrix $H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ as $$\label{LinearGeometry.SettlingTimeRule}
t_f-t_d\simeq5\:\!l_1^{-1}\left(H\left(x_\mathrm{ss},u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right).$$
Optimal Electrode Positions {#LinearGeometry.OptimalElectrodeLocationsSection}
---------------------------
In the procedure proposed in Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\] for design of the static control, the positions $q_0,q_1,\ldots,q_c$ of the electrodes are assumed fixed and given in advance. However, the specific choice of these positions, that are directly involved in the shape of the energy function , can affect the performance of the static control for better or worse. To maximize the probability of forming a desired pattern, the electrode positions can be optimized simultaneously with the static control, of course within certain physical constraints.
As mentioned before, the electrode positions are integer multiples of the grid size $d_0$. Let $N_k$ be an integer quantifying the distance between the electrodes $k$ and $k-1$ as $$q_k-q_{k-1}=d_0N_k.$$ Then, in terms of $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c$, the electrode positions are given by $$\label{LinearGeometry.ElectrodePosition}
q_k=q_0+d_0\sum_{j=1}^kN_j,\quad{k=1,2,\ldots,c}.$$ Since the length $q_c-q_0$ of the line segment is fixed and includes exactly $N$ grid cells, the integers $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c$ must satisfy the equality constraint $N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_c=N$. Moreover, technology limitations do not allow to fabricate the electrodes closer than $d_0N_\mathrm{min}$, imposing the inequality constraints $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c\geqslant{N}_\mathrm{min}$ for some integer $N_\mathrm{min}$.
Substituting into the energy function , the dependence of the probability on the energy function results in an explicit expression $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss},N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c\right)$ for this probability. Then the joint optimization of the static control and the electrode positions can be formulated as the mixed integer nonlinear program (MINLP) [@ART.KesavanEtAl.04; @BOOK.TawarmalaniSahinidis.02] $$\begin{array}{cl}
\displaystyle\max_{u_\mathrm{ss},N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c} & P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss},N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c\right) \vspace{0.02in}\\
\mathrm{s.t.} & u_\mathrm{ss}\in\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss} \vspace{0.08in}\\
&N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_c=N \vspace{0.08in}\\
&N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_c\geqslant{N}_\mathrm{min}.
\end{array}$$
Dynamic Control {#LinearGeometry.DynamicControlSection}
---------------
At the initial time $t=0$, the state vector $\mathbf{x}\left(0\right)$ is randomly distributed in the state space $\mathscr{S}_0$ according to some probability density function $p_0$. The dynamic control is an open-loop control applied to the system of particles during $\left[0,t_d\right)$ to bring the random initial state inside the desired ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ with the highest probability. The dynamic control proposed in this paper consists of a sequence of static controls, each one designed through a procedure similar to Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\]. The concept of a multistage control for directed self-assembly has been established in [@ART.SolisEtAl.10B] and is illustrated in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.DynamicControlStages\].
![Multistage dynamic control consisting of a sequence of static controls. The large squares represent the entire state space and the solid lines inside these squares show the boundary of the ROAs. In the first stage (a), the entire state space is a single ROA with a unique stable equilibrium marked by a small disk. The state vector can be initially any point in this single ROA (marked by the asterisks), which moves towards the stable equilibrium and eventually stays near this point (shown as a circular region) with a high probability. The stable equilibrium is designed to be inside the desired ROA (shaded region) of the next stage (b) so that the state vector will be inside this desired ROA at the end of the first stage. This procedure is repeated in transition from (b) to (c) and from (c) to (d). The static control in (d) eventually creates the desired pattern.[]{data-label="LinearGeometry.DynamicControlStages"}](Fig4_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
Consider a constant control vector $u_d^1$ whose first and last components are positive and the rest of its components are $0$ (only the electrodes at $q_0$ and $q_c$ are active). Under this control, all particles are distributed inside a single large interval $\left(q_0,q_c\right)$ and the system has a single ROA $\mathscr{S}_d^1$ covering the entire state space $\mathscr{S}_0$. Application of this constant control at $t=0$ drives the state vector towards the unique equilibrium of $\mathscr{S}_d^1$ regardless of its initial value. After a settling time of $t_d^1$, the constant control $u_d^1$ is switched to another constant control $u_d^2$ with more than two positive components (e.g. the electrode in the middle is activated). Under this new control, the system has more than one ROA while a specific one of these multiple ROAs (denoted by $\mathscr{S}_d^2$) is the target set of the state vector at $t=t_d^1$. The optimal value of $u_d^1$ at the first stage is determined to maximize the probability of the state vector being inside this target ROA at $t=t_d^1$, i.e., $\mathbf{x}\left(t_d^1\right)\in\mathscr{S}_d^2$. This procedure is repeated in $D$ stages by activating more controls at each stage while getting closer to the final desired equilibrium. The target set $\mathscr{S}_d^{D+1}$ of the last stage is the ROA containing the desired pattern in the static control problem, i.e., $\mathscr{S}_d^{D+1}=\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$. At the end of the last stage of the dynamic control, the static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ activates all electrodes to create the desired pattern.
Design of the target ROAs $\mathscr{S}_d^2,\mathscr{S}_d^3,\ldots,\mathscr{S}_d^D$ is explained below by an example using [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample\]. In this figure, a system of $n=8$ particles with $c+1=5$ controls and $N=16$ grid cells is illustrated. The dynamic control is designed with $D=2$ stages and the following sequence of controls: in the first stage, only the electrodes at $q_0$ and $q_4$ are active, while in the second and last stage the electrode at $q_2$ is turned on. The electrodes at $q_1$ and $q_3$ are simultaneously activated in the static control phase. According to this sequence, the controls $u_d^1$, $u_d^2$, and $u_\mathrm{ss}$ have the structure $$\begin{aligned}
u_d^1&=\left(\oplus,0,0,0,\oplus\right)\\
u_d^2&=\left(\oplus,0,\star,0,\oplus\right)\\
u_\mathrm{ss}&=\left(\oplus,\star,\star,\star,\oplus\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\oplus$ and $\star$ denote positive and nonnegative components, respectively. The target ROA $\mathscr{S}_d^2$ is a subset of the state space with $5$ particles on the left side of $q_2$ and $3$ particles on its right side, and is explicitly given by $$\mathscr{S}_d^2=\left\{x|\,q_0<x_1<\cdots<x_5<q_2<x_6<x_7<x_8<q_4\right\}.$$ Similarly, $\mathscr{S}_d^3$ is a subset with $3$, $2$, $1$, and $2$ particles in the intervals $\left(q_0,q_1\right)$, $\left(q_1,q_2\right)$, $\left(q_2,q_3\right)$, and $\left(q_3,q_4\right)$, respectively.
Consider the family of piecewise constant controls $$\label{LinearGeometry.PiecewiseConstantControlFamily}
\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=\left\{\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
u_d^i\,, & t\in\left[t_d^{i-1},t_d^i\right),\quad{i=1,2,\ldots,D}\vspace{0.05in} \\
u_\mathrm{ss}\,, & t\in\left[t_f,+\infty\right),
\end{array}\right.$$ where the constants $0=t_d^0<t_d^1<t_d^2<\cdots<t_d^D=t_d<t_f$ are the switching times of the control and $t_f$ is the final time. For $i=1,2,\ldots,D$, define the increasing sequence of control sets $\mathcal{U}_d^1\subset\mathcal{U}_d^2\subset\cdots\subset\mathcal{U}_d^D\subset\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ with $\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$ given by , $\mathcal{U}_d^1$ defined as $$\mathcal{U}_d^1=\left\{u|u_0>0,u_1=0,\ldots,u_{c-1}=0,u_c>0\right\},$$ and with the property that the controls in $\mathcal{U}_d^{i+1}$ can possess at least one more nonzero component than those in $\mathcal{U}_d^i$. It is assumed that at each stage $i=1,2,\ldots,D$, the constant control $u_d^i$ is in the control set $\mathcal{U}_d^i$, while the static control $u_\mathrm{ss}$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}_\mathrm{ss}$.
The goal is to obtain within the class of controls , the one that solves the optimal control problem of Section \[LinearGeometry.ModelSection\]. The controls in this class consist of a static part applied for $t\geqslant{t_d}$ and a dynamic part during $0\leqslant{t}<t_d$. Optimization of the static part was discussed in Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\] and the procedure for optimizing the dynamic part is presented below.
Consider the sequence $\mathscr{S}_d^2,\mathscr{S}_d^3,\ldots,\mathscr{S}_d^D$ of ROAs associated with the sequence $\mathcal{U}_d^1,\mathcal{U}_d^2,\ldots,\mathcal{U}_d^D$ of control sets, and for $i=1,2,\ldots,D$ define the conditional probabilities $$\label{LinearGeometry.PdiDefinition}
P_d^i\left(u_d^i\right)=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)\in\mathscr{S}_d^{i+1}\:\!|\:\!\mathbf{x}\left(t_d^{i-1}\right)
\in\mathscr{S}_d^i\right\},$$ where $\mathbf{x}\left(t\right)$ is the state of under the constant control $u_d^i$ applied at $t=t_d^{i-1}$. As discussed in Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\], these probabilities are explicitly expressed as $$P_d^i\left(u_d^i\right)=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{S}_d^{i+1}}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_d^i\right)\right)d\xi}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mathscr{S}_d^i}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi,u_d^i\right)\right)d\xi}\,.$$ It is assumed that the time durations $t_d^i-t_d^{i-1}$ between the switching times are long enough for the system to reach the steady-state before application of a new segment of the control (as discussed in Section \[LinearGeometry.SettlingTimeSection\]). Under this condition, the following approximation holds: $$\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t_d^i\right)\in\mathscr{S}_d^{i+1}\:\!|\:\!\mathbf{x}\left(t_d^{i-1}\right)
\in\mathscr{S}_d^i\right\}\simeq{P}_d^i\left(u_d^i\right).$$ At the initial time $t=0$, the state vector belongs to $\mathscr{S}_d^1=\mathscr{S}_0$ with probability $1$. Thus, the probability of formation of a desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ under the control at $t=t_f$ is given in terms of the conditional probabilities $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ and $P_d^i\left(u_d^i\right)$, $i=1,2,\ldots,D$ by the product $$\label{LinearGeometry.ContinuousProbabilitySuccess}
\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t_f\right)\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}\simeq{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)
\prod_{i=1}^DP_d^i\left(u_d^i\right).$$ Note that this approximation tends to exact as $t_f-t_d\to+\infty$ and $t_d^i-t_d^{i-1}\to+\infty$, $i=1,2,\ldots,D$.
To maximize the probability , each multiplicative term must be maximized independently with respect to its argument. For the static control term, the optimization problem was already discussed in Section \[LinearGeometry.StaticControlSection\]. For the rest of the terms, the optimal controls $u_d^{i*}$, $i=1,2,\ldots,D$ are obtained by solving the optimization problems $$\label{LinearGeometry.DynamicControlOptimizationProblem}
u_d^{i*}\in\arg\max_{u_d^i\in\mathcal{U}_d^i}P_d^i\left(u_d^i\right).$$ In terms of these optimal controls, the maximum probability of forming a desired pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ at a large final time $t_f$ achieved by a control in the class of controls is given by $$\label{LinearGeometry.MaximumPatternProbability}
\max\Pr\left\{\mathbf{x}\left(t_f\right)\in\mathscr{P}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}\simeq{P}_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}^*\right)
\prod_{i=1}^DP_d^i\left(u_d^{i*}\right).$$ The activation sequence of the electrodes is not unique and can be regarded as an additional optimization variable. For any specific activation sequence, the maximum probability to form a desired pattern is obtained from . Then in a higher level of the optimization process, the maximum of these optimized probabilities is determined over all possible activation sequences. For the small size problem of [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample\] with only $13$ possible activation sequences, this level of optimization can be performed by simply enumerating all sequences. For a problem of larger size, more advanced techniques can be developed based on the outer approximation [@ART.KesavanEtAl.04] or branch and bound [@BOOK.TawarmalaniSahinidis.02] methods.
Numerical Results
-----------------
We applied the design procedure developed in this section to the example of [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample\]. In this figure, self-assembly of $n=8$ particles using $c+1=5$ electrodes is considered along a line segment. The line segment is partitioned into $N=16$ cells and the distance between the electrodes is assumed to be $1$ unit of length. Throughout the design procedure and its following simulations the disturbance power is set at $\sigma=0.45$. The goal is to generate a desired pattern of $$\mathcal{P}_d=\left(0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1\right).$$ For design of both static and dynamic controls, the constrained optimization problem was utilized to approximate the original problems and . This constrained optimization problem, was converted to an unconstrained problem by solving the constraint for $x_\mathrm{ss}$ using the second numerical procedure proposed in Section \[LinearGeometry.NumericalComputationEquilibriumSection\]. The resulting unconstrained problem was solved using the `fminsearch` function of $\mbox{MATLAB}^\circledR$.
The designed optimal control consists of a static control and a two-stage dynamic control as illustrated in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDesignedContrrol\]. The optimal values of the control vector are shown for the two stages of the dynamic control and for the static control in [Figs.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDesignedContrrol\](a), \[LinearGeometry.FigDesignedContrrol\](b), and \[LinearGeometry.FigDesignedContrrol\](c), respectively. Further, the most likely patterns formed at the end of each stage are illustrated in these figures. The small boxes in these figures represent the locations of the electrodes, while the disks mark the optimal equilibrium of each stage. Using the approximation method of Section \[LinearGeometry.SettlingTimeSection\], the switching times of the control were computed as $t_d^1=0.67$, $t_d^2=0.98$, and $t_f=1.13$. Also, the highest probability of success at each stage was obtained as $P_d^1\left(u_d^{1*}\right)\simeq1$, $P_d^2\left(u_d^{2*}\right)\simeq1$, and $P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}^*\right)=0.94$, which lead to the total probability of success $$P_d^1\left(u_d^{1*}\right)P_d^2\left(u_d^{1*}\right)P_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}^*\right)\simeq0.94.$$
![Designed optimal control: (a) first stage of the dynamic control; (b) second stage of the dynamic control; (c) static control. The vertical lines with a number on their top represent the components of the control vector. The illustrated pattern at each stage represent the most likely pattern generated at the end of that stage. The small boxes mark the locations of the electrodes and the disks show the equilibrium of each stage. []{data-label="LinearGeometry.FigDesignedContrrol"}](Fig5_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
Under this control, the deterministic dynamical system and its stochastic version were numerically simulated. The results of these simulations are shown in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigSiumulationResults\] for both deterministic (thick line) and stochastic (thin line) models. The trajectory of the particles start at random positions (small boxes) and end at the optimal final equilibrium (small disks) that represents the desired pattern shown on the top. The vertical axis in this figure shows progress in time while the horizontal axis stands for the line segment on which the particles move. The heavy vertical lines represent the energy barriers created by the electrodes which cannot be crossed by the particles. Note that the specific sample path illustrated in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigSiumulationResults\] succeeds to create the desired pattern; however, not all sample paths of the stochastic system end up with the desired pattern. For example, the sample path of [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigSiumulationResults\] could fail if the deviation marked by the dashed ellipse would occur shortly later. With the probability of success estimated as $0.94$, the sample paths fail to form the desired pattern at an average rate of $6\%$.
![Simulation results for deterministic (thick line) and stochastic (thin line) models. The vertical axis represents time while the horizontal axis stands for the line segment on which the particles move. The heavy vertical lines represent the energy barriers created by the electrodes which cannot be crossed by the particles. Not all sample paths of the stochastic system end up with the desired pattern; on average, $6\%$ of them fail to form this specific pattern. The sample path of [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigSiumulationResults\] could fail if the deviation marked by the dashed ellipse would occur shortly later.[]{data-label="LinearGeometry.FigSiumulationResults"}](Fig6_LinearGeometry.eps "fig:")\
Control Design for a Discrete Ising Model {#LinearGeometry.DiscreteModelSection}
=========================================
In the prior work on directed self-assembly, the system of particles has been described by a discrete Ising model [@ART.Cipra.87] rather than the continuous model of this paper [@ART.SolisEtAl.10A; @ART.SolisEtAl.10B; @ART.LakerveldEtAl.12]. In such a discrete model, the particles can occupy only a finite set of positions along the line—at most one particle in each position. As shown in [Fig.]{} \[LinearGeometry.FigDynamicControlExample\], these positions are located at the centers of the intervals $\mathscr{I}_k$. In this model, the discrete state of the particles is a vector $\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ taking its value in the discrete state space $\left\{\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots,\xi_S\right\}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ at any time $t\geqslant0$. Each vector $\xi_k$ in this discrete state space corresponds to a pattern $\mathcal{P}_k$ and its $n$ components represent the discrete locations of $n$ particles along the line. The number $S$ of the elements in the discrete state space is the same as the number of patterns that can be formed by placement of $n$ particles in $N>n$ positions and is given by the combination $S=\left(\substack{N\\{n}}\right)$. Equivalently, the discrete state of the particles at time $t$ can be described by an integer $z\left(t\right)\in\left\{1,2,\ldots,S\right\}$ such that $\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)=\xi_{z\left(t\right)}$.
Similar to the continuous model , the discrete state $z\left(t\right)$ is characterized by a stochastic process, namely by a continuous-time Markov chain [@BOOK.GuoHernandezLerma.09]. For a continuous-time Markov chain, the evolution of probability is described by a *master equation*, the analogue of the Fokker-Planck equation in the continuous model. For $i=1,2,\ldots,S$ define the probabilities $$\pi_i\left(t\right)=\Pr\left\{\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)=\xi_i\right\}=\Pr\left\{z\left(t\right)=i\right\}.$$ These probabilities evolve in time according to the set of linear differential equations $$\dot{\pi}_i\left(t\right)=-\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{i}}}^{S}\lambda_{ji}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)\pi_i\left(t\right)
+\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{i}}}^{S}\lambda_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)\pi_j\left(t\right)$$ defined for $i=1,2,\ldots,S$. The initial state of these equations (the initial probability distribution) is assumed known and the nonnegative scalars $\lambda_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$, $i\neq{j}=1,2,\ldots,S$ describe the transition rates from pattern $j$ to pattern $i$. The contribution of the control to the system dynamics is reflected in the model through the dependence of the transition rates on the control vector $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)$. By collecting the probabilities $\pi_i\left(t\right)$ in a single vector $\pi\left(t\right)=\left[\pi_1\left(t\right)\;\pi_2\left(t\right)\;\cdots\;\pi_S\left(t\right)\right]^\mathrm{T}$, the master equation can be written in the compact form $$\label{LinearGeometry.MasterEquation}
\dot{\pi}\left(t\right)=\Lambda\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)\pi\left(t\right),$$ where $\Lambda\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ is a $S\times{S}$ matrix with off-diagonal elements $\lambda_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ and diagonal elements $$\lambda_{ii}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)=-\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{i}}}^S\lambda_{ji}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right).$$ For any fixed $t\geqslant0$, the transition rate $\lambda_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ from a pattern $j$ to another pattern $i$ exponentially decreases with the difference between the energy $V\left(\xi_j,\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ of the pattern $j$ and the energy barrier $E_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ between the two patterns. The mapping $\lambda_{ij}:\mathbb{R}^{c+1}\to\mathbb{R}^+$ that maps the instantaneous value of the control vector into the instantaneous value of the transition rate has the form of [@ART.KangWeinberg.92] $$\lambda_{ij}\left(u\right)=\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}\left(E_{ij}\left(u\right)-V\left(\xi_j,u\right)\right)\right),\quad{i\neq{j}},$$ where $\frac{1}{2}\:\!\sigma^2={\kappa}k_BT$ is a constant increasing with the absolute temperature $T$, and the energy barrier satisfies the conditions $$E_{ij}\left(u\right)=E_{ji}\left(u\right)\geqslant{V}\left(\xi_j,u\right),\quad{u\in\mathcal{U}}.$$ For the explicit form of $E_{ij}\left(u\right)$, the reader is referred to [@ART.LakerveldEtAl.12]. For the analysis of this paper, it is enough to know that the energy barrier between two patterns is positive, and it is of infinite magnitude if in transition from one pattern to another a particle has to jump over an active electrode. This latter property is caused by the unbounded level of energy at a point charge that represents an active electrode. Due to this property, the transition rates between two such patterns are identically $0$ which parallels the property observed in the continuous model that a particle cannot jump over an active electrode.
Because of this property, the central role of the ROAs in the continuous model has an analogue in the discrete model. Each ROA contains a certain subset of the patterns $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots,\xi_S$, and similar to the continuous model, the ROAs partition the discrete state space $\left\{\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots,\xi_S\right\}$ into $R$ subsets ($R$ is the number of ROAs given by ). The ROAs are marked by unbounded energy barriers encircling them, and such infinite energy barriers block the transition of a pattern inside a ROA to any pattern outside it. This implies that for any pair of patterns $i$ and $j$ inside two different ROAs, both othe transition rates $\lambda_{ij}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ and $\lambda_{ji}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ are identically $0$. As a result, the state-space equation is decomposed into $R$ decoupled smaller state-space equations $$\dot{\pi}_i^\mathrm{ROA}\left(t\right)=\Lambda_i^\mathrm{ROA}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)\
\pi_i^\mathrm{ROA}\left(t\right),\quad{i=1,2,\ldots,R},$$ where $\pi_i^\mathrm{ROA}\left(t\right)$ is a column vector containing the probabilities of the patterns belonging to the $i$th ROA and $\Lambda_i^\mathrm{ROA}\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$ is its corresponding square block of $\Lambda\left(\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)\right)$. Equivalently, the Markov chain $z\left(t\right)$ is reducible into $R$ smaller Markov chains $z_1\left(t\right),z_2\left(t\right),\ldots,z_R\left(t\right)$ which are statistically independent conditioned on the initial value $z\left(0\right)$. Each of the $R$ decoupled state-space equations has a steady-state solution which follows a Gibbs probability distribution.
This property helps to determine a simple expression for the discrete counterpart of the conditional probability . Let $\mathcal{P}_d$ be a desired pattern inside the ROA $\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)$ and assume that it is represented in the discrete state space by the vector $\xi_d$. Similar to , define the conditional probability $$\Pi_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\Pr\left\{\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)
=\xi_d\:\!|\;\!\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t_d\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)\right\}$$ under the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_\mathrm{ss}$ applied at $t=t_d$. Using the analysis above, this conditional probability can be explicitly expressed as $$\Pi_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\frac{\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi_d,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)}
{\displaystyle\sum_{\xi_k\in\mathscr{S}\left(\mathcal{P}_d\right)}^{}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi_k,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)}\,.$$ Similarly, the discrete counterpart of is defined as $$\Pi_d^i\left(u_d^i\right)=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\Pr\left\{\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t\right)
\in\mathscr{S}_d^{i+1}\:\!|\;\!\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t_d^{i-1}\right)\in\mathscr{S}_d^i\right\}$$ under the constant control $\mathbf{u}\left(t\right)=u_d^i$ for $t\geqslant{t}_d^{i-1}$, and is explicitly expressed as $$\Pi_d^i\left(u_d^i\right)=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{\xi_k\in\mathscr{S}_d^{i+1}}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi_k,u_d^i\right)\right)}
{\displaystyle\sum_{\xi_k\in\mathscr{S}_d^i}^{}\exp\left(-2\sigma^{-2}V\left(\xi_k,u_d^i\right)\right)}\,.$$ Finally, the probability of successful formation of a pattern $\mathcal{P}_d$ at time $t=t_f$ under the control is approximately given as $$\label{LinearGeometry.DiscreteProbabilitySuccess}
\Pr\left\{\hat{\mathbf{x}}\left(t_f\right)=\xi_d\right\}
\simeq\Pi_\mathrm{ss}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\prod_{i=1}^D\Pi_d^i\left(u_d^i\right).$$ Evidently, the procedure of control design for the discrete model parallels the one proposed for the continuous model: it is enough to maximize the payoff function instead of . Further, each of these payoff functions closely approximates the other one as the sums in are discrete approximations of the integrals in . The only major difference in the control design procedure is in computation of the practical values of the settling times $t_f-t_d$ and $t_d^{i+1}-t_d^i$. For the continuous model, these quantities are determined in terms of the eigenvalues of the Fokker-Planck operator as explained in Section \[LinearGeometry.SettlingTimeSection\]. For the discrete model, the settling time $t_f-t_d$ is determined in terms of the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the matrix $\Lambda_d^\mathrm{ROA}\left(u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ (smallest in the absolute value), where the subscript $d$ refers to the ROA containing the desired pattern.
Conclusion
==========
Directed self-assembly of charged particles along line segments has been considered. In the assembly process, a number of particles move in one dimension along a line segment under the repulsive forces experienced from interactions with other particles, and the process is directed towards formation of a desired pattern by external forces applied from charged electrodes located at fixed points in the line segment. The potentials of these electrodes are precisely controlled in time so that the formation of a desired pattern is secured with the highest probability despite the inherent uncertainty in the initial position and the dynamical behaviors of the particles. A challenging aspect of such a control is that the actual positions of the particles are not measurable during the assembly process. Two models have been proposed to describe the uncertain dynamics of the particles. The first model which is mathematically more tractable consists of a set of nonlinear stochastic differential equations and is suitable for larger particles of micrometer scale. The second model is a discrete Ising model consisting of a continuous-time Markov chain and is more accurate for nanometer scale particles. A class of piecewise constant controls has been proposed for these models and the optimal values of the constant pieces have been determined as the solutions to certain optimization problems. Consider $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ with $\left\|\nu\right\|_1=n$. The goal is to show that the algebraic equation $$\label{LinearGeometry.AlgebraicEquation}
f\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\triangleq-\nabla_xV\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=\mathbf{0}$$ has exactly one solution $x_\mathrm{ss}$ in $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ and that the Jacobian matrix of the vector field $f\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is negative definite over the set $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$. To that end, denote the $k$th component of $f\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ by $f_k\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ and let $u_\mathrm{ss}^j$ be the $j$th component of $u_\mathrm{ss}$, where by hypothesis $u_\mathrm{ss}^j>0$. Then using , $f_k\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LinearGeometry.ExplicitExpressionF}
f_k\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&=-\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_k}\,V\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right),\nonumber\\
&=-\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_k}\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{k}}}^{{n}}\frac{1}{\left|x_k-x_j\right|}
-\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_k}\sum_{j=0}^{c}\frac{u_\mathrm{ss}^j}{\left|x_k-q_j\right|}\,,\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{k}}}^{{n}}\frac{\mathrm{sign}\left(x_k-x_j\right)}{\left(x_k-x_j\right)^2}+\sum_{j=0}^c
\frac{u_\mathrm{ss}^j\mathrm{sign}\left(x_k-q_j\right)}{\left(x_k-q_j\right)^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{sign}\left(\cdot\right)$ denotes the signum function. Further, for $x\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, the partial derivatives of $f_k\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ with respect to $x_k$ and $x_i$, $i\neq{k}$ exist and are given by
\[LinearGeometry.PartialDerivativeF\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_k}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&=-\sum_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq{k}}}^{{n}}\frac{2}{\left|x_k-x_j\right|^3}
-\sum_{j=0}^{c}\frac{2u_\mathrm{ss}^j}{\left|x_k-q_j\right|^3}\,,\label{LinearGeometry.PartialDerivativeFwrtXk}\\
\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)&=\frac{2}{\left|x_k-x_i\right|^3}\,,\quad{i\neq{k}}.
\label{LinearGeometry.PartialDerivativeFwrtXi}\end{aligned}$$
Given $x\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, for each $k=1,2,\ldots,n$, let $k^\prime$ denote the smallest integer satisfying $x_k<q_{k^\prime}$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
x_1^L&=q_0,\\
x_k^L&=\max\left(x_{k-1},q_{k^\prime-1}\right),\quad{k=2,3,\ldots,n},\\
x_k^U&=\min\left(x_{k+1},q_{k^\prime}\right),\quad{k=1,2,\ldots,n-1},\\
x_n^U&=q_c.\end{aligned}$$ Fix all components of $x\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ except for $x_k$ which is allowed to vary in the segment $\left(x_k^L,x_k^U\right)$. The negative derivative implies that $f_k\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is strictly decreasing in $x_k\in\left(x_k^L,x_k^U\right)$ with all other variables fixed. In addition, implies that this function tends to $+\infty$ and $-\infty$ as $x_k$ tends to $x_k^L$ and $x_k^U$, respectively. Thus, it is concluded that $f_k\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)=0$ has one and only one solution for $x_k$ in the interval $x_k\in\left(x_k^L,x_k^U\right)$, with all other variables fixed. This solution depends on $x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n$ and is denoted by $$g_k\left(x\right)=g_k\left(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n\right).$$ Let $g:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^n$ be a vector-valued function with the components $g_k$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$. Then, $x_\mathrm{ss}$ is a solution to , if and only if it is a fixed point of the mapping $g$, i.e., if it solves $$x=g\left(x\right).$$ It is proven next that has exactly one solution in $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ by showing that $g$ is a contraction map on $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, and thereby it has exactly one fixed point in this set.
The gradient ${\nabla_x}g_k$ of the scalar function $g_k$ is obtained as follows. Based on the definition of $g_k$, the identity $$f_k\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\big{|}_{x_k=g_k\left(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n\right)}=0$$ holds true for any $\left(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n\right)\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu^{\,\prime}\right)$, where the components of $\nu^{\,\prime}$ are similar to $\nu$ except for $\nu_k^{\,\prime}$ which is equal to $\nu_k-1$. Differentiating this identity with respect to $x_i\neq{x_k}$ leads to $$\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)+\frac{{\partial}f_k}
{{\partial}x_k}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\,\frac{{\partial}g_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x\right)=0.$$ Solving this equation for ${\partial}g_k/{\partial}x_i$ results in $$\label{LinearGeometry.PartialDerivativeG}
\frac{{\partial}g_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x\right)=-\left(\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_k}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right)^{-1}
\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right).$$ Since $g_k$ does not depend on $x_k$, its partial derivative with respect to $x_k$ is identically $0$ so that $$\frac{{\partial}g_k}{{\partial}x_k}\left(x\right)=0.$$ Substituting the explicit expressions into and noting that $u_\mathrm{ss}^j>0$, it is straightforward to verify that $$\left\|{\nabla_x}g_k\left(x\right)\right\|_1=\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\frac{{\partial}g_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x\right)\right|<1,{\quad}k=1,2,\ldots,n.$$ Let $x,y\in\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ and consider the line segment $$\ell\left(s\right)=sx+\left(1-s\right)y,{\quad}s\in\left[0,1\right].$$ Since $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$ is a convex set, all points on this line segment are inside the set. Applying the mean value theorem [@BOOK.Apostol.67] to the scalar function $g_k\circ\ell$ implies that there exists $s_k^*\in\left(0,1\right)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
g_k\circ\ell\left(1\right)-g_k\circ\ell\left(0\right)&=\frac{dg_k\circ\ell}{ds}\left(s_k^*\right)\\
&=\left({\nabla_x}g_k\left(\ell\left(s_k^*\right)\right)\right)^\mathrm{T}\ell^\prime\left(s_k^*\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $g_k\circ\ell\left(1\right)=g_k\left(x\right)$, $g_k\circ\ell\left(0\right)=g_k\left(y\right)$, and $\ell^\prime\left(s_k^*\right)=x-y$ into this equality and taking absolute values of its sides lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\left|g_k\left(x\right)-g_k\left(y\right)\right|&=\left|\left({\nabla_x}
g_k\left(\ell\left(s_k^*\right)\right)\right)^\mathrm{T}\left(x-y\right)\right|\\
&\leqslant\left\|{\nabla_x}g_k\left(\ell\left(s_k^*\right)\right)\right\|_1\left\|x-y\right\|_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Because this inequality holds for every $k=1,2,\ldots,n$, it is concluded that $$\left\|g\left(x\right)-g\left(y\right)\right\|_\infty\leqslant{K}\left\|x-y\right\|_\infty,$$ where $$K=\max_{k=1,2,\ldots,n}\left\|{\nabla_x}g_k\left(\ell\left(s_k^*\right)\right)\right\|_1<1.$$ This verifies that $g$ is a contraction map.
Finally, it is shown that $V\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ is strictly convex on $\mathscr{S}\left(\nu\right)$, and thereby the solution $x_\mathrm{ss}$ to is a stable equilibrium. The Ger[š]{}gorin circle theorem [@BOOK.Varga.04] applied to the Jacobian matrix of the vector field $f\left(\,\cdot\,,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)$ implies that the eigenvalues $\varrho $ of this matrix are inside the circles of the form $$\left|\,\varrho-\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_k}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right|\leqslant\sum_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq{k}}}^{{n}}
\left|\frac{{\partial}f_k}{{\partial}x_i}\left(x,u_\mathrm{ss}\right)\right|.$$ Since ${\partial}f_k/{\partial}x_k<0$ according to and the right-hand side of the inequality is smaller than $\left|{\partial}f_k/{\partial}x_k\right|$, the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix have negative values.
[10]{} G. M. Whitesides and B. Grzybowski, “Self-assembly at all scales,” [ *Science*]{}, vol. 295, no. 5564, pp. 2418–2421, 2002.
G. M. Whitesides and M. Boncheva, “Beyond molecules: Self-assembly of mesoscopic and macroscopic components,” [*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*]{}, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 4769–4774, 2002.
B. [Amir Parviz]{}, D. Ryan, and G. M. Whitesides, “Using self-assembly for the fabrication of nano-scale electronic and photonic devices,” [*Trans. Adv. Packag.*]{}, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 233–241, 2003.
S. Zhang, “Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly,” [*Nature Biotechnology*]{}, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1171–1178, 2003.
S. [Ouk Kim]{}, H. H. Solak, M. P. Stoykovich, N. J. Ferrier, J. J. [de Pablo]{}, and P. F. Nealey, “Epitaxial self-assembly of block copolymers on lithographically defined nanopatterned substrates,” [*Nature*]{}, vol. 424, no. 6947, pp. 411–414, 2003.
C. Park, J. Yoon, and E. L. Thomas, “Enabling nanotechnology with self assembled block copolymer patterns,” [*Polymer*]{}, vol. 44, no. 22, pp. 6725–6760, 2003.
J. Y. Cheng, A. M. Mayes, and C. A. Ross, “Nanostructure engineering by templated self-assembly of block copolymers,” [*Nature Materials*]{}, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 823–828, 2004.
J. C. Love, L. A. Estroff, J. K. Kriebel, R. G. Nuzzo, and G. M. Whitesides, “Self-assembled monolayers of thiolates on metals as a form of nanotechnology,” [*Chem. Rev.*]{}, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 1103–1170, 2005.
A. Khaled, S. Guo, F. Li, and P. Guo, “Controllable self-assembly of nanoparticles for specific delivery of multiple therapeutic molecules to cancer cells using [RNA]{} nanotechnology,” [*Nano Letters*]{}, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1797–1808, 2005.
G. A. Ozin, K. Hou, B. V. Lotsch, L. Cademartiri, D. P. Puzzo, F. Scotognella, A. Ghadimi, and J. Thomson, “Nanofabrication by self-assembly,” [ *Materials Today*]{}, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 12–23, 2009.
L. M. Adleman, “Towards a mathematical theory of self-assembly,” Technical Report 00-722, University of Southern California, 2000.
L. Adleman, Q. Cheng, A. Goel, M. Huang, and H. Wasserman, “Linear self-assemblies: Equilibria, entropy, and convergence rates,” in [*Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, ICDEA 2001*]{}, (Augsburg, Germany), Jun. 2001.
A. Carbone and N. C. Seeman, “Molecular tiling and [DNA]{} self-assembly,” in [*Molecular Computing*]{}, pp. 61–83, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
D. Soloveichik and E. Winfree, “Complexity of self-assembled shapes,” [ *SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1544–1569, 2007.
U. Majumder, S. Sahu, and J. H. Reif, “Stochastic analysis of reversible self-assembly,” [*Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience*]{}, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1289–1305, 2008.
S. Hormoz and M. P. Brenner, “Design principles for self-assembly with short-range interactions,” [*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*]{}, vol. 108, no. 13, pp. 5193–5198, 2011.
H. Chandran, N. Gopalkrishnan, and J. H. Reif, “Tile complexity of linear assemblies,” [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1051–1073, 2012.
M. J. Patitz, “An introduction to tile-based self-assembly and a survey of recent results,” [*Natural Computing*]{}, pp. 1–30, 2013.
N. L. Rosi and C. A. Mirkin, “Nanostructures in biodiagnostics,” [ *Chemical Reviews*]{}, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 1547–1562, 2005.
N. Stephanopoulos, E. O. P. Solis, and G. Stephanopoulos, “Nanoscale process systems engineering: Toward molecular factories, synthetic cells, and adaptive devices,” [*AIChE Journal*]{}, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1858–1869, 2005.
A. Winkleman, B. D. Gates, L. S. [McCarty]{}, and G. M. Whitesides, “Directed self-assembly of spherical particles on patterned electrodes by an applied electric field,” [*Advanced Materials*]{}, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1507–1511, 2005.
M. P. Stoykovich, H. Kang, K. C. Daoulas, G. Liu, C.-C. Liu, J. J. [de Pablo]{}, M. [Müller]{}, and P. F. Nealey, “Directed self-assembly of block copolymers for nanolithography: Fabrication of isolated features and essential integrated circuit geometries,” [*ACS Nano*]{}, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 168–175, 2007.
R. A. Kiehl, “[DNA]{}-directed assembly of nanocomponents for nanoelectronics, nanophotonics and nanosensing,” in [*Proc. of SPIE*]{}, vol. 6768, pp. 67680Z–1–67680Z–7, 2007.
C. H. Lalander, Y. Zheng, S. Dhuey, S. Cabrini, and U. Bach, “[DNA]{}-directed self-assembly of gold nanoparticles onto nanopatterned surfaces: Controlled placement of individual nanoparticles into regular arrays,” [*ACS Nano*]{}, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 6153–6161, 2010.
E. O. P. Solis, P. I. Barton, and G. Stephanopoulos, “Controlled formation of nanostructures with desired geometries. 1. robust static structures,” [ *Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.*]{}, vol. 49, no. 17, pp. 7728–7745, 2010.
E. O. P. Solis, P. I. Barton, and G. Stephanopoulos, “Controlled formation of nanostructures with desired geometries. 2. robust dynamic paths,” [*Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.*]{}, vol. 49, no. 17, pp. 7746–7757, 2010.
R. Lakerveld, G. Stephanopoulos, and P. I. Barton, “A master-equation approach to simulate kinetic traps during directed self-assembly,” [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, vol. 136, no. 184109, 2012.
R. F. Probstein, [*Physicochemical Hydrodynamics: An Introduction*]{}. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd ed., 1994.
B. U. Felderhof, “[B]{}rownian motion and creeping flow on the [S]{}moluchowski time scale,” [*Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications*]{}, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 203–218, 1987.
B. [Ø]{}ksendal, [*Stochastic Differential Equations*]{}. Berlin; New York: Springer, 6th ed., 2003.
G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, “On the theory of the [B]{}rownian motion,” [*Physical Review*]{}, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 823–841, 1930.
J.-N. Roux, “[B]{}rownian particles at different times scales: a new derivation of the [S]{}moluchowski equation,” [*Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications*]{}, vol. 188, no. 4, pp. 526–552, 1992.
C. Soize, [*The [F]{}okker-[P]{}lanck Equation for Stochastic Dynamical Systems and Its Explicit Steady State Solutions*]{}. Singapore; Teaneck, NJ: World Scientific, 1994.
M. B[ó]{}na, [*A Walk Through Combinatorics: An Introduction to Enumeration and Graph Theory*]{}. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Pub., 2nd ed., 2006.
J. E. Kolassa, [*Series Approximation Methods in Statistics*]{}. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
J. L. Jensen, [*Saddlepoint Approximations*]{}. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Z. Gaji[ć]{} and M. T. J. Qureshi, [*The [L]{}yapunov Matrix Equation in System Stability and Control*]{}. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1995.
D. Liberzon and R. W. Brockett, “Spectral analysis of [F]{}okker-[P]{}lanck and related operators arising from linear stochastic differential equations,” [*SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*]{}, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1453–1467, 2000.
P. Kesavan, R. J. Allgor, E. P. Gatzke, and P. I. Barton, “Outer approximation algorithms for separable nonconvex mixed-integer nonlinear programs,” [ *Mathematical Programming*]{}, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 517–535, 2004.
M. Tawarmalani and N. V. Sahinidis, [*Convexification and Global Optimization in Continuous and Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming: Theory, Algorithms, Software, and Applications*]{}. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
B. A. Cipra, “An introduction to the [I]{}sing model,” [*American Mathematical Monthly*]{}, vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 937–959, 1987.
X. Guo and O. Hern[á]{}ndez-Lerma, [*Continuous-Time Markov Decision Processes: Theory and Applications*]{}. Heidelberg; New York: Springer Verlag, 2009.
H. Kang and W. Weinberg, “Dynamic [M]{}onte [C]{}arlo simulations of surface-rate processes,” [*Acc. Chem. Res.*]{}, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 253–259, 1992.
T. M. Apostol, [*Calculus*]{}, vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 2nd ed., 1967.
R. S. Varga, [*Ger[š]{}gorin and His Circles*]{}. Berlin; New York: Springer, 2004.
[^1]: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET-1033533.
[^2]: A. Komaee was with the Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. He is now with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^3]: P. I. Barton is with the Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: The payoff function consists of only a terminal payoff and does not include an integral over time of the state.
[^5]: The notation $H\succ0$ indicates that $H$ is a positive definite matrix.
[^6]: This means that the ROAs are disjoint subsets of the state space whose union is the entire state space excluding the boundaries of the ROAs.
[^7]: For $k=1$, the sum $\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\nu_j$ is taken equal to $0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The distribution of Coulomb blockade peak heights as a function of magnetic field is investigated experimentally in a Ge-Si nanowire quantum dot. Strong spin-orbit coupling in this hole-gas system leads to antilocalization of Coulomb blockade peaks, consistent with theory. In particular, the peak height distribution has its maximum away from zero at zero magnetic field, with an average that decreases with increasing field. Magnetoconductance in the open-wire regime places a bound on the spin-orbit length ($l_{\mathrm{so}} < 20~\mathrm{nm}$), consistent with values extracted in the Coulomb blockade regime ($l_{\mathrm{so}} < 25~\mathrm{nm}$).'
author:
- 'A. P. Higginbotham'
- 'F. Kuemmeth'
- 'T. W. Larsen'
- 'M. Fitzpatrick'
- 'J. Yao'
- 'H. Yan'
- 'C. M. Lieber'
- 'C. M. Marcus'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Antilocalization of Coulomb Blockade in a Ge-Si Nanowire'
---
Antilocalization, a positive correction to classical conductivity, is commonly observed in mesoscopic conductors with strong spin-orbit coupling [@Hikami:1980wh; @Bergmann:1982vo], and has been well studied in low-dimensional systems over the past two decades [@Bergmann:1984ty; @Moyle:1987iz; @Dresselhaus:1992eo; @Knap:1996en; @Kallaher:2010hu; @He:2011ix]. In quantum wires (1D) and dots (0D), the combination of coherence and spin-orbit coupling is a topic of renewed interest in part due to numerous quantum information processing proposals—from spin qubits to Majorana modes—where these ingredients play a fundamental role [@DanielLoss:1998ia; @Zutic:2004fo; @Lutchyn:2010hp; @Oreg:2010gk]. Antilocalization in 1D systems has been investigated in detail both theoretically [@Beenakker:1988dv; @Kurdak:1992cp; @Kettemann:2007eg] and experimentally [@Hansen:2005ek; @Lehnen:2007ey; @EstevezHernandez:2010du; @Kallaher:2010iq]. In 0D systems, antilocalization in both the opened and nearly-isolated Coulomb blockade regime has been studied theoretically [@Aleiner:2001fn; @Ahmadian:2006jx], but to date experiments have only addressed the open-transport regime, where Coulomb effects play a minor role [@Zumbuhl:2002ez; @Hackens:2002ei].
The hole gas formed in the Ge core of a Ge-Si core-shell nanowire [@Lu:2005jx] is an attractive system for exploring the coexisting effects of coherence, confinement, and spin-orbit coupling. Tunable quantum dots have been demonstrated in this system [@Hu:2007hu; @Roddaro:2008jc], band structure calculations indicate strong spin-orbit coupling [@Kloeffel:2011bg], and antilocalization has been demonstrated in the open-transport regime [@Hao:2010di].
In this Letter, we investigate full distributions of Coulomb blockade peak height as a function of magnetic field in a gated Ge-Si core-shell nanowire. The low-field distributions are consistent with random matrix theory (RMT) [@Ahmadian:2006jx] of Coulomb blockade transport through a 0D system with symplectic symmetry (valid for strong spin-orbit coupling), and inconsistent with predictions for orthogonal symmetry (low spin-orbit coupling). The high-field peak height distribution is found to be a scaled version of the low-field distribution, as expected from theory. However, the observed scale factor, $\sim2.3$, is significantly larger than the theoretical factor of 1.4 [@Ahmadian:2006jx]. Temperature dependence of the peak-height variance is consistent with theory using a value for orbital level spacing measured independently via Coulomb blockade spectroscopy. Consistent bounds on the spin orbit length, $l_{\mathrm{so}} \lesssim 20-25~\mathrm{nm}$, are found in the Coulomb blockade and open transport regimes.
![\[fig:1\] Device conductance, $g$, as a function of gate voltages, $V_{2-4}$ \[notation indicates $V_{2}=V_{3}=V_{4}$\], with $V_{ac} = 50~\mathrm{\mu V}$. The device can be configured as an open wire (top trace), or an isolated quantum dot (bottom trace). *Left inset:* SEM micrograph of lithographically identical device. Direction of magnetic field $B$ indicated by vertical arrow. *Right inset:* $dg/dV_{B}$ in $(\mathrm{e}^2/h)/\mathrm{mV}$ as a function of dc bias, $V_{b}$, and gate voltages, $V_{2-3}$, yield orbital energy spacing $\Delta\sim0.2~\mathrm{meV}$. ](Fig1.pdf)
Coulomb blockade of transport through a 0D system occurs when temperature, voltage bias, and lifetime broadening are small compared to the charging energy, $k T, V, \, \Gamma \ll e^2/C$, where $V = V_{b}+V_{ac}$ is the (dc + ac) bias across the device, $C$ is the dot capacitance, $e$ is the electron charge, and $\Gamma / \hbar = \tau_{escape}^{-1}$ is the tunnel rate out of the system. When, in addition, $kT$, $V$, and $\Gamma$ are less than the orbital level spacing, $\Delta$, tunneling occurs through a single (ground-state) wave function. In this latter case, Coulomb blockade conductance peaks fluctuate in height from peak to peak, depending on the coupling of the ground-state wave function to modes in the leads.
![\[fig:2\] Conductance, $g$, as a function of gate voltages $V_{2-3}$ with the device configured as a quantum dot for (a) $B=0$ and (b) $B=6 \mathrm{T}$. The application of a magnetic field reduces the average peak height. (c) Peak height standard deviation normalized by the ensemble-averaged peak height, $\sigma/\overline{g}_p$, versus temperature $T$ at $B=0$ ($V_{ac}=10~\mathrm{\mu V}$), based on $\sim$ 50 peaks per point. Fluctuations of peak heights decrease for $kT \sim \Delta$. Theory curve has no free parameters (see text). Insets: sample of peaks showing diminished fluctuations at higher temperature.](Fig2.pdf)
For disordered or chaotic dots, the statistics of these couplings can be calculated from random matrix ensembles for the dot Hamiltonian: orthogonal ($\beta=1$) for time-reversal symmetric systems, unitary ($\beta=2$) for systems with broken time-reversal symmetry, and symplectic ($\beta=4$) for time-reversal symmetric systems with broken spin rotation symmetry. Including spin-orbit and Zeeman coupling yields an extended random matrix theory with two more parameters, $s$ and $\Sigma$, in addition to the usual Dyson parameter, $\beta$ [@Aleiner:2001fn]. The parameter $s$, reflecting Kramers degeneracy, decreases from 2 to 1 with sufficient applied magnetic field; the parameter $\Sigma$, reflecting the mixing of Kramers-split levels, increases from 1 (unmixed) to 2 (mixed) with a sufficient combination of spin-orbit coupling and magnetic field. These ensembles have been investigated experimentally in the open-transport regime [@Zumbuhl:2005ix].
Writing $\Gamma = \Gamma_{l} + \Gamma_{r}$ for left and right leads, the Coulomb peak height for $\Gamma \ll kT$ is given by $$\label{eq:gmax}
g_{p} = \frac{2 e^2}{ \hbar } \frac{ \chi_s }{ k T } \frac{ \Gamma_{l} \Gamma_{r} }{ \Gamma_{l} + \Gamma_{r} }
= \frac{e^2}{\hbar} \frac{ \overline{ \Gamma} }{ 2 k T } \chi_s \alpha,$$ where $\alpha =4 \Gamma_l \Gamma_r / [\overline{\Gamma}( \Gamma_l + \Gamma_r )]$ fluctuates from peak to peak with statistics that depend on $\beta$, $\Sigma$, and $s$, and $\chi_{s=1}=1/8$ and $\chi_{s=2} = 3 - 2\sqrt{2}$ account for effects of Kramers degeneracy on Coulomb blockade [@Aleiner:2002in]. At zero magnetic field, the distribution of $\alpha$ for weak spin-orbit coupling is given by [@Jalabert:1992hb; @Aleiner:2002in; @Ahmadian:2006jx] $$\label{eq:pbeta1}
P_{\beta=1,\Sigma=1,s=2}( \alpha ) = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{ \pi \alpha }} e^{-\alpha},$$ whereas for strong spin-orbit coupling it is given by $$\label{eq:pbeta4}
P_{\beta=4,\Sigma=1,s=2}( \alpha ) = 16 \alpha^3 e^{-2 \alpha} \left( K_0( 2 \alpha ) + \left( 1 + \frac{1}{4 \alpha} \right) K_1( 2 \alpha ) \right),$$ where $K_0$ and $K_1$ are modified Bessel functions. The distributions have $\overline{\alpha}=1/2$ and $\overline{\alpha}=4/5$ for weak and strong spin-orbit coupling, respectively.
A consequence of the equality $$\label{eq:pbeta2}
P_{\beta=2, \Sigma=2, s=1}( \alpha ) = P_{\beta=4, \Sigma=1, s=2} (\alpha)$$ is that for strong spin-orbit coupling, the peak height distribution at high field is expected to be a scaled version of the zero-field distribution, [*decreased*]{} by the ratio $\chi_{s=2}/\chi_{s=1}\sim 1.4$ [@Ahmadian:2006jx]. This is in contrast to the weak spin-orbit case, where the high-field distribution differs markedly in shape from the zero-field distribution, and the high-field mean height is [*increased*]{} by a factor of 4/3 compared to zero field [@Jalabert:1992hb], consistent with experiment [@Chang:1996aa; @Folk:1996gy].
![\[fig:3\] (a) Histograms of Coulomb blockade peak heights (color scale) as a function of magnetic field, $B$. Line traces show the smoothed conductance of three individual Coulomb peaks. Average peak height decreases with $B$, while individual peak heights fluctuate. *Inset:* Measured mean peak height, $\overline{g}_p$, as a function of $B$, extracted from data in main figure. (b) Peak height distribution, $P(g_p)$, for $B \sim 0$ (range shown as blue band at the top of (a)). Theory curves from Eq. (\[eq:pbeta4\]) (solid) and Eq. (\[eq:pbeta1\]) (dashed). (c) Peak height distribution, $P(g_p)$, for $|B| \sim 6$ T (range shown as red bands at the top of (a)). Theory curves from Eq. (\[eq:pbeta2\]) (solid), which is the same as Eq. (\[eq:pbeta4\]) scaled by $8(3-2\sqrt{2})\sim 1.4$ and Eq. (\[eq:pbeta4\]) scaled by a factor of 2.3 (dashed). The single experimental parameter $\overline{\Gamma}/(kT)$ is fixed using $\overline{g}_p$ at $B=0$ from (a) inset. ](Fig3.pdf)
The measured device was formed from a Ge-Si core-shell nanowire (10 nm Ge core, 2 nm Si shell) [^1] placed on an array of Cr/Au bottom gates (2 nm/20 nm thick, 20 nm wide, 60 nm pitch) patterned by electron beam lithography on a native-oxide Si wafer, then covered with 25 nm of HfO$_2$ (grown by atomic layer deposition at $180~^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$) before depositing the wires. Patterned Ti/Pd ohmic contacts were deposited following a 3 s buffered HF etch. Conductance was measured in a dilution refrigerator with electron temperature $T \sim 100~\mathrm{mK}$ using standard lock-in techniques with ac excitation $V_{ac}=100\, \mathrm{\mu V}$, except where noted. The lock-in excitation was chosen to be as large as possible without altering the peak height distribution. An in-line resistance of $4.2~\mathrm{k \Omega}$ was subtracted from all data.
A typical orbital level spacing of $\Delta \sim 0.2~\mathrm{meV}$ was measured from Coulomb blockade spectroscopy, as shown in Fig. 1, inset. The number of holes, $N_H$, in the Coulomb blockade regime was estimated to be roughly 600, based on counting Coulomb oscillations. The length of the quantum dot was in the range $L=200-600~\mathrm{nm}$, corresponding to the length of the middle segment and the wire. For wire width $w = 10$ nm, this gives $M=4 w/\lambda_F=4-6$ occupied transverse modes, using a 3D estimate for the Fermi wavelength, $\lambda_F= ( 2 \pi^2 L w^2 / 3 N_H )^{1/3} \sim 6-9~\mathrm{nm}$. Elastic scattering length $l=h \mu / \lambda_F e = 35 - 50~\mathrm{nm}$ and mobility $\mu \sim 800~\mathrm{cm^2/V s}$ were extracted from the slope of the pinch-off curve (Fig. \[fig:4\], inset) using $g = (\pi w^2/4 L )\mu n e$ [@Lu:2005jx; @Hao:2010di]. Values in the open regime differ somewhat, as discussed below.
Figure \[fig:1\] shows two-terminal conductance of the nanowire as a function of a common voltage on gates 2, 3 and 4, denoted $V_{2-4}$, for a common voltage on gates 1 and 5, $V_{1,5}$, corresponding to open (top trace) and tunneling (bottom trace) regimes. The open regime showed weak dependence on gate voltage, with an onset of Coulomb oscillations as conductance decreases; the tunneling regime showed well defined Coulomb blockade peaks with fluctuating heights. The heights of neighboring peaks appear correlated over roughly two peaks, even at the lowest temperatures, similar to [@Folk:1996gy], which decreases the effective ensemble size.
Representative sets of Coulomb blockade peaks at $B \sim 0$ and $6~\mathrm{T}$ \[Figs. 2(a,b)\] show a decrease in average peak height at high field, as expected for strong spin-orbit coupling. As temperature was increased above $\Delta$, fluctuations in peak height decreased rapidly, consistent with a simple model that assumes resonant transport through multiple, uniformly spaced levels \[Figure \[fig:2\](c)\]. Note that the same ensemble was used for each temperature. This presumably accounts for the correlated departures from theory at low temperature. The discrepancy with theory at high temperature is unexplained, and is reminiscent of [@Patel:1998jy].
Peak height histograms for $m = 142$ Coulomb peaks (see Supplemental Material for gate voltage ranges) show the evolution of the distribution as a function of magnetic field \[Fig. 3(a)\]. The observed decreasing average peak height at higher fields—Coulomb blockade antilocalization—as well as the maximum in the distribution away from zero height at all fields, are both signatures of strong spin-orbit coupling.
Figures 3(b,c) show peak height distributions, ${P( g_p ) = ( \overline{\alpha}/\overline{g}_p )P_{\beta,\Sigma,s} ( \overline{\alpha} g_p /\overline{g}_p ) = N / ( m W)} $, where $W$ is the bin width and $N$ is the bin count in Fig. 3(a), at low and high magnetic fields.
The low-field data in Fig. 3(b) agree with the theoretical distribution for strong spin-orbit coupling ($\beta = 4$), with the mean peak height taken from Fig. 3(a), and are inconsistent with the theoretical distribution for weak spin-orbit coupling ($\beta = 1$). The high-field data in Fig. 3(c) are consistent with a scaled version of the low-field theoretical distribution, as expected for strong spin-orbit coupling, but with a scale factor of $\sim 2.3$ rather than the theoretically predicted factor of 1.4. The reason for this discrepancy—qualitative scaling, but not by the predicted factor—is not understood, but may result from changes in tunnel rates out of the dot or changes in density of states in the leads, which are also segments of nanowire.
![\[fig:4\] Two-terminal conductance, $g$, in the open-wire regime as a function of magnetic field, $B$ (points) along with theory, based on Eq. (\[eq:biganti\]), including contact resistance. Fit bounds spin-orbit length, $l_\mathrm{so} < 20~\mathrm{nm}$. *Inset:* Pinch-off curve at bias $V_b = 10~\mathrm{mV}$. Saturation at $g\sim0.3~\mathrm{e^2/h}$ indicates decreasing mobility in the open regime (see text). ](Fig4.pdf)
To compare antilocalization in the Coulomb blockade regime to the open-wire regime, we tuned the device to more negative gate voltages, where Coulomb blockade oscillations were absent \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](a)\]. The number of holes was larger in the open regime, $N_H \sim 1700$ and $\lambda_F \sim 6~\mathrm{nm}$, again determined by counting Coulomb oscillations and assuming the device is depleted at pinch-off. The inset of Fig. \[fig:4\] shows that high-bias conductance saturates at larger negative gate voltages, indicating a decreasing mobility with increasing density. Similar behavior has been reported in Ge-Si nanowires [@Lu:2005jx], Ge nanowires [@Wang:2003fj], and Si heterostructures [@Cheng:1973vc]. In Si heterostructures, this decrease in mobility was explained as resulting from carriers being pulled toward the rough heterointerface, as well as an increase in phase space for scattering as more transverse subbands are occupied [@Cheng:1973vc; @Mori:1979dp]. Presumably, comparable effects occur in wires.
Magnetoconductance, $g(B)$, measured in the open-wire regime, is shown in Fig. \[fig:4\] along with a theory curve that includes contributions from the wire, $g_{w}(B)^{-1}$, as well as from the two contacts, each set to $g_{c}^{-1} = 2e^{2}/h$ near the onset of Coulomb blockade, $g(B) = [2 g_c^{-1} + g_w(B)^{-1} ]^{-1}$. Following Ref. [@Kurdak:1992cp], we use the expression $$\begin{aligned}
g_w(B) = g_{\infty} - \frac{2 e^2}{h} \frac{1}{L} \biggl[ \label{eq:biganti}
&\frac{3}{2} \biggl( \frac{1}{D \tau_\phi} + \frac{4}{3 D \tau_\mathrm{so}} + \frac{1}{D \tau_B} \biggr)^{-1/2} \\ \nonumber
-&\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \frac{1}{D \tau_\phi} + \frac{1}{D \tau_B} \biggr)^{-1/2} \\ \nonumber
-&\frac{3}{2} \biggl( \frac{1}{D \tau_\phi} + \frac{4}{3 D \tau_\mathrm{so}} + \frac{1}{D \tau_e} + \frac{1}{D \tau_B} \biggr)^{-1/2} \\ \nonumber
+&\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \frac{1}{D \tau_\phi} + \frac{1}{ D \tau_e} + \frac{1}{D \tau_B} \biggr)^{-1/2}
\biggr],\end{aligned}$$ for the magnetoconductance of the wire, where $g_{\infty}$ is the classical (background) conductance, $L\sim600~\mathrm{nm}$ is the length of the occupied region of the nanowire, $D$ is the diffusion constant, and $\tau_\phi$, $\tau_\mathrm{so}$, $\tau_B$, $\tau_e$ are the dephasing, spin relaxation, magnetic, and impurity-impurity scattering times. We note that in the present study, where $l_e \ll l_\phi$, the last two terms of Eq. (5) do not play an important role, and in principle could be dropped. We retain these terms, though they have no discernible effect on the fits, for consistency with the existing literature [@Hansen:2005ek; @Hao:2010di; @Kallaher:2010iq; @Kallaher:2010uh] for $w < l_e$.
The transport scattering length, $l_{t}=2D/v_{f}$, where $v_f$ is the Fermi velocity, the dephasing length, $l_\phi$, and the spin precession length, $l_\mathrm{so}$, then appear as [@Beenakker:1988dv; @Kettemann:2007eg] $D \tau_\phi = l_\phi^2/2$, $D \tau_e = l_t l_{e}/2$, $D \tau_B = C_1\,l_t l_B^4/w^3 + C_2\,l_t l_{e} l_B^2/w^2$, and $D \tau_\mathrm{so} = C_3\, l_t l_\mathrm{so}^4/w^3$, where $l_B^{2}= \hbar/e B$. Contants $C_1=4 \pi \, (9.5)$, $C_2 = 3 \, (24/5)$ apply for diffusive (specular) boundary scattering [@Beenakker:1988dv], and we interpolate between these values for specularity, $\epsilon$, between zero (fully diffusive) and one (fully specular). We use the specular value $C_3 = 130$ [@Kettemann:2007eg], lacking a theoretical value for diffusive boundary scattering. The ratio of scattering lengths depends on specularity and sample width, $l_t/l_{e} = F( w/l_e, \epsilon )$, with $F(\cdot \, , 1)$ = 1 [^2]. These expressions require for $\lambda_F < w$ and $w < l_e$, the former barely satisfied for $\lambda_F = 6~\mathrm{nm}$. Four free parameters, $l_\mathrm{so}$, $g_\infty$, $l_e$, and $l_\phi$, are used to fit theory to data. The transport scattering length is found from $l_t = (4 L / \pi w^2 ) h g_\infty / \lambda_F n e^2$, where $n= 4 N_H / \pi w^2 L$ is the 3D hole density (a reasonable model, given six occupied transverse modes). Specularity can then be found by inverting $l_t /l_{e} = F( w/l_e, \epsilon )$, and the Fermi wavelength can be found from the 3D density, $\lambda_F = ( 8 \pi / 3 n )^{1/3}$. As seen in Fig. 4, the model fits the data very well, and gives the following ranges for transport parameters, $g_\infty = 0.2 - 0.7~\mathrm{e^2/h}$, $l_e < 10~\mathrm{\mu m}$, $l_t = 15$-$25~\mathrm{nm}$ $l_\phi = (0.2-1.2)~\mathrm{\mu m}$, specularity in the range $\epsilon = 0.4-1$, and $l_\mathrm{so} < 20~\mathrm{nm}$. (Allowing $l_\mathrm{so} > 20~\mathrm{nm}$ gives good fits only with $l_e > 10~\mathrm{ \mu m}$, which we rule out as unphysical.)
As a comparison between open and nearly isolated regimes, we note that the observation of antilocalization in Coulomb blockade implies $\epsilon_\mathrm{so} > \Delta$ where $\epsilon_{\mathrm{so}}$ is the spin-orbit energy in the dot [@Ahmadian:2006jx]. To convert this into a spin-orbit length we assume the simple relation $\epsilon_{\mathrm{so}} = \hbar^2 / ( 2 m^{*} l_{\mathrm{so}}^2 )$ [@Kloeffel:2011bg] and the bulk heavy-hole effective mass $m^{*} = 0.28~m_e$. This gives $l_\mathrm{so} < 25~\mathrm{nm}$, consistent with the open regime measurement of $l_\mathrm{so} < 20~\mathrm{nm}$.
It is interesting to consider the reason for the large magnetic field scale associated with antilocalization in both regimes. Flux cancellation due to boundary scattering is known to enhance the effective magnetic length [@Beenakker:1988dv]. Flux cancellations of the effective spin-orbit magnetic field also occur . These effects roughly cancel out, and the field scale for antilocalization is then $l_B = l_\mathrm{so}$, or $B^* = \hbar / ( e l_\mathrm{so}^2 )=3~\mathrm{T}$ for $l_\mathrm{so}=15~\mathrm{nm}$.
In summary, we have presented an experimental study of Coulomb blockade peak height statistics in a Ge-Si nanowire. Peak height distributions as well as the field dependence of average peak height (antilocalization) are consistent with the effects of strong spin-orbit coupling. However, the observed decrease in average peak height with applied magnetic field is larger than expected. Magnetoconductance of the same device configured as an open wire yields consistent results. Further investigation of the spin-orbit strength in this system could come from spectroscopic measurements of orbital anticrossings in a quantum-dot, or from electric-dipole spin resonance measurements in a Ge-Si double quantum dot. Combined with the expectation of long spin dephasing times in Ge-Si quantum dots, the strong spin-orbit coupling found in this work makes Ge-Si nanowire quantum dots attractive for spin qubit applications.
We thank Igor Aleiner for valuable discussions. Research supported by the Danish National Research Foundation, The Office of Science at the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation (PHY-1104528), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency through the QuEST Program.
[^1]: The device shown in Fig. \[fig:1\] is lithographically identical to the one studied here. However, in the measured device the nanowire forms a smaller angle with $B$ of $31^{\circ}$ determined from optical microscopy.
[^2]: $F$ is given by [@Dingle:1950ew] $$\begin{split}
F( \kappa, \epsilon ) = &1 - \frac{12}{\pi} (1 - \epsilon^2) \\
&\sum_{\nu=1}^\infty \nu \epsilon^{\nu-1} \int_{0}^1 dx \sqrt{ 1 - x^2 } S_4( \nu \kappa x ),
\end{split}$$ where $S_4( \lambda ) = \int_0^{\pi/2} d\theta e^{-\lambda/\sin \theta} \cos^2 \theta \sin \theta$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper proves two theorems concerning the set of periods of periodic orbits for maps of graphs that are homotopic to the constant map and such that the vertices form a periodic orbit. The first result is that if the number of vertices is not a divisor of $2^k$ then there must be a periodic point with period $2^k$. The second is that if the number of vertices is $2^ks$ for odd $s>1$, then for all $r>s$ there exists a periodic point of minimum period $2^k r$. These results are then compared to the Sharkovsky ordering of the positive integers.'
address:
- |
Department of mathematics and computer science\
Fairfield University\
Fairfield\
CT 06824
- |
Department of mathematics\
Harvey Mudd College\
340 East Foothill Blvd.\
Claremont\
California 91711
- |
Department of mathematics\
Bard College\
PO Box 5000\
Annandale-on-Hudson\
NY 12504-5000
- |
Department of mathematics\
College of Saint Benedict\
37 South College Avenue\
St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374
author:
- Chris Bernhardt
- Zach Gaslowitz
- Adriana Johnson
- Whitney Radil
title: Periods of orbits for maps on graphs homotopic to a constant map
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
A vertex map on a graph with $v$ vertices is a continuous map that permutes the vertices. Given a vertex map, the periods of the periodic orbits can be computed giving a subset of the positive integers. One of the basic questions of combinatorial dynamics for vertex maps is to determine which subsets of the positive integers can be obtained in this way. Sharkovsky’s theorem [@S] is a well-known result about the periods of periodic orbits for maps on the real line or the interval. It provides the answer when the underlying graph is topologically an interval and the vertices all belong to the same periodic orbit. In this case the map must have a periodic orbit of period $m$ for any $m$ satisfying $m \triangleleft v$, where $$1 \triangleleft 2 \triangleleft 4 \triangleleft \dots \, \, \dots \triangleleft 2^27 \triangleleft 2^25 \triangleleft 2^23 \triangleleft \dots 2^17 \triangleleft 2^15 \triangleleft 2^13 \dots 7 \triangleleft 5 \triangleleft 3.$$
In [@BGMY], Block, Guckenheimer, Misiurewicz and Young gave what has now become the standard approach to proving Sharkovsky’s theorem using directed graphs. Among other results that were proved in the paper was an extension of Sharkovsky’s Theorem to degree zero maps of the circle. They showed that if a degree zero map of the circle has a periodic point of period $v$ then it must also have one of period $m$ for all $m \triangleleft v$. Again this can be considered as a result for vertex maps on graphs where the graph is topologically a circle and the periodic points of period $v$ form the vertices. (A good introduction to combinatorial one-dimensional dynamics that contains these results amongst a wealth of others is [@ALM].)
After studying maps on the interval and on circles it was natural to ask similar questions for maps on trees and then on general graphs. In what follows we will always make the assumption that the underlying map permutes the vertices. A more general approach is not to have this restriction. This more general approach has been taken by a number of authors. In a sequence of papers culminating in [@AJM], Alsedà, Juher and Mumbrú proved the general result for trees. For maps on graphs using this more general approach see .
In [@B2; @B3] a Sharkovsky-type theorem was proved for vertex maps on trees, maps for which the vertices form one periodic orbit. This ordering is a partial ordering, not a linear ordering – some of the relations in the Sharkovsky ordering have to be deleted. A natural question is to ask whether this ordering also holds for vertex maps of general graphs if we restrict the underlying map to be homotopic to a constant map.
We have not been able to completely prove this, but we do prove two results for the case when the vertices form one periodic orbit with period $v$: the first result is that if $v$ is not a divisor of $2^k$ then there must be a periodic point with period $2^k$; and the second is that if $v=2^ks$ for odd $s>1$, then for all $r>s$ there exists a periodic point of minimum period $2^k r$. In the final section we show that our results are quite strong. The set of periods forced by a given $v$ with respect to the results in our paper, those given by the tree ordering, and those given by the Sharkovsky ordering differ at most by a finite number of periods.
In [@BGMY], Block et al. proved their result for circles by looking at the universal cover and periodic orbits of lifts of the original map to the universal cover. This approach does not extend easily in the case considered in this paper. Though the universal cover is a tree, the vertices of the tree can be pre-periodic points and not periodic points. This means that we cannot simply apply the tree result from [@B3]. Our approach is similar to that in [@B1; @B2; @B3] using trace arguments for Oriented Markov Matrices.
There is a close connection between combinatorial dynamics and algebraic topology. As noted in [@B1] several of the ideas that we express in dynamical terminology could be expressed in terms of algebraic topology. In particular, the Oriented Markov Matrix introduced in section $5$ is the matrix corresponding to the induced map on $1$-chains, the vectors in section $6$ are the coordinate vectors for $1$-chains, and Theorem $1$ in section $7$ is closely related to the Lefschetz number of the map. However, we give elementary proofs for all results. We begin by introducing the basic concepts, starting with graphs.
Graphs
======
We are considering finite connected *graphs*, whose *edges* are real closed intervals, the endpoints of which are the *vertices*. Any two edges are pairwise disjoint, except possibly at their endpoints. We allow the possibility of more than one edge connecting the same two vertices, but we do not allow [*loops*]{}, edges that connect a vertex to itself. (What we are calling graphs are sometimes referred to as [*multigraphs*]{}.) We say a graph $G$ has $n$ edges and $v$ vertices.
For each edge $E_i$, an *orientation* is assigned. Orientation is defined by the vertices that bound the edge: one will be considered the initial vertex, and the other the final vertex. If orientation is reversed, the edge will be written as $-E_i$, and the initial and final vertices are switched.
Let $\hat{G}$ be the graph represented below. Orientation is indicated by the arrows.
(one) at (0,0) \[label=left :$v_1$\] ; (two) at (2,1.5) \[label=above:$v_2$\] ; (three) at (4,0) \[label=above:$v_3$\] ; (four) at (7,0) \[label=above:$v_4$\] ; (five) at (2,-1.5) \[label=below:$v_5$\] ;
(one) to node [$E_1$]{} (two); (five) to node [$E_2$]{} (one); (two) to node [$E_3$]{} (three); (two) to node [$E_4$]{} (five); (four) to node [$E_5$]{} (three); (five) to node\[swap\][$E_6$]{} (three);
We will be using $\hat{G}$ in the examples that follow.
Given any two vertices, $v_a$ and $v_b$, a *path* from $v_a$ to $v_b$ is a sequence of edges $E_{i_1}, \ldots, E_{i_q}$ where the initial vertex of $E_{i_1}$ is $v_a$, the final vertex of $E_{i_q}$ is $v_b$ and the final vertex of $E_{i_r}$ is the initial vertex of $E_{i_{r+1}}$ for $1 \le r < q$. If $E_p$ and $-E_p$ are two consecutive edges in a path, we can obtain a shorter path by omitting these two edges. We will call this a *contraction* of the path. Given any path from vertex $v_a$ to vertex $v_b$ we can form a sequence of contractions resulting in a unique path that cannot be contracted further. We call this resulting path *reduced*.
We adopt the standard graph theory term for a *cycle*. A *cycle* in a graph $G$ is a closed path with no repeated vertices or edges.
Maps
====
In this paper, we will consider continuous maps $F$ that act on $G$ and permute the vertices by a permutation $\theta$. We say the permutation $\theta$ is a *cycle* if the vertices of $G$ form one periodic orbit. We will use cycle notation for permutations. Thus $(1,2,3,4)$ means $1$ gets mapped to $2$, $2$ to $3$, $3$ to $4$ and $4$ back to $1$.
Each edge in the graph is homeomorphic to the unit interval. We use the homeomorphism to define the distance between points in an edge and to give each edge unit length. A path consisting of $m$ edges is defined to have length $m$ in the obvious way. Suppose that an edge $E_i$ is mapped by $F$ to a path with $m$ edges, then there is a natural induced map $F^*:[0,1] \to [0,m]$. We will say that $F$ is linear on $E_i$ if $F^*$ is linear.
We now define the [*linearization*]{} of the map $F$, which we will denote by $f$. For all vertices $v \in G$, we define $f(v)=F(v)$. If $E_i$ is an edge with endpoints $v_a$ and $v_b$, we define $f$ to map $E_i$ linearly onto the reduced path from $v_a$ to $v_b$ that is obtained from $F(E_i)$.
More formally, let $[0,1]=I$, we define $f:G \to G$ to be the [*linearization*]{} of $F$ if for each edge $E_i$ there is homotopy $h_i:E_i \times I \to G $ which has the following properties : $h_i(x,0)=F(x)$ for all $x \in E_i$; $h_i(x,1)=f(x)$ for all $x \in E_i$; $h_i(v_a, t)=F(v_a)=f(v_a)$ for all $t \in I$; $h_i(v_b, t)=F(v_b)=f(v_b)$ for all $t \in I$; and such that $f$ is linear on $E_i$. If $f$ is the linearization of a map $F$, we say $f$ is *linearized*. We will consider linearized maps throughout the paper. (In the literature the maps that we are calling linearized are sometimes referred to as [*linear models*]{} for tree maps or [*connect-the-dots*]{} maps for interval maps, see [@AGLMM; @ALM].) The connections between the sets of periodic points for $f$ and $F$ will be discussed in the next section.
In addition to thinking of $f$ as a map from $G$ to itself, we can also consider it as a map from paths in $G$ to paths in $G$. In this sense, the image of an edge will be a path. The image of a reversed edge is the reverse path.
We continue with our example. Suppose $f: \hat{G} \to \hat{G}$ permutes the vertices by $\theta=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5)$. Then $f(v_1)=v_2$, $f(v_2)=v_3$, etc. Though the images of the vertices are defined by $\theta$, there are many possibilities for the image of edges. For example, $f(E_1)$, considered as a path, must have endpoints $v_2$ and $v_3$, but its image could be any of the following:
$$\begin{aligned}
f(E_1)&=E_3\\
&\text{OR}\\
&=E_4E_6\\
&\text{OR}\\
&=-E_1{-E_2}E_6{-E_3}E_4E_6\\
&etc.\end{aligned}$$
However, since $f$ is linearized, we could not have $f(E_1) = E_4E_6{-E_5}E_5$, since its image could be contracted further.
In what follows, we will take $$\begin{aligned}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ &f(E_1)=E_3\\
&f(E_2)=-E_2E_6{-E_3}\\
&f(E_3)=-E_5\\
&f(E_4)=-E_6E_2\\
&f(E_5)=E_2E_1E_3{-E_6}{-E_4}{-E_1}{-E_2}E_6{-E_5}\\
&f(E_6)={-E_2}E_6{-E_5} \ .\end{aligned}$$
Periodic Points {#sec:PeriodicPoints}
===============
The map $f^r(x)$ refers to the map given by composing $f$ with itself $r$ times, so, for example, $f^2(x)=f(f(x))$. We say that a point $x \in G$ is a *periodic point* under $f$ if there exists a positive integer $p$ such that $f^p(x)=x$. Any such $p$ is said to be a period of $x$, and the smallest period is known as that point’s *minimum period*.
Our main tool for finding periodic points is an application of the following lemma which stems from the the Intermediate Value Theorem.
For any closed real interval $I$, any continuous map from $I$ to itself will have a fixed point.
Given a graph $G$ and a linearized map $f$ that permutes the vertices, we construct an [*Oriented Markov Graph*]{}. The vertices of the OMG correspond to the edges of $G$. A directed, oriented edge will be drawn from one OMG vertex, $E_j$ to another, $E_i$, if $E_j$ has a closed subinterval that maps entirely onto $E_i$. A directed edge will be drawn for each such closed subinterval. The orientation of the edge will be positive (resp. negative) if the subinterval gets mapped onto $E_j$ with positive (resp. negative) orientation. Though we will not use the term, in the literature, if $E_j$ contains a closed subinterval with image equal to $E_i$ it is said that $E_j$ [*f-covers*]{} $E_i$. Below we sketch standard results for Markov Graphs and refer the reader to [@ALM] for formal proofs that are stated in terms of $f$-covers.
Given an Oriented Markov Graph, we can define a sequence $E_{i_0}E_{i_1}\cdots E_{i_d}$ to be a *walk* of length $d$ in the OMG, where each edge $E_{i_k}$ in the sequence will have an edge connecting it to $E_{i_{k+1}}$ in OMG, or equivalently, there is a closed subinterval of $E_{i_k}$ that gets mapped exactly onto $E_{i_{k+1}}$. We call a walk *closed* if its first and last edge are equal, discounting orientation.
Closed walks are useful because if there is a closed walk of length $d$ from edge $E_k$ to itself in the OMG, then there is a periodic point of period $d$ in the graph. This is because if $E_{i_0}E_{i_1}\cdots E_{i_{d-1}}E_{i_d}$ is a closed walk with $E_{i_0}=E_{i_d}$ then we know that there is a subinterval $J_{d-1}$ in $E_{i_{d-1}}$ such that $f(J_{d-1})=E_{i_{d}}=E_{i_0}$. We can then find a subinterval $J_{d-2}$ in $E_{i_{d-2}}$ such that $f(J_{d-2})=J_{d-1}$. We proceed inductively until we obtain a subinterval $J_{0}$ of $E_{i_0}$ with the property that $f^d(J_0)=E_{i_{d}}=E_{i_0}$. Since $J_0 \subseteq E_{i_0}$ and $f^d(J_0)=E_{i_0}$, it follows from Lemma 1 that $f^d$ must have a fixed point in $E_{i_0}$. There could be more than one fixed point, of course, but there must be at least one.
We have shown that closed walks in the Oriented Markov Graph give us information about the periodic points of the linearized map $f$. Suppose that $f$ is the linearization of $F$, then these closed walks also give us information about periodic points of $F$. This follows from the fact that if there is a subinterval of $E_{i_k}$ that gets mapped exactly onto $E_{i_{k+1}}$ by $f$, then there must be a subinterval of $E_{i_k}$ that gets mapped exactly onto $E_{i_{k+1}}$ by $F$.
All of our arguments for periodic orbits will consider these closed walks and will give both periodic orbits for $F$ and for $f$. It should be noted that the periodic points of $f$ correspond to closed walks in the OMG, but $F$ could have periodic points of other periods in addition to those given by closed walks. It should also be noted that in the proof above it is important that the edges are closed intervals and that they are not allowed to contain vertices in their interiors.
Oriented Markov Matrices {#sec:OMM}
========================
We will denote the Oriented Markov Matrix of $f$ as ${\mathrm{OMM}}(f)=M$. The Oriented Markov Matrix is an $n\times n$ matrix such that an element $a_{ij}$ represents the number of times the edge $E_j$ maps to the edge $E_i$ with positive orientation minus the number of times $E_j$ maps to $E_i$ with negative orientation. In terms of the OMG, $a_{ij}$ is equal to the number of positive directed edges from $E_j$ to $E_i$ minus the number of negative directed edges from $E_j$ to $E_i$.
If $M$ is the Oriented Markov Matrix of a map $f$, then the $ij^\text{th}$ entry of $M^k$ counts the number of positively oriented walks minus the number of negatively oriented walks from $E_j$ to $E_i$ of length $k$.
It is clear from the construction that this holds when $k=1$.
Assume that it holds for $k=s$. By definition, $$(M^{s+1})_{ij}=(MM^s)_{ij}=\sum_{r=1}^n M_{ir}(M^s)_{rj}\ .$$ By hypothesis, $(M^s)_{rj}$ counts the number, $p_s$, of positive walks of length $s$ from $j$ to $r$ minus the number of negative ones, $n_s$. Similarly, $M_{ir}$ counts the number of positive walks, $p_1$, minus the number of negative walks, $n_1$, of length one from $r$ to $i$. Thus, $$M_{ir}(M^s)_{rj}=(p_1-n_1)(p_s-n_s)=(p_sp_1+n_sn_1)-(n_sp_1+p_sn_1)$$ counts the number of positively oriented length $s+1$ walks from $E_j$ to $E_i$ whose second to last step is $E_r$ minus the negatively oriented ones.
By summing over all possible $r$, we have counted all length $s+1$ walks from $E_j$ to $E_i$. Thus, this lemma holds for $k=s+1$, so by induction, the lemma holds for all positive integers $k$.
We will also need to use the following result. See [@B1] for proof.
If $M$ is the Oriented Markov Matrix for a map $f$, then $M^k$ is the Oriented Markov Matrix of $f^k$ for all positive integers $k$.
These lemmas suggest that these Oriented Markov Matrices will be very useful tools in proving the existence of the walks that were discussed in section \[sec:PeriodicPoints\] on periodic points.
The corresponding Oriented Markov Matrix for $f:\hat G \to \hat G$ is
$M = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\
0 &-1& 0& 1& 0&-1\\
1& -1& 0& 0& 1& 0\\
0 & 0& 0& 0&-1& 0\\
0 & 0&-1& 0&-1&-1\\
0 & 1& 0&-1& 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$ .
If an element $a_{ij}$ in $M^r$ is non-zero, then there is at least one closed walk of length $r$ from edge $E_j$ to edge $E_i$. Non-zero entries in the diagonal of $M^r$ represent closed walks of length $r$ from an edge to itself. So the trace of $M^r$ represents the number of times edges in $G$ map to themselves with positive orientation minus the number of times they map to themselves with negative orientation with length $r$. We also note that whether or not an edge maps to itself in an orientation preserving or reversing way is independent of the orientation chosen for that edge. This means that the diagonal entries in powers of $M$ do not depend on the choice of the orientation for edges in $G$.
Cycles
======
In what follows we shall be studying maps from graphs to themselves that are homotopic to a constant map. We will call such a map an *HTC* map.
It is clear that a map from a graph $G$ is HTC if and only if the image of every cycle in the graph can be contracted to the empty path.
Note that there are three cycles in the graph:
$c_1=E_1E_4E_2$, $c_2=-E_3E_4E_6$, and $c_3=E_1E_3{-E_6}E_2$.
For $f$ to be homotopic to the constant map, we must show that the images of these cycles collapse.
$$\begin{aligned}
f(c_1)&=f(E_1E_4E_2)\\
&=f(E_1)f(E_4)f(E_2)\\
&=(E_3)({-E_6}E_2)({-E_2}E_6{-E_3})\\
&=E_3{-E_6}E_2{-E_2}E_6{-E_3}\end{aligned}$$
We can now collapse the edges in this sequence:
$$\begin{aligned}
\ \ \ \ &\sim E_3{-E_6}\mathbf{(E_2{-E_2})}E_6{-E_3}\\
\ \ \ \ &\sim E_3\mathbf{(-E_6E_6)}{-E_3}\\
\ \ \ \ &\sim \mathbf{(E_3{-E_3})}\\
\ \ \ \ &\sim \emptyset\end{aligned}$$
And the same can be done with the other cycles. So the map is HTC.
To each path in the graph $G$ we associate an $n$-dimensional vector. The $k$-th component of the vector counts the number of times the edge $E_k$ appears in the path with positive orientation minus the number of times $E_k$ appears in the path with negative orientation. Notice that if $\vec u$ is such a vector, then $M\vec u$ will give a vector that corresponds to the image of the path corresponding to $\vec u$ under $f$ .
For a tree, the number of edges is equal to one less than the number of vertices, $n=v-1$. If $n>v-1$, then there is at least one cycle in the graph.
Given a graph with $n>v-1$, choose a spanning tree. For each edge that is not in the spanning tree we can form a cycle consisting of that edge and the remaining edges taken from the tree. It is clear that the vectors associated to these cycles are linearly independent. In fact the vector associated to any closed path can be written as a linear combination of these $c=n-(v-1)$ vectors. This is a standard result from homology where it is seen that these vectors generate the group of $1$-cycles, see [@H], for example.
We let $W=\{\vec{w_1}, \vec{w_2}, \cdots, \vec{w_c}\}$ denote the linearly independent set of vectors that correspond to these cycles. Since cycles collapse, their image is the empty path, and so $M\vec{w_j} = \vec{0}$.
In our example, the vectors corresponding to $c_1$ and $c_2$ give two linearly independent vectors, $\vec w_1^T=[1,1,0,1,0,0]$, $\vec w_2^T=[0,0,-1,1,0,1]$. The vector associated to $c_3$ is equal to $\vec w_1 - \vec w_2$. We can take $W=\{\vec w_1,\vec w_2\}$ as the linearly independent set of vectors. $$M \vec w_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\
0 &-1& 0& 1& 0&-1\\
1& -1& 0& 0& 1& 0\\
0 & 0& 0& 0&-1& 0\\
0 & 0&-1& 0&-1&-1\\
0 & 1& 0&-1& 0& 1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
1\\1\\0\\1\\0\\0
\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}
0\\0\\0\\0\\0\\0
\end{bmatrix}$$
Trace theorems for Oriented Markov Matrices
===========================================
In this section we will prove results concerning the traces of the Oriented Markov Matrices of HTC maps on $G$. These results will be used in the following section to prove the main results. First, we state a result that we will need about maps on trees. This was proved in [@B1]. We give a proof here to aid the exposition.
Given a tree $T$ with $v$ vertices and a map $f:T \to T$ that permutes the vertices, if none of the vertices are fixed under $f$, then the trace of the Oriented Markov Matrix is $-1$.
For each vertex, $v_i$ there is a reduced path from $v_i$ to $f(v_i)$. Put a dot on the first edge in this path.
Observe that an edge $E_i$ contains two dots if and only if $-E_i$ is in the reduced path that corresponds to $f(E_i)$. Also observe that $E_i$ contains no dots if and only if $E_i$ is in the reduced path corresponding to $f(E_i)$. Finally, an edge contains one dot if and only if the reduced path of $f(E_i)$ does not contain either $E_i$ or $-E_i$. Notice that the number of dots on the edge $E_i$ is exactly $1-M_{ii}$. If $e$ denotes the number of edges in $T$, the total number of dots is $\sum_1^e(1-M_{ii})=e-{\mathrm{tr}}(M)$. However, there are exactly $v$ dots on $T$, so $v=e-{\mathrm{tr}}(M)$, and ${\mathrm{tr}}(M)=e-v=-1$.
Given any graph $G$ and any permutation $\theta$ that does not fix any vertices, there exists an HTC map from $G$ to $G$ which permutes the vertices of $G$ by $\theta$ and has an Oriented Markov Matrix with trace $-1$.
Let $S$ be a spanning tree of $G$ and $f:G \to G$ any map that permutes the vertices according to $\theta$ and whose image is $S$. We know from the previous lemma that a map from a tree to itself that does not fix any vertex will have an Oriented Markov Matrix with trace $-1$, so ${\mathrm{tr}}({\mathrm{OMM}}(f|_S))=-1$. The remaining edges are not in the image, so, they do not map to themselves. Thus, no other edges will contribute to the trace of ${\mathrm{OMM}}(f)$, so ${\mathrm{tr}}({\mathrm{OMM}}(f))=-1$, as desired.
Given any graph $G$ and any permutation $\theta$, the Oriented Markov Matrix of any two HTC maps from $G$ to $G$ that permute the vertices by $\theta$ will have the same trace.
Suppose the graph $G$ has $n$ edges, and $c$ linearly independent cycles. Let $W=\{\vec w_1, \vec w_2, \cdots, \vec w_c\}$ denote the set of linearly independent cycles on $G$.
Let $f$ and $g$ be two maps that are HTC and that permute the vertices by the same permutation $\theta$. For each edge $E_i$, the reduced paths corresponding to $f(E_i)$ and $g(E_i)$ have the same initial and terminal points. This means that if we let $\vec v_1$ and $\vec v_2$ demote the corresponding vectors, then $\vec v_1 - \vec v_2$ will be a closed path (a homological $1$-cycle) and thus can be written as a linear combination of vectors from $W$.
Denote the Oriented Markov Matrices of $f$ and $g$ by $M$ and $N$. Then $M$ and $N$ can be related by $M=N+B$, where $B$ is an $n\times n$ matrix such that each column is an integer linear combination of the vectors in $W$. Therefore, $B=\bigg{[}\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{1i}\vec w_i |\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{2i}\vec w_i | \cdots |\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{ni}\vec w_i\bigg{]}$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{tr}}(B) &= \sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{1i}w_{1i} + \sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{2i}w_{2i} + \cdots + \sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{ni}w_{ni}\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{ji}w_{ji} \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{c}\sum_{j=1}^{n} a_{ji}w_{ji}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Since $f$ and $g$ are mappings on $G$ that are homotopic to the constant map, the image of cycles must collapse. So for $m$ satisfying $1\leq m \leq c$ we know $N\vec w_m=\vec 0$ and $\vec 0 =M\vec w_m=(N+B)\vec w_m=N\vec w_m + B\vec w_m= \vec 0+B\vec w_m=\vec0$. Therefore $B\vec w_m=\vec0$. Thus we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\vec 0 &= B\vec w_m\\
&= w_{1m}\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{1i}\vec w_i+ w_{2m}\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{2i}\vec w_i+ \cdots + w_{nm}\sum_{i=1}^{c} a_{ni}\vec w_i\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{i=1}^{c} w_{jm}a_{ji}\vec w_i\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{c}\sum_{j=1}^n w_{jm}a_{ji}\vec w_i\\
&=\Bigg(\sum_{j=1}^n w_{jm}a_{j1}\Bigg)\vec w_1+\Bigg(\sum_{j=1}^n w_{jm}a_{j2}\Bigg)\vec w_2+\cdots+\Bigg(\sum_{j=1}^n w_{jm}a_{jc}\Bigg)\vec w_c \ .\end{aligned}$$
Recall that the vectors in $W$ are linearly independent. Since we have a linear combination of linearly independent vectors that is equal to the zero vector, all coefficients must be equal to zero. More specifically, the $m^{th}$ coefficient is equal to zero. So for $m$ satisfying $1\leq m \leq c$ we know $\sum_{j=1}^n w_{jm}a_{jm}=0$. So it follows that $\sum_{i=1}^{c}\sum_{j=1}^{n} a_{ji}w_{ji}=0$. This is the trace of $B$. Therefore ${\mathrm{tr}}(B)=0$.
It follows that ${\mathrm{tr}}(M)={\mathrm{tr}}(N)+{\mathrm{tr}}(B)={\mathrm{tr}}(N)+0={\mathrm{tr}}(N)$, so the trace of the Oriented Markov Matrices of two maps HTC on a graph $G$ with a given permutation will be the same.
Given any graph $G$ and any permutation $\theta$ that does not fix any vertices, the Oriented Markov Matrix of any HTC map from $G$ to $G$ with permutation $\theta$ will have a trace of $-1$.
By Lemma 5, for a given permutation, there exists a map such that the trace of its Oriented Markov Matrix is $-1$. By Lemma 6, any two maps on a graph that have the same permutation will have the same trace. Therefore, for any graph $G$ and any permutation $\theta$ that does not fix any vertices, the Oriented Markov Matrix of any map from $G$ to $G$ will have trace $-1$.
\[thm:OMMpowers\] If $M$ and $N$ are the Oriented Markov Matrices of two maps from the graph $G$ to itself which are HTC and have the same vertex permutation, then for any positive integer $r$ $$M^r=MN^{r-1}.$$
Let $M$ and $N$ be the Oriented Markov Matrices described above. Under these two maps, the image of each edge can only differ by an integer number of times edges map around complete cycles. Thus, we know that $M=N+B$, where the columns of $B$ are integer linear combinations of the vectors in $W$. Notice, then, that $$M^2=M(N+B)=MN+MB.$$ It is clear that $MB=0$ because the columns of $B$ are linear combinations of vectors in $W$ and $M\vec{w}=\vec{0}$ if $\vec{w} \in W$.
So $M^2=MN$. Induction then gives $M^r=MN^{r-1}$.
\[thm:eqOMMs\]
Given an HTC map $f:G \to G$ with a permutation $\theta$ and Oriented Markov Matrix, $M$, if $\theta^p$ is the identity permutation, then $M^{p+1}=M$.
Let $M$ and $f$ be as described above. Recall, $M^{p+1}$ is the Oriented Markov Matrix associated with $f^{p+1}$. Let $T$ be the Oriented Markov Matrix associated with an HTC map $f_S$, with the same permutation as $f$ on $G$, whose image is a spanning tree. Recall from Theorem \[thm:OMMpowers\] above that $M^{p+1}=M T^p$.
Since the image of $G$ under $f_S$ is a spanning tree of $G$, the image of $G$ under $(f_S)^r$ will be the same spanning tree for any given $r$. In particular, the image of $G$ under $(f_S)^p$ is this spanning tree. Since there are no cycles in a tree, there is only one reduced path from $v_a$ to $v_b$. We know that $\theta^p$ fixes all vertices. Therefore, if $E_i$ is an edge in the spanning tree, $f_S^p(E_i)$ can be reduced to $E_i$. This means that the $i^{th}$ column of $T^p$ has $1$ in the $i^{th}$ entry and zeros for the other entries.
Since the labeling of edges is arbitrary, let us label the edges in the spanning tree $E_1, E_2, \ldots E_{v-1}$ and the edges that are not a part of the spanning tree as $E_v, E_{v+1},\ldots, E_n$. Let $E_a$ be an edge in the spanning tree. The $a^{th}$ column of $T^p$ will have an entry of $1$ in the $a^{th}$ component and entries of $0$ everywhere else. So the first $v-1$ columns of the matrix $M T^p= M^{p+1}$ are identical to the first $v-1$ columns of the matrix $M$.
Given any edge $E_z$ that is not in the spanning tree, we know that there is a cycle in the graph $G$ that contains $E_z$ and such that every other edge belongs to the spanning tree. Let $\vec w_z$ be the vector that corresponds to this cycle. Since $f$ is HTC, $M\vec w_z=\vec 0$. This means that the column of $M$ corresponding to $E_z$ is a linear combination of the first $v-1$ columns. But note that the same argument shows that the column of $M^{p+1}$ corresponding to $E_z$ is exactly the same linear combination of the first $v-1$ columns of $M^{p+1}$. Thus the columns corresponding to $E_z$ in $M$ and $M^{p+1}$ are equal. So $M^{p+1}=M$.
Periods of periodic orbits
==========================
In this section we use the trace results from the previous section to prove our main results.
Suppose that $f:G \to G$ is HTC and permutes the $v$ vertices of $G$ with permutation $\theta$, where $\theta$ consists of one cycle. If $v$ is not a divisor of $2^k$, then $f$ has a periodic point of period $2^k$.
Since $v$ is not a divisor of $2^k$, we know that $\theta^{2^k}$ does not fix any of the vertices. So $M^{2^k}$ has a trace of $-1$. Ergo there is at least one edge $E_{i_0}$ with a closed walk of length $2^k$ with negative orientation. Since the orientation is negative, it cannot be a repetition of a shorter closed walk, as any shorter closed walk would have to be repeated an even number of times. Let $E_{i_0}E_{i_1}\cdots E_{i_{2^k}}$ denote the closed walk, with $E_{i_0}=E_{i_{2^k}}$.
We know that there is a closed subinterval $J \subseteq E_{i_0}$ that gets mapped onto $E_{i_0}$ by $f^{2^k}$. As pointed out before, the endpoints of $E_{i_0}$ might belong to other intervals, and we have to be careful that the closed walk is not describing one of the endpoints of $E_{i_0}$. However, since $J$ gets mapped onto $E_{i_0}$ with negative orientation, the point that is fixed by $f^{2^k}$ must be an interior point. Let $z$ denote this point. Since $z$ is fixed by $f^{2^k}$ and is an interior point of $E_{i_0}$, it must be the case that $f^j(z)$ is in the interior of $E_{i_j}$ for $0 \leq j \leq 2^k$. Since the walk is not the repetition of a shorter walk it must be the case that $z$ has minimum period of $2^k$.
We say a closed walk from $E$ to itself is *prime*, if it is not the concatenation of shorter walks from $E$ to itself.
Suppose that $f:G \to G$ is HTC and permutes the $v$ vertices of $G$ with permutation $\theta$, where $\theta$ consists of one cycle. Suppose that $v=2^ks$, where $s>1$ is odd, and $k\ge0$. Then for any $r>s$ there exists a periodic point of minimum period $2^k r$.
Consider $f$ as described above, and let ${\mathrm{OMM}}(f) = M$. Since $f$ permutes the vertices by $\theta$, the map $f^{2^k}$ permutes the vertices by $\theta^{2^k}$, and ${\mathrm{OMM}}(f^{2^k}) = M^{2^k}$. Thus, the vertices of $G$ all have minimum period $s$ under $f^{2^k}$, so none of them are fixed.
By Theorem 3, $(M^{2^k})^{s+1}=M^{2^k s +2^k}=M^{2^k}$. We see by Theorem 1 that ${\mathrm{tr}}(M^{2^k})= {\mathrm{tr}}((M^{2^k})^{s+1})=-1$. So there is a closed walk of length $2^k$ from an edge to itself with negative orientation, and a closed walk of length $2^k (s+1)$ from that same edge to itself with negative orientation. Since $2^k$ is a power of 2, any repeated walk would have to be repeated an even number of times and therefore have positive orientation. Thus, the $2^k$-length walk is not a repetition of a smaller walk. Since $s$ is odd, $s+1$ is even, so repeating the closed $2^k$-length walk $s+1$ times would have positive orientation. Therefore, the walk of length $2^k (s+1)$ is not a repetition of the walk of length $2^k$. So for all $r>s$ we can produce a closed walk of length $2^k r$ by repeating the $2^k$-length walk $r-s-1$ times and the walk of length $2^k(s+1)$ once.
Although we have found a periodic point of period $2^k r$, this walk may be repetitive, and so we have not shown the existence of a point with minimum period $2^k r$.
If this closed walk of length $2^k r$ is repetitive, then we will construct a non-repetitive closed walk of length $2^k r$ by rearranging the prime closed walks that comprise the repetitive walk. In what follows we will fix an $E$ that appears in the closed walk and consider prime closed walks to this particular edge.
Notice that if a closed walk is not prime it must be the concatenation of at least two possibly distinct prime closed walks. We will show that the walk of length $2^k r$ contains at least two prime walks from $E$ to itself. The one exception is if $r=s+1$ and we deal with that first.
First we consider the case when $r=s+1$. If the walk of length $2^k r$ is repetitive and does not contain two distinct prime walks, it must consist of a prime walk repeated an odd number of times. Let the length of this prime walk be $2^k t$. We can obtain a new walk of length $2^k r$ by first using this prime walk of length $2^k t$ and the repeating the walk of length $2^k$ $r-t$ times. This new walk is non-repetitive and has negative orientation, and so there must a periodic point with minimum period $2^k r$. We now consider the case when $r>s+1$.
If the closed walk of length $2^k$ is prime, then there must exist at least one other prime closed walk in the walk of length $2^k (s+1)$, since the latter is not a repetition of the former. If the closed walk of length $2^k$ is not prime, then because it is not repetitive there are at least two distinct prime closed walks in the closed walk of length $2^k$. In either case there are at least two distinct prime closed walks in the closed walk of length $2^k r$.
Since we are assuming the closed walk of length $2^k r$ is repetitive, each prime closed walk must exist in that walk at least twice. We will let $P_1$ denote a prime walk of shortest length that appears in the walk of length $2^k$. Suppose the closed walk of length $2^k r$ above has prime closed walks $P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_i$. Suppose for each $j$ that $P_j$ is in the closed walk of length $2^k r$ a total of $a_j$ times, where $a_j\geq 2$. Since all prime closed walks must begin and end at $E$, we may arrange them in any order and still have a valid walk. So we may arrange them so that $P_1$ is repeated $a_1$ times followed by $P_2$ repeated $a_2$ times, etc. It is clear that this closed walk cannot be repetitive. Ergo, we can create a non-repetitive closed walk of length $2^k r$ by rearranging the prime closed walks from the repetitive closed walk of length $2^k r$ created above.
So there exists a non-repetitive closed walk of length $2^k r$. We know that this walk implies the existence of a point with period $2^k r$, but because the vertices may appear in multiple intervals, it is still conceivable that this point is a vertex and consequently might have minimum period less than $2^k r$. Let $z \in E$ denote the periodic point with period $2^k r$. To complete the proof we must show that $z$ cannot be a vertex.
Since $r>s$ and $s \ge 3$, our construction starts by repeating the length-$2^k$ walk at least twice. This means that $P_1$ must appear at least twice. Let the length of $P_1$ be denoted by $l$. So our non-repetitive walk of length $2^k r$ has $E$ in the $1$, $l+1$ and $2l+1$ positions. Since $P_1$ is in the walk of length $2^k$ we know that $l \leq 2^k$.
Let $v_a$ and $v_b$ denote the vertices that are endpoints of $E$. Suppose that $z=v_a$. Since the vertices cannot be mapped into the interior of $E$ it must be the case that $f^{l}(v_a)$ is either $v_a$ or $v_b$. We know that the period of $v_a$ is $2^k s$ and $2^k s > l$, so $f^{l}(v_a)$ must be $v_b$. Similarly, we know that $f^{2l}(v_a)$ is either $v_a$ or $v_b$. Since $v_b$ has period greater than $l$, it must be the case that $f^{2l}(v_a)$ is $v_a$. This implies that $v_a$ must have minimum period that is less than or equal to $2l$. But this gives a contradiction as we know that the minimum period of $v_a$ is $2^k s$ and that $2l \leq 2^k 2< 2^k s$.
A similar argument shows that $z$ cannot be $v_b$. So $z$ must have minimum period $2^k r$.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this section we will compare our results to Sharkovsky’s ordering and to the tree ordering in [@B3].
The Sharkovsky ordering can be defined as follows:
1. $2^l \triangleleft 2^k$ if $k \geq l$.
2. If $v=2^ks$, where $s>1$ is odd, then
1. $2^l \triangleleft v$, for all positive integers $l$.
2. $2^kr \triangleleft v$, where $r\geq s$ and $r$ is odd.
3. $2^lr \triangleleft v$, where $l>k$ and $r>1$ is odd.
To compare the various orderings we will state the tree ordering and the result of this paper using similar terms. First we re-state the results of this paper.
Suppose that $G$ is a graph with $v$ vertices and $f:G \to G$ is a map that is HTC and such that the vertices of $G$ form one periodic orbit. Then
1. If $v=2^k$, then there must be periodic points of minimum period $2^l$ for any $l \leq k$.
2. If $v=2^ks$, where $s>1$ is odd, then
1. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^l$ for all positive integers $l$,
2. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^kr$ for any $r\geq s$ and $r$ is odd.
3. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^lr$ for all $l$ and $r$ satisfying: $l>k$, $r>1$ is odd, and $2^{l-k}r>s$.
The statements involving points with period $2^l$ follow immediately from Theorem $4$.
The last two statements follow immediately from Theorem $5$.
We now give the corresponding result for trees, but first we need to introduce the concept of [*removing $1$s from the right*]{}.
This process of removing $1$s from the right can be described as follows.
1. Write $v$ in binary.
2. Change the rightmost $1$ in its expansion to zero.
3. Repeat the process until you end with $0$.
For example, $31$ has binary expansion $11111$. Applying the process to this number yields the following binary expansions $11110$, $11100$, $11000$, $10000$ and $00000$, or in decimal notation $30$, $28$, $24$, $16$ and $0$.
We can now state the theorem for trees.
Let $T$ be a tree with $v$ vertices. Let $f: T \rightarrow T$ be a map with the property that the vertices form one periodic orbit. Then:
1. If $v=2^k$, then there must be periodic points of minimum period $2^l$ for any $l \leq k$.
2. If $v=2^ks$, where $s>1$ is odd, then
1. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^l$ for all positive integers $l$,
2. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^kr$ for any $r\geq s$ and $r$ is odd.
3. there are periodic points with minimum period $2^lr$ for all $l$ and $r$ satisfying: $l>k$, $r>1$ is odd, and $2^{l-k}r>s$.
4. The map $f$ also has periodic orbits of any minimum period $m$ where $m$ can be obtained from $v$ by removing $1$s from the right of the binary expansion of $n$ and changing them to zeros.
However, the above theorems shows that if we look at the set of periods given by our results for graphs with $v$ vertices, set of periods given in [@B3] for trees with $v$ vertices and the set of integers that are forced by $v$ in the Sharkovsky ordering, they will differ by at most a finite number of integers, all of which will be less than $v$. All three orderings agree on the integers that are greater than $v$ and forced by $v$. For example if $v=30$, the periods that are less than $v$ and forced by Sharkovky’s theorem are $1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 12, 20, 28, 24$; the periods that are less than $v$ and forced by the tree ordering are $1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 28$; and the periods that are less than $v$ forced by Theorem $6$ are $1, 2, 4, 8, 16$.
In [@S] and [@B2; @B3] what are sometimes called the converses are shown. That is examples are constructed for each positive integer $v$ that have their set of minimum periods being exactly the set of periods given by the forcing relation. For HTC maps we do not have this. It is an interesting open question to ask whether there exists an HTC map of a graph with $v$ vertices such that the vertices form one periodic orbit and such that there does not exist a periodic point of period $m$ where $m$ is forced by $v$ in the tree ordering. For example, does there exist an HTC map of a graph with $30$ vertices that does not have a periodic points with minimum periods of $24$ or $28$.
[10]{}
Alsedà, Ll, Guaschi, J, Los, J, Mañosas, F, Mumbrú, P. Canonical representatives for patterns of tree maps. Topology, 36(5), 1123–1153, (1997)
Alsedà, Ll, Juher, D, Mumbrú, P. Periodic behavior on trees. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst. [**25**]{}(5), 1373–1400 (2005)
Alsedà, Ll, Llibre, J, Misiurewicz, M. Combinatorial dynamics and Entropy in Dimension One. Advanced Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, vol 5. World Scientific, Singapore (2000)
Alsedà, Ll, Ruette, S. Rotation sets for graph maps of degree 1. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 58 (2008), no. 4, 1233Ð1294.
Bernhardt, C. Vertex maps on graphs – trace theorems, Fixed point theory and applications, 2011, [**2011**]{}:8
Bernhardt, C. Vertex maps for trees: algebra and periods of periodic orbits. Disc. Cts. Dyn. Sys. [**14**]{}(3), 399–408 (2006)
Bernhardt, C. A Sharkovsky theorem for vertex maps on trees. J.Diff. Equations Appl. [**17**]{}(1), 103–113 (2011)
L. Block, J.Guckenheimer, M. Misiurewicz, L-S. Young. Periodic points and topological entropy for one dimensional maps. Global theory of dynamical systems, 18-34, [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{} [**819**]{}, Springer Berlin, 1980
Henle, M: A Combinatorial Introduction to Topology. Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1994), x+310 pp. ISBN: 0-486-67966-7
Leseduarte, MC, Llibre, J. On the set of periods for $\sigma$ maps. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. [**347**]{}(12), 4899–4942 (1995)
Llibre, J, Paraños, J, Rodríguez, J. Periods for continuous self-maps of the figure-eight space. Dynamical systems and functional equations (Murcia, 2000). Int. J. Bifur. Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. [**13**]{}(7), 1743–1754 (2003)
Sharkovsky, AN. Co-existence of the cycles of a continuous mapping of the line onto itself. Ukrain. Math. Zh. [**16**]{}(1), 61–71 (1964)
[^1]: \*This work was done as part of an REU at Fairfield University supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense under Grant No. 1004346.
[^2]: The authors thank the referees for valuable suggestions and corrections that greatly improved the clarity of the paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Partition of unities appear in many places in analysis. Typically they are generated by compactly supported functions with a certain regularity. In this paper we consider partition of unities obtained as integer-translates of entire functions restricted to finite intervals. We characterize the entire functions that lead to a partition of unity in this way, and we provide characterizations of the “cut-off" entire functions, considered as functions of a real variable, to have desired regularity. In particular we obtain partition of unities generated by functions with small support and desired regularity. Applied to Gabor analysis this leads to constructions of dual pairs of Gabor frames with low redundancy, generated by trigonometric polynomials with small support and desired regularity.'
author:
- 'Ole Christensen, Hong Oh Kim, Rae Young Kim'
title: 'On entire functions restricted to intervals, partition of unities, and dual Gabor frames'
---
[**Keywords**]{} [Entire functions, trigonometric polynomials, partition of unity, dual frame pairs, Gabor systems, tight frames]{}\
[**2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} 42C40\
Introduction {#187a}
============
Partition of unity conditions play an important role in many parts of mathematics, for example, within applied harmonic analysis [@Fe2; @Fe4; @FG2]. Usually the size of the support of the functions in the partition of unity and their regularity are key issues. Some of the most important partition of unities are obtained by considering integer-translates of an appropriately chosen function, e.g., a B-spline or a scaling function in the context of wavelet analysis. In this paper we will consider entire functions $P: {\mathbb C}\to {\mathbb C}$ which, for some fixed $N\in {\mathbb N},$ satisfy that \[157af\] \_[n[Z]{}]{} P(x+n) \_[\[0,N\]]{}(x+n)=1, x[R]{}.The condition means exactly that the function $p:=P\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity condition. We will characterize the entire functions $P$ that are solutions to ; in particular, we will see that such functions automatically are $N$-periodic, i.e., they can be expanded in an everywhere convergent Fourier series. The Fourier series naturally connects with trigonometric polynomials. We will show that, still for any fixed $N\in {\mathbb N},$ given any $L\in {\mathbb N}$ there exists a trigonometric polynomial $P$ such that the function $P\chi_{[0,N]},$ considered as a function of a real variable, belongs to $C^{2L-1}({\mathbb R})$ and generates a partition of unity.
As an application of the results we will construct dual pairs of Gabor frames $\{E_{mb}T_{n}g\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}, \{E_{mb}T_{n}h\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ for functions $g,h$ of the form $g = G \, \chi_{[0, N]}$ and $h = H\, \chi_{[0, N]}$ for some trigonometric polynomials $G, H.$ In particular, our results show that for any $b\in ]0, 1/N]$ such constructions are possible, with $G$ and $H$ being trigonometric polynomials and the associated windows $g,h$ having desired regularity; in contrast to the results in the literature, this is even possible for $N=2,$ i.e., higher smoothness is not obtained at the cost of larger support. Taking small values for $N,$ we obtain frames with low redundancy, generated by functions with small support and desired regularity. As a special case we obtain simple constructions where $G$ and $H$ are just powers of the sine function. Finally, we show that the condition $b\le 1/N$ is necessary for such frame constructions to exist.
The paper is organized as follows. In the rest of this introduction we use standard frame theory to motivate the interest in the partition of unity condition . In Section \[157f\] we carry out the analysis of this condition in a general fashion. Section \[277a\] specializes to the case of trigonometric polynomials, which is a convenient setting for applications, and finally we connect with the Gabor analysis in Section \[157g\].
Gabor systems play a central role in time-frequency analysis. The basic idea is to decompose signals or functions into superpositions of certain time-frequency shifts of a fixed function $g.$ In the discrete case these time-frequency shifts have the form $\{e^{2\pi i mbx}g(x-na)\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ for appropriate parameters $a,b>0;$ using the translation operators $T_af(x):=f(x-a)$ and the modulation operators $E_bf(x):=e^{2\pi ibx}f(x),$ the time-frequency-shifts have the form of a coherent system ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}.$ The system ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}$ is called a [*Gabor frame*]{} if there exist constants $A,B>0$ such that A [ || f||\^2]{}\_[m,n[Z]{}]{} | f, E\_[mb]{}T\_[na]{}g|\^2 B [ || f||\^2]{}, f[ L\^2(R) ]{}.The system ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}$ is a Bessel sequence if at least the upper frame condition is satisfied. It is well known that if ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}$ is a Gabor frame, there exists at least one dual Gabor frame $\{E_{mb}T_{na}h\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}},$ i.e., a Gabor frame such that the decomposition f= \_[m,n[Z]{}]{} f, E\_[mb]{}T\_[na]{}gE\_[mb]{}T\_[na]{}hholds for all $f\in { L^2(\mathbb R) }.$ The duality conditions by Ron & Shen [@RoSh], resp. Janssen [@J] states that two Bessel sequences $\{E_{mb}T_{n}g\}_{m,n\in
{\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_{n}h\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ form dual frames for ${ L^2(\mathbb R) }$ if and only if \[gfs\] \_[k[Z]{}]{} h(x+k) & = & b\_[n,0]{}, a.e. x[R]{}.
For a bounded and compactly supported functions $g,$ the associated Gabor system ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}$ automatically form a Bessel sequence. Furthermore, for functions $g,h$ having support in an interval of length $N,$ the condition is automatically satisfied for $n\neq 0$ if we assume that $b\in ]0, 1/N].$ Thus, for functions $g = G \, \chi_{[0, N]}$ and $h = H \, \chi_{[0, N}]$ as described in the introduction and for $b\in ]0, 1/N],$ the Gabor systems $\{E_{mb}T_{n}g\}_{m,n\in
{\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_{n}h\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ form dual frames if and only if the function $P:=GH$ satisfies the condition $\sum_{n\in {\mathbb Z}} P(x+n) \chi_{[0,N]}(x+n)=b.$ Discarding the factor $b$ then leads to the partition of unity constraint .
We will see that the connection to entire functions will bring some new aspects into the analysis. Note that the connections between complex analysis and frame theory has already proved to be useful in other contexts, see, e.g., [@Ly; @Se2; @SW]. For more information on Gabor systems and frames we refer to the books [@G2; @CBN].
Partition of unity for entire functions {#157f}
=======================================
Motivated by the introduction we will consider entire functions $P: {\mathbb C}\to {\mathbb C}$ satisfying the partition of unity condition . We will first show that for such functions $P$ the restriction to ${\mathbb R}$ in $N$-periodic. This implies that we have an extra tool at our disposal, namely, Fourier expansions.
\[157d\] Let $N\in {\mathbb N}.$ Then an entire function $P$ satisfies if and only if its restriction to ${\mathbb R}$ is $N$-periodic and the Fourier coefficients $c_k$ in the expansion \[157c\] P(x)= \_[k[Z]{}]{} c\_ke\^[2ikx/N]{}, x[R]{},satisfy that $c_k= \frac1{N} \delta_{k,0}$ for $k\in N{\mathbb Z}.$
Assume first that holds. Then, for $x\in [0,1],$ \[108a\] P(x)+ P(x+1) + + P(x+N-1)=1.Since $P$ is an entire function, then holds for all $x\in {\mathbb R}.$ Doing the similar calculation with $x$ replaced by $x+1$ and subtracting the two expressions shows that $P(x+N)=P(x), \ \forall x\in [0,1].$ The same calculation works with $[0,1]$ replaced by any interval $[n,n+1],$ so we conclude that the restriction of $P$ to ${\mathbb R}$ is $N$-periodic. Writing $P$ as the Fourier series , the equation takes the form $$\label{et-65}
\sum_{k\in {\mathbb Z}} c_k\,\left[1+ e^{2\pi i k/N}
+ \cdots + \left( e^{2\pi i k/N}\right)^{N-1} \right] \, e^{2\pi ikx/N}=1.$$ We note that $$\label{et-66}
1+ e^{2\pi i k/N}
+ \cdots + \left( e^{2\pi i k/N}\right)^{N-1}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
N, & k\in N{\mathbb Z}\\
0, & k\notin N{\mathbb Z}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ From and , we see that $c_k=\frac{1}{N}\delta_{k,0}$ for $k\in N{\mathbb Z}.$ Conversely, if $P$ is $N$-periodic and satisfies that $c_k= \frac1{N}\, \delta_{k,0}$ for $k\in N{\mathbb Z},$ then for $x\in [0,1]$, & & \_[n[Z]{}]{} P(x+n) \_[\[0,N\]]{}(x+n) = \_[n=0]{}\^[N-1]{} P(x+n)\
& = & \_[k[Z]{}]{} c\_k e\^[2ikx/N]{} = 1 by . By periodicity holds for all $x\in {\mathbb R}.$
It is well known that if an entire function is periodic when restricted to the real line, the Fourier coefficients $c_k$ have exponential decay of arbitrary order, i.e., for any $a>0$ there exist a constant C such that $|c_k| \le C e^{-a|k|}$ for all $k\in {\mathbb Z}.$.Therefore, the expansion in converges even for all complex numbers $x$ and so the entire function P is $N$-periodic in the whole complex plane.
We will now fix $N\in
{\mathbb N}$ and return to the solutions $P$ of . Our purpose is to investigate the regularity of the functions $P\chi_{[0,N]}.$
\[et-68\] Let $N\in {\mathbb N}$. Assume that $P$ is an $N$-periodic entire function satisfying that $c_k=\frac{1}{N}\delta_{0,k}, k\in N{\mathbb Z},$ and that the restriction of $P$ to ${\mathbb R}$ is real-valued. Then the following hold.
- There does not exist $P$ of this form such that $P \chi_{[0, N]}\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb R})$;
- Fix $L \in {\mathbb N}.$ Then $P \chi_{[0, N]} \in C^{L-1}({\mathbb R})$ if and only if $$\label{et-78}
P(x)= \left(e^{\pi i x/N} \sin(\pi
x/N)\right)^{L} A_{L}(x)$$ for an $N$-periodic entire function $A_{L}(x):= \sum_{k \in {\mathbb Z}} a_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}.$
In order to prove (a), we note that if $P\chi_{[0,N]}$ belongs to $C^\infty({\mathbb R}),$ all the derivatives at $x=0$ vanishes. But $P$ is an entire function and therefore equal to its Taylor series, so this would imply that $P$ is identically zero, which is a contradiction. For the proof of (b), fix $L\in {\mathbb N}$. The “if" implication is clear, so suppose that $P \chi_{[0, N]} \in C^{L-1}({\mathbb R})$. We use induction to show . First, observe that $P(0)=D
P(0)=\cdots = D^{L-1} P(0)=0.$ Since $P(0)=\sum_{k\in {\mathbb Z}}c_k=0$, we have $$P(x)=\sum_{k\neq 0 } c_k (e^{2\pi k x/N}-1).$$ Define $P_+$ and $P_-$ by $$P_+(x):=\sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}} c_k (e^{2\pi ik x/N}-1), \ \ \ \
P_-(x):=\sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}} c_{-k} (e^{-2\pi k i x/N}-1).$$ Then we see that $$\begin{aligned}
P_+(x)&=&\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}}c_k(e^{2\pi i x/N} -1)\sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1}e^{2\pi i \ell x/N} \\
&=& e^{\pi i x/N}\sin(\pi x/N)\left(2i \sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}} c_k \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} e^{2\pi i \ell x/N} \right)\\
&=:& e^{\pi i x/N}\sin(\pi x/N) \Lambda_+(x).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
P_-(x)&=&e^{\pi i x/N}\sin(\pi x/N)
\left(-2i \sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}} c_{-k} \sum_{\ell=1}^{k} e^{-2\pi i \ell x/N} \right)\\
&=:& e^{\pi i x/N}\sin(\pi x/N) \Lambda_-(x).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$P(x)=P_+(x)+P_-(x)=e^{\pi i x/N}\sin(\pi x/N) A_1(x),$$ where $A_1(x):=\Lambda_+(x)+\Lambda_-(x)$ is an $N$-periodic function. In order to arrive at we will now inductively assume that, for some $1\leq \ell \leq L-1$, $$\label{et-79}
P(x)= \left(e^{\pi i x/N} \sin(\pi
x/N)\right)^{\ell} A_{\ell}(x)$$ for an $N$-periodic entire function $A_{\ell}$. By the Leibnitz formula for the $\ell$th derivative of a product, we have $$\label{et-8}
D^\ell P(x)= \frac{1}{(2i)^\ell}
\sum_{k=0}^\ell {\ell \choose k}
D^k \left(e^{2\pi i x/N}-1 \right)^\ell
D^{\ell-k} A_{\ell} (x).$$ Since $ D^k \left(e^{2\pi i x/N}-1 \right)^\ell
= \ell(\ell-1)\cdots(\ell-k+1)\left(e^{2\pi i x/N}-1 \right)^{\ell-k}
\left(\frac{2\pi i}{N}\right)^k,$ we have $
D^k \left(e^{2\pi i x/N}-1 \right)^\ell \left|_{x=0} \right.
= \ell ! \left(\frac{2\pi i}{N}\right)^\ell \delta_{\ell, k}.$ It follows from that\
$D^\ell P(0) =\frac{\ell !}{(2i)^\ell}
\left(\frac{2\pi i}{N}\right)^\ell A_{\ell} (0).$ By assumption $D^\ell P(0)=0,$ so we conclude that $A_\ell (0)=0.$ By an argument similar to the case $P(0)=0$, we see that $$A_{\ell} (x)
= e^{\pi i x/N} \sin (\pi x/N) \Lambda_{\ell+1}(x)$$ for an $N$-periodic entire function $\Lambda_{\ell+1}(x)$. This together with leads to $P(x)=\left( e^{\pi i x/N} \sin (\pi x/N) \right)^{\ell+1} \Lambda_{\ell+1}(x).$ This completes the induction.
Trigonometric polynomials {#277a}
=========================
In this section we specialize to the case of trigonometric polynomials. Theorem \[et-61\] characterizes the regularity that can be obtained for $P\chi_{[0,N]}$ when $P$ is a trigonometric polynomial with a given number of terms and coefficients satisfying the condition in Lemma \[157d\]. The subsequent Propositions \[et-76\] and \[et-77\] will show that the partition of unity condition can be combined with any finite regularity and any support size by taking a trigonometric polynomial of sufficiently high degree.
\[et-61\]
Let $K, N\in {\mathbb N}$. Assume that $$\label{et-39}
P(x):= \sum_{k=-K}^{K} c_{k} e^{2\pi ikx/N}$$ is a real-valued trigonometric polynomial with $c_k=\frac{1}{N}\delta_{0,k}, k\in N{\mathbb Z}$. Then the following hold.
- There does not exist $P$ of the form such that $P\chi_{[0,N]}\in C^{2K}({\mathbb R})$;
- Fix $L \in \{1,2,\cdots, 2K \}.$ Then $P\chi_{[0,N]} \in C^{L-1}({\mathbb R})$ if and only if\
$P(x)= \left(e^{\pi i x/N} \sin(\pi x/N)\right)^{L} A_{L}(x)$ for a trigonometric polynomial $$\label{et-69}
A_{L}(x):= \sum_{k=-K}^{K-L} a_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}.$$
(a): Assume that there exists $P$ such that $p\in C^{2K}({\mathbb R})$. Then $ P(0)=D P(0)=\cdots = D^{2K} P(0)=0,$ that is, $\sum_{k=-K}^{K} k^i c_k=0,\ i=0,1,\cdots, 2K.$ This set of equations can be written in the form $M_1\{c_k\}_{k=-K}^{K}= {\bf 0},$ where $M_1$ is the $(2K+1)\times (2K+1)$ matrix defined by $$M_1=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & 1 &\cdots & 1 \\
-K & \cdots & -1 & 0 & 1 & & N-1 \\
(-K)^2 & \cdots & (-1)^2 & 0 & 1^2 &\cdots & K^2 \\
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
(-K)^{2K} & \cdots & (-1)^{2K} & 0 & 1^{2K} & \cdots & K^{2K}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ This is a $2K+1 \times 2K+1$ Vandermonde matrix, with rows determined by the numbers $ z_k = -K +k, \ k=0,1,\cdots,
2K,$ and therefore invertible. Hence the system only has the trivial solution. This contradicts the assumption that $c_0=1/N$. The proof of (b) follows the lines of the proof of Theorem \[et-68\] by keeping track of the number of terms in the trigonometric polynomials.
For any $N\in {\mathbb N}$ we will now show how to construct trigonometric polynomials $P$ such that $P\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity condition and has desired regularity. We begin with the case $N=2.$
\[et-76\] Let $N=2$. Consider a real–valued trigonometric polynomial $Q(x)=\sum_{k} c_k e^{\pi i k x }$ with $c_{k}=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{k,0}, \ \ k\in 2{\mathbb Z}.$ Given $L \in {\mathbb N},$ define a trigonometric polynomial $P$ by $$\label{et-74}
P(x):=Q^{L}(x) \sum_{k=0}^{L-1}{2L-1 \choose k} Q^{L-1 -k}(x) Q^k (x+1).$$ Then $P \chi_{[0,2]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property. If $Q \, \chi_{[0,2]}\in C^{1}({\mathbb R})$, then $P \chi_{[0,2]}\in C^{2 L -1}({\mathbb R})$.
Note that $Q\chi_{[0,2]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property by Lemma \[157d\]. Using the Binomial Theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1=\left( Q(x) +Q(x+1) \right)^{2L-1}
= \sum_{k=0}^{2L-1} {2L-1 \choose k} Q^{2L-1-k}(x) Q^k(x+1). \ \hspace{.3cm} \ \label{et-75}\end{aligned}$$ Take $P$ as in . Then $$P(x)= \sum_{k=0}^{2L-1}{L-1 \choose k} Q^{2L-1 -k}(x) Q^k (x+1).$$ Using the $2$-periodicity of $Q$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
P(x+1)&=& \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} {2L-1 \choose k} Q^{2L-1-k}(x+1) Q^k(x) \\
&=& \sum_{\ell=L}^{2L-1} {2L-1 \choose \ell} Q^{\ell}(x+1) Q^{2L-1-\ell}(x).\end{aligned}$$ By , we have $P(x) +P(x+1)=1,$ so $P\chi_{[0,2]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property, as desired. Furthermore, if $Q \, \chi_{[0,2]} \in C^1({\mathbb R})$, then by (b) in Theorem \[et-68\] we know that $Q(x)=\sin^2(\pi x/2) e^{\pi i x}A(x)$ for some 2-periodic entire function (actually a trigonometric polynomial) $A.$ Using , it follows that $$P(x)=\sin^{2L}(\pi x/2) e^{\pi i xL}\tilde A(x)$$ for a 2-periodic entire function (trigonometric polynomial) $\tilde A$. By Theorem \[et-68\] (b) we conclude that $P \chi_{[0,2]}\in C^{2L-1}({\mathbb R})$.
In order to construct partition of unities based on functions supported on $[0,2]$ and with desired regularity, we just need to provide a concrete example of a trigonometric polynomials $Q$ satisfying the conditions in Proposition \[et-76\]: \[et-76e\] Let Q(x):= \^2(x/2) =()\^2 = -14 e\^[ix]{} + 12 - 14 e\^[-x]{}.Then $Q$ has the form described in Proposition \[et-76\], and $Q\chi_{[0,2]}\in C^1({\mathbb R}).$
Let us now consider the case $N\geq 3.$ Starting with a certain trigonometric polynomial $P_1$ such that $P_1\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity condition we provide an inductive procedure which, in each step, yields a new trigonometric polynomial with the partition of unity property and higher regularity.
\[et-77\] Let $N\in {\mathbb N}$ with $N\geq 3$ and put $K=N/2$ if $N$ is even, $K=(N-1)/2$ if $N$ is odd. Consider a trigonometric polynomial $A_1(x)=\sum a_k e^{2\pi i
x/N}$, and assume that for $P_1(x):= \left(\prod_{k=0}^K \sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N) \right) A_1(x),$ $P_1\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property. For $L\in \{2, 3, \dots\},$ let $P_L$ be inductively defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&& P_L(x) \label{et-71}\\
&&:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{L-1}(x)\left(P_{L-1}(x) + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{K-1} P_{L-1}(x+n) + P_{L-1}(x+K)
\right),
& \text{ if $N$ is even};\\
P_{L-1}(x)\left(P_{L-1}(x) + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{K} P_{L-1}(x+n) \right),
& \text{ if $N$ is odd}.
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then the following holds:
$P_L$ can be factorized as $$\label{et-73}
P_{L}(x)= \sin^{2L}(\pi x/N) \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N) \right) A_{L}(x)$$ for some trigonometric polynomial $A_{L}(x)=\sum_k a_k^{(L)}
e^{2\pi i k x /N}$.
$P_L \, \chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property and belongs to $C^{2L-1}({\mathbb R})$.
We give the proof for the case where $N$ is even, $K=N/2;$ the case where $N$ is odd is just requires minor modifications. We will use induction. By assumption (i) and (ii) are satisfied for $L=1.$ Now assume that for some $L\in {\mathbb N}$ with $L\geq 2$, $P_{L-1}\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property and that $$\label{et-70}
P_{L-1}(x)=\sin^{2(L-1)}(\pi x/N) \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N)\right)A_{L-1}(x),$$ for a trigonometric polynomial $A_{L-1}(x)=\sum_k a_k^{(L-1)}
e^{2\pi i k x /N}$. Then $P_L$ can be factorized as in with $$\begin{aligned}
A_{L}(x)&:=& \sin^{2L-4}(\pi x/N) A_{L-1}^2(x) \prod_{k=1}^K \sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N)\\
&+&2 \sum_{\ell=1}^{K-1} \sin^{2L-2}(\pi (x+\ell)/N)
A_{L-1}(x+\ell)A_{L-1}(x) \prod_{k\in\{-\ell+1,\cdots,K-\ell\}\setminus\{0\}}\sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N)\\
&+& \sin^{2L-2}(\pi (x+K)/N)
A_{L-1}(x+K)A_{L-1}(x) \prod_{k=1}^{K-1}\sin^2(\pi (x+k)/N).\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[et-68\] (b) it follows that $P_L \, \chi_{[0,N]}\in C^{2L-1}({\mathbb R})$. We now show $P_{L}\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property. From the partition of unity property for $P_{L-1}\chi_{[0,N]}$, for $x\in [0,1]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
1&=& \left( \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} P_{L-1}(x+j) \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} P_{L-1}^2(x+j)+
2 \sum_{0\leq k<n\leq N-1} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+n) \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} P_{L-1}^2(x+j)+
2 \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1-n} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n). \label{et-85}\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1-n} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n) \nonumber\\
&&=\left(\sum_{n=1}^{K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} +
\sum_{n=K+1}^{2K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} \right)P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n) \nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+K). \label{et-84}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{n=K+1}^{2K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n) \\
&&= \sum_{m=1}^{K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+2K-m) \ \ \ \ (m=2K-n)\\
&&= \sum_{m=1}^{K-1}\sum_{j=2K-m}^{2K-1} P_{L-1}(x+j-2K+m )P_{L-1}(x+j) \ \ \ \ (j=k+2K-m)\\
&&= \sum_{m=1}^{K-1}\sum_{j=2K-m}^{2K-1} P_{L-1}(x+j+m )P_{L-1}(x+j),\end{aligned}$$ where we used the $2K$-periodicity of $P_{L-1}$ in the last equality. This implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(\sum_{n=1}^{K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} +
\sum_{n=K+1}^{2K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} \right)P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n) \nonumber \\
&&=\sum_{n=1}^{K-1}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n). \label{et-82}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+K) \\
&&=\sum_{j=K}^{2K-1}P_{L-1}(x+j-K)P_{L-1}(x+j) \ \ \ \ (j=k+K) \\
&&=\sum_{j=K}^{2K-1}P_{L-1}(x+j+K)P_{L-1}(x+j).\end{aligned}$$ Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+K)
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{2K-1}P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+K).\end{aligned}$$ Putting this and into the right-hand side of , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{n=1}^{2K-1} \sum_{k=0}^{2K-1-n} P_{L-1}(x+k)P_{L-1}(x+k+n)\\
&&= \sum_{k=0}^{2K-1} P_{L-1}(x+k)
\left( \sum_{n=1}^{K-1} P_{L-1}(x+k+n) +\frac{1}{2}P_{L-1}(x+k+K) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with yields $$\begin{aligned}
1&=& \sum_{j=0}^{2K-1}P_{L-1}(x+j)
\left(P_{L-1}(x+j)+ 2\sum_{n=1}^{K-1} P_{L-1}(x+j+n) +P_{L-1}(x+j+K) \right)\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{2K-1} P_L(x+j).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $P_{L}\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property, as desired.
Again, in order to construct partition of unities based on functions supported on $[0,N]$ and with desired regularity, we just need to provide a suitable polynomial $P_1$ in Proposition \[et-77\]:
Given $N\in \{3,4, \dots,\},$ put $K=N/2$ if $N$ is even, $K=(N-1)/2$ if $N$ is odd. Let $$P_1(x):= \left(\sum_{n=K+1}^{N-1}
\prod_{k=0}^{K} \sin^2(\pi (n-k)/N) \right)^{-1}
\prod_{k=0}^K \sin^2(\pi (x-k)/N).$$ A direct calculation shows that $P_1$ has the form $$P_1(x)=\sum_{k=-K-1}^{K+1} c_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}.$$ Note that since $N\geq 3$, we have $K+1<N$. Thus $$1+ e^{2\pi i k/N}
+ \cdots + \left( e^{2\pi i k/N}\right)^{N-1}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
N, & k=0 \\
0, & k\in\{\pm 1, \cdots, \pm (K+1) \},
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& P_1(x)+P_1(x+1)+\cdots+P_1(x+N-1) \\
&&=\sum_{k=-K-1}^{K+1} c_k\,\left[1+ e^{2\pi i k/N}
+ \cdots + \left( e^{2\pi i k/N}\right)^{N-1} \right] \, e^{2\pi ikx/N}=c_0 N.\end{aligned}$$ We must now determine the constant $c_0N.$ Taking $x=0$ we see that & & P\_1(0)+P\_1(1)+P\_1(2)++P\_1(N-1)\
&=&(\_[n=K+1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[k=0]{}\^[K]{} \^2((n-k)/N) )\^[-1]{} \_[n=0]{}\^[N-1]{}\_[k=0]{}\^K \^2((n-k)/N)\
&=&(\_[n=K+1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[k=0]{}\^[K]{} \^2((n-k)/N) )\^[-1]{} \_[n=K+1]{}\^[N-1]{}\_[k=0]{}\^K \^2((n-k)/N) =1.It follows that $P_1 \chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity property.
Applications to Gabor frames {#157g}
============================
To recapitulate, the results in Section \[277a\] shows that for each $N,L\in {\mathbb N}$ we can construct a trigonometric polynomial $P$ such that the restriction to ${\mathbb R}$ is real valued, $P\chi_{[0,N]}\in C^L({\mathbb R}),$ and $P\chi_{[0,N]}$ satisfies the partition of unity condition. The purpose of this section is to provide new constructions of pairs of dual Gabor frames based on these functions. We will restrict our presentation to the case where the translation parameter is $a=1,$ but via a scaling, other choices of $a$ are possible if we change the length of the support accordingly. As starting point, let us consider the following result from [@CR].
\[128a\] Let $N\in \mathbb{N}$. Let $g\in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ be a real-valued bounded function for which $supp \ g \subseteq [0,N]$ and $\sum_{n\in {\mathbb Z}} g(x-n)=1. $ Let $b\in
]0,\frac1{2N-1}]$. Define $h\in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ by h(x)=\_[n=-N+1]{}\^[N-1]{} a\_n g(x+n), where $a_0=b, \ \ a_n + a_{-n}=2b, \ n=1,2,\cdots, N-1.$ Then $g$ and $h$ generate dual frames $\{E_{mb} T_n g\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb} T_n h\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ for $L^2(\mathbb{R}).$
The constructions in Proposition \[et-76\] and Proposition \[et-77\] have exactly the properties required in Proposition \[128a\], combined with desired regularity. We will formulate the corresponding construction of a pair of dual pair of frames based on the case $N=2,$ and leave the formulation for the case $N\ge 3$ to the reader.
\[128b\] Take the trigonometric polynomial $Q$ as in Proposition \[et-76\] and let, for $L\in {\mathbb N},$ \[et-74a\] P(x):=Q\^[L]{}(x) \_[k=0]{}\^[L-1]{}[2L-1 k]{} Q\^[L-1 -k]{}(x) Q\^k (x+1). Let $b\in ]0, 1/3]$ and choose coefficients $a_n$ such that $a_0=b, \ \ a_1 + a_{-1}=2b.$ Then the functions $$\label{et-86}
g(x):=(P\chi_{[0,2]})(x) \ \mbox{ and} \ \ h(x):=\sum_{n=-1}^{1}
a_n (P\chi_{[0,2]})(x+n)$$ belong to $C^{2L-1}({\mathbb R})$ and generate dual Gabor frames $\{E_{mb} T_n g\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb} T_n h\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ for $L^2(\mathbb{R}).$
\[et-87\] Let $L=2, b\in ]0,1/3],$ and $Q(x):= \sin^2(\pi x/2).$ Define $$P(x)=\sin^4(\pi x/2) \sum_{k=0}^{1}{3 \choose k}
\sin^{2(1 -k)}(\pi x/2) \sin^{2k}(\pi (x+1)/2).$$ Then $g$ and $h$ defined as in belong to $C^{3}({\mathbb R})$ and generate dual Gabor frames $\{E_{mb} T_n g\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb} T_n h\}_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ for $L^2(\mathbb{R}).$ On Figure \[et-f1\], we plot $g$ and $h$ for the choice $a_{-1}=a_0=a_1=1/3.$
Compared with the other results in the literature, Corollary \[128b\] has the advantage that desired regularity of the frame generators does not make the support size grow and the redundancy increase. In the classical application of Proposition \[128a\] where the function $g$ is a B-spline $B_N$ for some $N\in {\mathbb N},$ high regularity can only be obtained by considering large values for $N,$ which leads to functions with large support and corresponding small values for the parameter $b.$ Since the redundancy of a Gabor frame ${ \{E_{mb}T_{na}g \}_{m,n \in {\mathbb Z}}}$ is measured by the number $1/(ab)=1/b,$ these constructions have high redundancy. On the other hand the frames in Corollary \[128b\] are generated by windows that are supported on $[0,2],$ the dual windows are supported on $[-1, 3]$ regardless of the desired regularity, and by taking $b=1/3$ the redundancy is just 3.
In the setting discussed here, we can even avoid to choose a dual window with larger support than the given window. Hereby we can enlarge the range of the parameter $b,$ and provide constructions with redundancy 2. Note that also the construction by Laugesen in [@L] keeps the support size.
\[et-80\] Let $L_1, L_2\in {\mathbb N}$, and fix $b\in ]0, \frac{1}{2}]$. Take $P(x):=\sin^2(\pi x/2)$. Define $$g(x)=\sin^{2L_1}(\pi x /2)\chi_{[0,2]}(x)$$ and $$h(x)=b \sin^{2L_2}(\pi x /2)
\left( \sum_{k=0}^{L_1+L_2-1}{2L_1+2L_2-1 \choose k} P^{L_1+L_2-1
-k}(x) P^k (x+1) \right)\chi_{[0,2]}(x).$$ Then $g \in
C^{2L_1-1}({\mathbb R})$, $h \in C^{2L_2-1}({\mathbb R})$, and the functions $\{E_{mb}T_ng\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_n h\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ form a pair of dual frames. Using Proposition \[et-76\] together with Example \[et-76e\], it follows that the function $gh$ satisfies the condition for $n=0.$ The choice of $b$ and the support sizes for $g$ and $h$ shows that holds for $n\neq 0$ as well.
Figure \[et-f2\] shows the windows $g$ and $h$ for $L_1=L_2=2, b=1/2.$
Up to a certain regularity an even simpler construction is possible:
\[237b\] Let $N\in {\mathbb N}$ and fix $b\in
]0, \frac{1}{N}].$ Then the following hold:
For $L_1, L_2 \in {\mathbb N}$ with $1\leq L_1 +L_2 \leq N-1$, the functions $$g(x)=\sin^{2 L_1}(\pi x /N) \chi_{[0,N]}(x), \hspace{.3cm} \
h(x)=\frac{b 4^{L_1+L_2}}{N {2(L_1+L_2) \choose L_1+L_2}} \sin^{2 L_2}(\pi x /N)\chi_{[0,N]}(x)$$ belong to $ C^{2L_1-1}({\mathbb R}) $ and $C^{2L_2-1}({\mathbb R}) $ respectively, and generate a pair of dual frames $\{E_{mb}T_ng\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_nh\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$.
For any positive integer $L \le N-1$ the function $g(x):= \sqrt{ \frac{b4^L}{N {2L \choose L}}} \sin^L(\pi x/N)\chi_{[0,N]}(x)$ belongs to $C^{L-1}({\mathbb R})$ and generates a tight Gabor frame $\{E_{mb}T_ng\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ Let $$P(x):=\frac{b 4^{L_1+L_2}}{N {2(L_1+L_2) \choose L_1+L_2}} \sin^{2(L_1+L_2)}(\pi x /N).$$ By Theorem \[et-61\], to prove (i) it suffices to show that the Fourier coefficients $c_k$ in the expansion $P(x)=\sum_{k\in {\mathbb Z}}c_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}$ satisfy $c_k=\frac{1}{N}\delta_{0,k},\ k\in N{\mathbb Z}$. Via the Binomial formula, $$\begin{aligned}
\sin^{2(L_1+L_2)}(\pi x/N)&=&
\left( \frac{e^{\pi i x /N} -e^{-\pi i x/N}}{2i} \right)^{2(L_1+L_2)}\\
&=& \frac{1}{4^{L_1+L_2}} \sum_{k=-L_1-L_2}^{L_1+L_2} (-1)^k {2(L_1+L_2)\choose L_1+L_2+k}
e^{2\pi i k x/N}.
\end{aligned}$$ The result in (ii) follows by taking $L=L_1+L_2.$
Note that construction of Gabor frames based on trigonometric polynomials appear at other places in the literature. In [@DGM], Daubechies, Grossmann and Meyer construct a tight Gabor frame based on the function $g(x)= \cos(x) \ \chi_{[-\pi/2, \pi/2]}(x),$ which is just a shifted and scaled version of the function $\sin(\pi x/2)\chi_{[0,2]}.$ Also, in [@CM], the authors consider frames generated by functions of the form $g_k(x)= \sin^k(\pi x/3) \, \chi_{[0,3]}(x)$ for parameters $k \in {\mathbb N}.$ Interestingly, the results in [@CM] show that $g_k$ generates a frame for all $b\in ]0,
1/3]$ and all $k \in {\mathbb N};$ but only for $k <6$ there is a dual Gabor frame $\{E_{mb}T_nh\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ for a function of the form $h(x)= a_0 g_k(x)+ a_1 g_k(x+1)+ a_2g_k(x+2).$ Since $g_k$ corresponds with our setup for $N=3,$ this result is in accordance with the limitation on the possible parameters $L_1, L_2$ in Corollary \[237b\].
Note that the Corollaries \[et-80\] and \[237b\] are restricted to the case $b\le 1/N.$ For constructions of dual frame pairs generated by entire functions, we can actually show that this condition is necessary:
Let $N\in {\mathbb N}$ and let $G$ and $H$ be real-valued, $N$-periodic entire functions. If $g:=G \chi_{[0,N]}$ and $h:=H \chi_{[0,N]}$ generate dual frames $\{E_{mb}T_ng\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_nh\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}},$ then $0< b\leq 1/N.$ To get a contradiction, assume that $\{E_{mb}T_ng\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ and $\{E_{mb}T_nh\}_{m,n\in {\mathbb Z}},$ are dual frames and that $1/N< b <1$. There exists a unique $n\in\{1,2,\cdots, N-1\}$ such that $n\leq 1/b <n+1.$ From the duality conditions, we have $$\label{et-62}
\sum_{j\in {\mathbb Z}}
G(x+j) \chi_{[0,N]}(x+j) H(x+j+1/b)\chi_{[0,N]}(x+j+1/b)= 0.$$ For $0 < x < n+1 -1/b(<1)$, we have $n\leq \frac{1}{b}<x+\frac{1}{b}<n+1.$ From , for $x\in ]0,n+1-1/b[,$ $$\label{et-63}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-n-1}G(x+j)H(x+j+1/b)=0.$$ Since the finite sum is an entire function, holds for all $x\in {\mathbb R}$. Due to the assumption that $G$ and $H$ are $N$-periodic and entire, we can write them as absolutely convergent Fourier series, $G(x)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}}g_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}$ and $H(x)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}}h_k e^{2\pi i k x/N}.$ The absolute convergence assures that the change of summation below is legitimate in the following expansion of : For $ x\in {\mathbb R}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&0= \sum_{j=0}^{N-n-1} \sum_{k\in {\mathbb Z}} g_k e^{2\pi i k (x+j)/N}
\sum_{\ell\in{\mathbb Z}} h_\ell e^{2\pi i \ell (x+j +1/b)/N} \\
&&= \sum_{m\in{\mathbb Z}}\left(\sum_{k+\ell=m}
g_k h_\ell e^{2\pi i\ell/(bN)} \right)
\left(\sum_{j=0}^{N-n-1}e^{2\pi i j m/N} \right) e^{2\pi i x m /N}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-n-1} e^{2\pi i j m/N}
= \sum_{j=0}^{N-n-1} \left(e^{2\pi i m /N} \right)^j
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
N-n, & m\in N{\mathbb Z}\\
\frac{1-e^{2\pi i m(N-n)/N}}{1-e^{2\pi i m/N}}, & m\neq N{\mathbb Z}\end{array}
\right.
\neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have $$\sum_{k+\ell=m} g_k h_\ell e^{2\pi i\ell/(bN)}=0, \ \forall m\in {\mathbb Z}.$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(\sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}} g_k e^{2\pi i k x/N} \right)
\left(\sum_{\ell\in{\mathbb Z}} h_\ell e^{2\pi i \ell/(bN)} e^{2\pi i \ell x/N} \right)\\
&&=\sum_{m\in {\mathbb Z}} \left( \sum_{k+\ell=m} g_k h_\ell e^{2\pi i\ell/(bN)} \right)e^{2\pi i m x/N}=0,\end{aligned}$$ we have that either all $g_k=0$ or all $h_k=0$, $i.e.$, either $G\equiv 0$ or $H\equiv 0$, which is a contradiction.
[10]{}
Christensen, O.: [*Frames and bases. An introductory course,*]{} Birkhäuser 2008.
Christensen, O., Kim, R.Y.: [*On dual Gabor frame pairs generated by polynomials.*]{} J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 16, 1–16 (2010)
Christensen, O. and Sielemann Jakobsen, M.: [*Dual pairs of Gabor frames for trigonometric generators without the partition of unity property.*]{} Asian J. Math [**4**]{} no.4 (2011), 589-603.
Daubechies, I., Grossmann, A. and Meyer, Y.: [*Painless nonorthogonal expansions.*]{} J. Math. Phys. [**27**]{} (1986), 1271–1283.
Feichtinger, H.G.: [*On a new Segal algebra.*]{} Monatsh. Math. [**92**]{} no. 4 (1981), 269–289.
Feichtinger, H.G.: [*Atomic characterizations of modulation spaces through Gabor-type representations.*]{} Rocky Mountain J. Math. [**19**]{} no.1 (1989), 113–125.
Feichtinger, H. G. and Gröchenig, K. H.: [*Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their atomic decomposition II.*]{} Monatsh. Math. [**108**]{} (1989), 129–148.
Gröchenig, K. : [*Foundations of time-frequency analysis.*]{} Birkhäuser, Boston, 2000.
Janssen, A.J.E.M.: The duality condition for Weyl-Heisenberg frames. In: Feichtinger, H.G., Strohmer, T. (eds.) Gabor analysis: Theory and Applications, Birkhäuser, Boston, (1998)
Laugesen, R.S.: [*Gabor dual spline windows.*]{} Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 27, 180–194 (2009)
Lyubarskii, Y.: [*Frames in the Bargmann space of entire functions.*]{} Adv. in Soviet Math. [**11**]{} (1992), 167–180.
Ron, A., Shen, Z.: Weyl-Heisenberg frames and Riesz bases in $L^2({\mathbb R}^d)$. Duke Math. J. 89, 237-282 (1997)
Seip, K.: [*Sampling and interpolation in the Bargmann-Fock space I*]{}. J. Reine Angew. Math. (1992) [**429**]{}, 91–106.
Seip, K. and Wallsten, R.: [*Sampling and interpolation in the Bargmann-Fock space II*]{}. J. Reine Angew. Math. [**429**]{} (1992), 107–113.
****
Ole Christensen\
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science\
Technical University of Denmark, Building 303, 2800 Lyngby\
Denmark\
Email: [email protected]
Hong Oh Kim\
Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST\
373-1, Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-701\
Republic of Korea\
Email: [email protected]
Rae Young Kim\
Department of Mathematics, Yeungnam University\
214-1, Dae-dong, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 712-749\
Republic of Korea\
Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'C. González-Fernández'
- 'M. López-Corredoira'
- 'E. B. Amôres'
- 'D. Minniti'
- 'P. Lucas'
- 'I. Toledo'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
date: 'Received —; accepted —'
title: 'The long bar as seen by the VVV survey: I. Colour-magnitude diagrams'
---
[The VISTA Variable Survey (VVV) is able to map the Galaxy at $l\leq 0^\circ$ with an unpaired depth (at least 3 mag deeper than 2MASS), opening new possibilities for studying the inner structure of the Milky Way.]{} [In this paper we concentrate on the exploitation of these data to better understand the spatial disposition and distribution of the structures present in the inner Milky Way, particularly the Long Bar and its interaction with the inner disc.]{} [To attain this, we present the Ks vs J-Ks diagrams obtained with VVV of regions with ($-20^\circ <l<-8^\circ$, $|b|<2^\circ $). From them we derive the distribution of red clump giants with heliocentric distance as a proxy for the overall stellar structure of the Galaxy. Along with these diagrams, we analysed the distribution of photometrically selected red supergiants, in order to detect events of recent stellar formation.]{} [The observations show the presence of a clear overdensity of stars with associated recent stellar formation that we interpret as the traces of the Long Bar, and we derive an angle for it of $41^\circ\pm5^\circ$ with line Sun-Galactic centre, touching the disc near $l=27^\circ$ and $l=-12^\circ$. The colour-magnitude diagrams presented here also show a lack of disc stars in several lines of sight, a fact that we associate with the truncation of the disc by the potential of this bar for $R_{\mathrm{GC}}\leq5~\mathrm{kpc}$.]{}
Introduction
============
The signs that the Milky Way is a barred galaxy have increased following the many discoveries about the morphology of the central regions of the Galaxy, most coming from detailed near-infrared (NIR) star counts. A bar-like distribution in the stars of our Galaxy is observed from the asymmetries in the infrared surface brightness maps [e. g. @Dw95] and in source counts [e.g. @St94; @H94], which both systematically show more stars at positive Galactic longitudes within $<30^\circ $ and close to the Galactic plane compared to the negative side.
While some papers refer to a thick triaxial structure (bulge or thick bar) with a semi-major axis of around 2.5 kpc and a position angle (PA) of 15$^\circ $–30$^\circ $ with respect to the Sun-Galactic centre direction [e.g. @LC05; @Ha06; @Ra07; @Va09], other contributions suggest that there is also a long thin bar, the in-plane bar, with 4 kpc in semi-major axis length and a position angle of around 45$^\circ $ [e.g. @LC07; @CL07; @Vl08; @Ch09]. This long bar has a tip in the positive longitude at the beginning of the Scutum arm [@Da86]. As realized by @Sev99, the angle is around 25 deg. when low latitudes are excluded from the fit, and around $45^\circ$ in the plane regions within $-15^\circ<l< 30^\circ$.
Rather than two structures, @Mv11 suggested that there is a scenario of a single structure with a twisted major axis. We find this proposal acceptable from a purely morphological point of view. However, bars form as a result of an instability in differentially rotating discs [@Sel81], whereas bulges are a primordial galactic component. Therefore, the scenario bulge+bar is not the same thing as a single structure, and one should observe other differences apart from the morphology. We think that the particular features of this new proposal of a “single twisted bulge/bar” scenario leaves some observational facts unexplained, whereas the model of a misaligned bulge+long bar successfully explains them all [@LC11]. Furthermore, there are two distinct populations in the thick bulge. The metal-rich population presents bar-like kinematics, while the metal-poor population shows kinematics corresponding to an old spheroid or a thick disc, so the two main scenarios for the bulge formation co-exist within the Milky Way bulge [@Ba10].
We pay attention here to the long bar. We explore it in the negative longitudes ($-20^\circ <l<-8^\circ$, $|b|<2^\circ $) with the data of 2MASS+VISTA-VVV in the NIR. For the positive longitudes there are available studies including deep NIR surveys [e.g. @CL07; @CL08]. Four aspects are interesting to explore in this region:
1. The stellar population of the bar itself, which can be followed by a tracer, such as the red clump population, as already carried out in the positive Galactic longitudes [@H00; @CL07; @CL08].
2. The tip of the long bar in the negative longitudes, which is tentatively placed at $l\approx -14^\circ $ [@LC01]. Finding there a massive star formation region would be new supporting evidence for the presence of a long bar in our Galaxy, as it was for the tip of the bar in the positive longitudes [@LC99; @N11; @Gr11; @NG11]. Such regions can form because of the concentrations of shocked gas where a galactic bar meets a spiral arm, as observed at the ends of the bars of face-on external galaxies.
3. The dust lane before the long bar in the negative galactic longitudes [@Ca96; @Ma08].
4. The stellar density of the inner disc around and behind the long bar+bulge, and particularly the possibility that the in-plane regions have a deficit of stars, due to a truncation in this density or to the effect of a flare in the disc [@LC04].
All these features will be analysed using NIR colour-magnitude diagrams of the stellar populations, deriving the extinction, and separating within them the red clump stars (old population) and the red supergiants or very bright red giants (young population).
This paper is linked to Amôres et al. (2012), where the stellar counts produced with the same datasets used here in the form of CMDs are analysed. After a brief introduction of the datasets that will be used, a detailed description of the analysis tools we used follows in Sect. \[dataa\]. In Sect. \[results\] the main results of the paper are given, leading to a summary of the more relevant conclusions in Sect. \[discu\].
Data
====
VISTA-VVV
---------
The ESO public near-IR variability survey VVV is scanning the Milky Way bulge and an adjacent section of the mid-plane with high star formation activity [@Mi10]. The survey will take 1929 hours of observations with the four metre VISTA telescope, across an area of approximately $550~$square degrees in the inner galaxy. The final products will be a deep IR atlas in five passbands ($ZYJHK_\mathrm{S}$) and multi-epoch photometry in the $K_\mathrm{S}$-band to build a catalogue of about a billion point sources, including about a million variable sources. The main goal of the VVV survey is to enable the construction of a 3-D map of the inner Milky Way using well-understood distance indicators, such as RR Lyrae, Cepheids and red clump giants.
The first dataset, including observations from year 2010, has just been released. @Sa12 discuss the observations, reductions, photometry, calibrations, and catalogues. For most regions of interest the limiting magnitude is $m_{\mathrm{K_S}}\sim18.0$, and the image scale is $0.34~\mathrm{"/pixel}$. A more detailed description of the VVV data used can be found in Amôres et al. (2012).
2MASS
-----
Although we are interested in the inner Milky Way, best viewed with VVV, we also study brighter populations, some of which might be too bright for this survey. We supplement the VVV data using 2MASS All-Sky Release [@St06], accessing its point source catalogue through the Gator interface[^1].
Data analysis {#dataa}
=============
Combining 2MASS and VVV
-----------------------
We have made intensive use of the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) instead of a source-by-source analysis, so a detailed combination of both datasets is not needed. Instead, for a more subtle approach we opted to adopt hard thresholds in $K_\mathrm{S}$ and $J$: above these thresholds we rely on 2MASS photometry, and below them VVV is the data source.
Determining these thresholds requires careful calculation of the completeness of 2MASS. We restricted ourselves to $-20^\circ<l<-8^\circ$, and in these regions completeness is dominated by source confusion, owing to the high stellar density. For each of the fields we built a histogram in magnitude, fit the brighter part with a second degree polynomial, and checked when the observed counts fall below $80\%$ of the predicted value offered by this fit, adopting this value as our completeness limit. As we want to have a homogeneous set of CMDs, we selected a single set of thresholds for all our fields: $(J, K_\mathrm{S})=(14,12.5)$.
As we are comparing data from two different surveys, with different instrumental configurations and calibration procedures, we also checked that both photometries are consistent. As both catalogues overlap in magnitude, for each field we crossmatched the common stars and checked for differences in magnitude. The typical values are around $0.05~\mathrm{mag}$ in $J$ and $0.02~\mathrm{mag}$ in $K_\mathrm{S}$, although in some fields subject to severe reddening these values can be higher, reaching differences up to $0.4~\mathrm{mag}$. In all our subsequent analysis, these systematic differences have been added to VVV magnitudes.
We also checked the behaviour of the magnitude difference against colour and found no evident dependence, but in the redder part of the CMD (with $J-K_\mathrm{S}>4.5$), there are few common stars, so this effect could be masked.
The infrared colour magnitude diagram
-------------------------------------
Since the advent of large-scale infrared surveys, the infrared CMD, usually of $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})$ versus $K_{\mathrm{S}}$ has become one of the standard tools for studying the structure of the Milky Way. Beyond the penetrating powers of this wavelength range that allow us to reach the inner parts of our Galaxy, in these diagrams it is relatively easy to separate the two main visible populations, dwarfs and giants. Although the morphology of the CMD changes greatly in different areas of the Galaxy, since they are heavily affected by interstellar extinction, in-plane fields offer a similar aspect, exemplified in Fig. \[DCM\].
This CMD was obtained for a field centred at $(l,b)=(-11^\circ,0^\circ)$. The main features that dominate the figure are outlined in the right-hand panel: in blue and occupying the lower left-hand region of the plot, the dwarfs of the disc are the more abundant population, separated from the giants due to the extinction and their intrinsic brightness. Even if caused by distance, dwarfs and giants could appear to us with the same apparent magnitudes, since giants are intrinsically brighter they would have to be farther away and be the subject of heavier interstellar extinction, since we are dealing with in-plane fields. This implies that they will appear shifted towards the red, occupying then the top right-hand part of the diagram.
The effect of distance (that moves stars towards dimmer apparent magnitudes) and extinction (that makes stars appear dimmer and redder) results in an ideal population of stars with the same intrinsic magnitude and colour and evenly distributed along the line-of-sight that would appear as a diagonal line (not necessarily straight) in this CMD. The natural spread in magnitude of any real population changes this line into a strip of a certain width, and the uneven stellar density of the Galaxy translates into overdensities in the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})$ space. Because the later the type of a giant the brighter and redder it becomes, the lower envelope of this region is composed by late type G giants, but the bulk of it will correspond to giants of spectral types around K2, also known as red clump giants (RCG), which are the most abundant giant population. The redder tail of Fig. \[DCM\] would be composed almost exclusively of M giants. The relative abundance of RCGs is high enough so that they appear as a distinct strip on the CMD while later type giants, much less abundant, are visible towards redder and brighter magnitudes.
{width="6.0cm"} {width="8.0cm"}
To build the CMDs used in this work (including the one from Fig. \[DCM\]), we always use $0.5^\circ\times0.5^\circ$ fields centered on the nominal coordinates. As the source density is high, instead of plotting star by star, we built a density diagram using tiles of $0.1~mag$ in colour and magnitude, as can be seen in Fig. \[DCM\]. Also, the variation range of $N$, the number of stars in each one of these tiles, is wide, so that to appreciate all the substructure present in these CMD it is mandatory to plot instead some function that compresses this range. After a lengthy trial and error process we opted for the function $$I=300\times\log{(N+1)}+N,$$ where $N$ is the number of stars per tile and $I$ the plotted intensity. This selection combines the compression factor of a logarithmic intensity plot but without losing the ability to show density variations of $\sim100$ stars per tile, changes that in a pure logarithmic plot would be invisible. As our analysis of these density variations was purely qualitative, we opted to use a function that maximizes the visible information instead of one with immediate physical translation, such as a square root or a logarithm.
The resulting CMDs, used in subsequent sections, can be seen in Appendix \[appdcm\].
{width="6.6cm"} {width="6.6cm"}\
{width="6.6cm"} {width="6.6cm"}
The red clump method {#RCGm}
--------------------
As said above, the ubiquity of the RCGs makes the so-called red clump method one of the standard tools for analysing CMDs in the infrared. Its use and application is discussed in depth in @LC02 (hereafter LC02), but in this section we offer a brief outline of its application to the 2MASS+VVV composite CMDs, as the results of this method is used thoroughly through the text.
These RCGs have a very narrow luminosity function that it is also calibrated well (LC02), so their intrinsic colour and luminosity are well known. It is possible then to transform their position in the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})$ plane to $(d,A_{\mathrm{K}})$, once we assume an extinction law (in the form of the relative extinction coefficient $A_{\mathrm{J}}/A_{\mathrm{K}}$). A more detailed description of the method and the errors involved can be found in @CL08 and references therein. Following this study, we use $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})_0=0.70\pm0.05$, $M_{\mathrm{K}}=-1.62\pm0.03$ and $A_{\mathrm{J}}/A_{\mathrm{K}}=2.518$.
To perform this calculation there is a previous step that needs to be taken: the calculation of the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})$ curve that represents the distribution of RCGs over the CMD. The simplest way to do this is to cut the CMD into several strips in $K_\mathrm{S}$ and then fit the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})$ distribution of each strip with the sum of a second degree polynomial and a Gaussian; the $\mu$ of this gaussian gives the fiducial point that represents the locus of the RCG for that strip (LC02). The problem here is that, in the presence of high interstellar extinction (see for example the CMDs for $b=0^\circ$ in Fig. \[av2\]), the RCG strip almost appears horizontal, and so projecting the data of each strip over the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})$ is not optimal, because it mixes stars with very different colours but with roughly the same $K_{\mathrm{S}}$ magnitude, resulting in a loss of information.
To overcome this, as a first step in our analysis, a rough fit of the RCG strip is performed by eye, and this $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})_0$ curve is used as the entry point of an automated process that, instead of performing cuts over $K_{\mathrm{S}}$ and projecting them over the $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})$ axis, defines a local coordinate system $(X,Y)$ that is perpendicular to this $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})_0$ curve at each point. As these new axes take the reddening vector into account, stars with similar magnitudes but different reddening appear separated when projecting over either $X$ or $Y$, so a much more refined $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}},K_{\mathrm{S}})$ curve can be derived.
Once we have the variation in $(J-K_{\mathrm{S}})$ with $K_{\mathrm{S}}$ for the RCGs, we can extract this population from the CMD. Although this can be optimized for each line-of-sight, and because our study requires the comparison of data at different Galactic longitudes, we consider that everything within $0.5~\mathrm{mag}$ in colour and magnitude from this curve is a RCG.
Photometric search for massive stars {#rsgsearch}
------------------------------------
One of the best tracers of stellar formation regions are red supergiants (RSG). Since these stars are very bright in the infrared [with a conservative limit of $M_\mathrm{K}<-8$, @W83], they shine through the obscuration present in the plane. One of the expected effects of a galactic bar is a triggering of star formation at its tips and, depending on the bar strength, over its dust lanes [see, for example, @Sh02]. As such, the study of the distribution of RSGs with Galactic longitude could give us clues on the structure of the bar.
In the near end of the bar, around $l\sim28^\circ$ several clusters of these stars have already been detected [i.e. @N11; @CGF12]. In these clusters, RSGs will have apparent magnitudes $7<m_\mathrm{k}<4$. If we assume that the bar forms a $45^\circ$ angle with the Sun-Galactic centre line and has a $4~\mathrm{kpc}$ semimajor axis [@CL08], this would put the far end of the bar at $\sim11.2~kpc$, while the near one sits at $\sim5.9~kpc$. This difference, in distance modulus, is of $\sim1.4~\mathrm{mag}$, so the same RSG that we see at the near end of the bar would have magnitudes in the range $9<m_\mathrm{k}<6$, allowing for a $\sim0.5~\mathrm{mag}$ in extra extinction due to the presence of the dust lane of the bar.
It is worth noting that, although we have selected a $\phi=45^\circ$ bar, other possible position angles have been postulated [for example, @Ba05 with $\phi=22^\circ\pm5.5^\circ$], but always with $\phi<45^\circ$. This implies that for these bar configurations, the far end should be farther away than for a $45^\circ$ angle bar. The difference in brightness for a given RSG between both configurations is only of $0.1~\mathrm{mag}$ (corresponding to $0.6~\mathrm{kpc}$), and our selection criteria for RSG is therefore not biased against these models.
For this reason, the possible RSGs situated at the far end of the bar would be very difficult to separate from the population of late type giants (they also have very similar intrinsic colours) of the disc. One possible way to separate this population is to use the reddening free pseudo-colour $Q$, defined as $Q=(J-H)-1.8\times(H-K_\mathrm{S})$ [@N07]. Generally speaking, the later (and intrinsically redder) a star is, the higher value of $Q$ it will have, with late type giants (types beyond K0) having $Q>0.41$. RSGs, because their atmospheres are very extended, complex, and often present mass loss, will not deredden properly, and so they roughly occupy the range $0.1<Q<0.4$ [@Me11].
Another applicable threshold affects the colour of the candidates. RSGs are intrinsically red sources, with intrinsic colours $(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0>0.7$. Since we are also looking at sources under heavy extinction (as is expected for the inner Milky Way), we can safely assume that any RSG will have $(J-K_\mathrm{S})>1.3$. This step eliminates late type dwarfs from the disc that will fulfill most of the previous criteria but, as they are located on the local disc will have lower colour excesses.
Summing up, the criteria that we used to select RSG candidates over 2MASS data are
1. $0.1\leq Q\leq0.4$,
2. $m_\mathrm{K}\leq9$,
3. $(J-K_\mathrm{S})\geq1.3$.
@N11 performed a spectroscopic survey around the massive cluster RSGC3, confirming the nature of stars selected based on these criteria, and find that the initial sample is entirely composed of RSGs and very evolved giants, with stellar types later than M5. A $38\%$ fraction of the objects turned out to be class I sources (supergiants), while $28\%$ were class II (bright giants), and the remaining $34\%$ identified as late class III giants.
Results
=======
Structure of the Galactic bar {#density}
-----------------------------
One of the most striking facts when analysing the CMDs produced with 2MASS+VVV for fields with $|l|<0^\circ$ and $b=0^\circ$ is that there is a sudden drop in the number of giants around $l=-13^\circ$ (see Fig. \[starfall\]). Since the total number of sources per square degree would be dominated by the dwarf population of the disc and we are more interested in the innermost region of the Milky Way, we focus our study on the giants, that reach beyond the disc within the limiting magnitude of VVV.
Using the method described in Sect. \[RCGm\], we can extract the RCGs from a CMD and estimate their distance. This allows us to reconstruct the in-plane 2-D distribution of these stars, as can be seen in fig. \[ngiants\]. Beyond $l=-8^\circ$, where extinction and source density affect our sample, the behaviour of the number of giants with $(l,d)$ is rather smooth, showing traces of a rather straight structure that ends beyond $l\sim-12^\circ$, where there is an appreciable drop in the number of visible giants. This could easily be associated with a bar-like structure, but before doing this there are some issues that need to be tackled. This drop in the number of giants visible in Fig. \[starfall\] could be due to an increment in the extinction along the line-of-sight, but this is unlikely: in this same figure it can be seen that the morphology of the RCG strip is similar in all the lines of sight, with higher latitudes and lower extinction. This implies a similar $(d,A_\mathrm{K})$ behaviour for all of them. Using the method described in Sect. \[RCGm\], we can estimate the variation of $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$ with $d$, plotted in Fig. \[l12ext\]. Comparing it with Fig. \[starfall\] we see that, although the extinction along the line-of-sight is almost equal for both of them, the number of visible giants is appreciably lower for $l=-13^\circ$.
The density distribution of Fig. \[ngiants\] could also be an effect of the variations in the limiting magnitude with Galactic longitude. A simple exponential density distribution, when observed with the instrumental setup of VVV, would show a maximum in the number of stars near completeness, for when we approach this limit we start to gradually lose more visible stars, modulating the subjacent stellar distribution. As hinted before, in off-plane fields these effects are less severe, and in Fig. \[ngiants15\] we can see how this bar-like structure is visible, well before the completeness limit is reached.
This structure corresponds very well to the extension of the Long Bar, as has been observed previously in integrated light [@H00] and stellar counts [@LC01], to the fourth quadrant. Assuming that this bar is symmetric with respect to the Galactic centre, the positions of its tips provide a strong constraint on its size and orientation. We place its far end at $l=-13^\circ$ (as suggested by Figs. \[ngiants\], \[RSGplane\], and \[ngiants15\]), and the nearby end in $l=27^\circ$ [@CL08]. Although these measurements are not very precise, the error should not exceed $\pm1^\circ$. Assuming that $R_{\mathrm{GC}}=8.0\pm0.5~\mathrm{kpc}$, we obtain an angle of $41^\circ\pm5^\circ$ and a total length of $8.2\pm0.6~\mathrm{kpc}$. This is close to the values calculated by @LC01 [@CL07; @CL08], but clearly different from the proposed geometry of @Ba05.
The structure in Figs. \[ngiants\] and \[ngiants15\] seems to have a wider angle, close to $45^\circ$ but the range in galactic longitudes is small, and these differences in orientation are difficult to judge. Also, the derivation of $d$ for this figure is affected by extinction, which could warp the visible structure if there is variation between different lines of sight. The properties derived using only the angular positions of the bar ends are very robust, not affected by any of these effects, the distance to the Galactic centre being the only assumption made.
Another interesting feature that, for example, can be observed in the CMDs of Fig. \[starfall\] and the extinction curves from Fig. \[l12ext\] is that there is a huge amount of interstellar material concentrated in a narrow strip around $9~\mathrm{kpc}$ at $l=-13^\circ$ (although this distance estimate varies with the assumed extinction law, see Sect. \[appext\]). This wall of extinction makes the RCGs appear as an almost horizontal strip on the CMD, but its effect is constrained to the plane. In Fig. \[vstruct\] we plot the diagrams of a vertical cut at $l=-12.5^\circ$ (near the end of the bar), and we can see clearly how the effect of interstellar extinction decreases from $b=0.0^\circ$ to $b=-0.5^\circ$. This feature of the interstellar medium can be clearly followed in the plane from $l=-13^\circ$ to $l=-8^\circ$ (see Figs. \[av5\] to \[ab0\]).
![CMDs of the fields with $l=-12.0^\circ$ between $b=-1.0^\circ$ and $b=0.0^\circ$. The colour scale is the same as Fig. \[DCM\]. As can be seen, there is a sudden increase in the extinction at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},m_\mathrm{K})\sim(2,14)$ in the plane that is not visible at higher $|b|$. Also, the second maxima of the RCGs is visible in the bottom plot, roughly at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},K_\mathrm{S})=(2,15)$[]{data-label="vstruct"}](l120b00.eps "fig:"){width="6.6cm"} ![CMDs of the fields with $l=-12.0^\circ$ between $b=-1.0^\circ$ and $b=0.0^\circ$. The colour scale is the same as Fig. \[DCM\]. As can be seen, there is a sudden increase in the extinction at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},m_\mathrm{K})\sim(2,14)$ in the plane that is not visible at higher $|b|$. Also, the second maxima of the RCGs is visible in the bottom plot, roughly at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},K_\mathrm{S})=(2,15)$[]{data-label="vstruct"}](l120v05.eps "fig:"){width="6.6cm"} ![CMDs of the fields with $l=-12.0^\circ$ between $b=-1.0^\circ$ and $b=0.0^\circ$. The colour scale is the same as Fig. \[DCM\]. As can be seen, there is a sudden increase in the extinction at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},m_\mathrm{K})\sim(2,14)$ in the plane that is not visible at higher $|b|$. Also, the second maxima of the RCGs is visible in the bottom plot, roughly at $(J-K_\mathrm{S},K_\mathrm{S})=(2,15)$[]{data-label="vstruct"}](l120v10.eps "fig:"){width="6.6cm"}
In these longitudes it is easy to see that this structure is too far away to be mistaken for the 3-kpc arm/molecular ring (contrary to what might happen in the first quadrant), so this sudden increase in the extinction (hence, the density of interstellar material) is a clear clue to the existence of a leading dust lane in the Long Bar of the Milky Way. A similar structure was previously detected in the inner Milky Way over extinction maps and molecular emission [@Ma08], although at lower $|l|$. Dust lanes are a common companion to stellar bars in other galaxies [for example, @Co09], so the presence of such a structure in our Galaxy is a hint of the existence of a bar up until $l\sim-12^\circ$.
As we move outwards, this dust lane disappears, but the interstellar extinction grows more or less continuosly for $l<-14.5^{\circ}$. As can be seen in Fig. \[ext2\], the variation in $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$ with $d$ is quite different from that of the dust lane. Instead of a sudden increase in the amount of interstellar material, the variation of Fig. \[ext2\] is much smoother. This matches very well what is expected of a near-tangent line-of-sight to a gas rich structure such as an arm (see Sect. \[drive\]).
Structure of the inner disc
---------------------------
A careful look at Fig. \[ngiants15\] presents us with another interesting feature: the depletion of giants present from $-18^\circ\leq l\leq -12^\circ$ (particularly evident at $b=1.5^\circ$). This truncation of the stellar density of the disc is visible in every galactic latitude except for $|b|\leq0.5^\circ$, due to completeness (see Fig. \[ngiants\]). This is one of the strongest visible effects of a bar; its typical potential [@Bi08] has two maxima in the direction of its minor axis [labelled $\mathrm{L_4}$ and $\mathrm{L_5}$ in Fig. \[schem\], following the notation of @Bi08]. These maxima sweep away stars and gas outwards, effectively emptying the disc inside the corotation radius. In Fig. \[ngiants15\] this appears clearly in the first plot, and there are traces of the same effect in the third, but masked mostly by the effects of extinction. The method described in Sect. \[RCGm\] assumes that the extinction varies smoothly along the line-of-sight, so the clumpiness of the real distribution of $A_\mathrm{K}$ with $d$ translates into a cumulative blur of the features in Figs. \[ngiants\] and \[ngiants15\].
This truncation is not only visible in the stellar content, but it also affects interstellar matter. As can be seen in Fig.\[l12ext\], from $\sim4.5$ to $\sim9~\mathrm{kpc}$ there is little variation in $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$ with $d$. As the colour excess is proportional to $A_\mathrm{K_S}$ and this quantity, in turn, is a function of the integral of the volume of interstellar matter along the line-of-sight, a flat curve implies that there is little to no underlying gas, matching the behaviour of the giants in Fig.\[ngiants15\].
Even so, the photometric depth of VVV is high enough to probe the far disc for the first time. In some of the CMDs of appendix \[appdcm\], the trace of the RCG runs vertically for $m_\mathrm{K}\geq12$ (particularly evident for $(l,b)=(-12.5,-1.0)$). This trace shows a secondary maximum, visible on several lines of sight (as, for example, in Fig. \[vstruct\]). These maxima appear around $13~\mathrm{kpc}$, and are clearly visible in the reconstructed distribution of Fig. \[ngiants15\] (more evident in the middle and bottom panels).
This increase in stellar density shows us where the disc regains its density beyond corotation. This effect has also been noted in @Go11 at $|b|=1^\circ$, although the authors interpret these maxima as traces for an arm at $11.2~\mathrm{kpc}$. This seems unlikely, since a one-degree separation from the plane implies a height of $200~\mathrm{pc}$ at $11~\mathrm{kpc}$ ($300~\mathrm{pc}$ for a $1.5^\circ$ line-of-sight), and arms are structures enclosed in the thin disc, so have very small height-scales. On top of this, the effective volume of an arm that a line-of-sight crossing it probes is very small unless at a tangent point. Since these structures are mostly composed of young populations, they are not traced very well with RCGs (a late population, with $\tau\sim2~\mathrm{Gyr})$, and it is very unlikely that they could appear clearly at any line-of-sight, as in Fig. \[ngiants15\].
The behaviour of interstellar extinction {#appext}
----------------------------------------
Many of the previous results depend, or at least are affected by, extinction. In the derivation of Figs. \[ngiants\] and \[ngiants15\] we have assumed a simple extinction law that remains constant with $d$, $l$, and $b$ and that yields $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K}=2.518$. As can be seen in Fig. \[l12ext\], beyond $9~\mathrm{kpc}$, the slope of the $(d,E(J-K_\mathrm{S}))$ curve becomes negative. This is physically impossible, and is a direct effect of this choice of extinction law, for the derivation of $d$ depends on the calculation of $A_\mathrm{K}$ and, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
E(J-K_\mathrm{S})=(J-K_\mathrm{S})-(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0\\
E(J-K_\mathrm{S})=A_\mathrm{J}-A_\mathrm{K_S}=A_\mathrm{K_S}\left(\frac{A_\mathrm{J}}{A_\mathrm{K_S}}-1\right)\end{aligned}$$ This implies: $$\begin{aligned}
A_\mathrm{K_S}=\frac{(J-K_\mathrm{S})-(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0}{A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Once we isolate a given population of stars that we will use as standard candles, from two measurables, $(J-K_\mathrm{S})$ and $m_\mathrm{K_S}$, we therefore derive $d$, $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$, and $A_\mathrm{K_S}$. To complete the recipe we need to know, apart from the aforementioned $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$, the luminosity function of the population under study, through its $(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0$ and $M_\mathrm{K_S}$. While a variation in any of these three constants would change Fig. \[l12ext\], we know that:
- An offset in $(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0$ or $M_\mathrm{K_S}$ would, in exchange, offset the curves in Fig. \[l12ext\], but not change their slope or overall shape.
- For the case of the RCGs, there is a known dependency of $(J-K_\mathrm{S})_0$ with metallicity [@CL07], but we can see in Fig. \[l12ext\] that, since the extinction increases in such a quick manner, most of the variation (particularly the part in which the curve acquires negative slope) takes place in less than a kiloparsec, so the metallicity spread is expected to be low. For this reason, while the overall shape of the $d$ vs. $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$ curve might change due to this effect, this variation would affect the slope of the nearby part of the graph with respect to the points that are more distant from the observer, but it will not change the slope measured for $d>8~\mathrm{kpc}$.
Taking these points into consideration, the only remaining possibility to explain this negative slope is our choice of a value of $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ not representative of the observed physical conditions. We can tinker with this value in order to bring the curves in Fig. \[l12ext\] into coherence with the expected behaviour of extinction with distance (that, by definition, needs to be a monotonically increasing function), obtaining a lower limit for the observed value of this ratio. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{A_\mathrm{J}}{A_\mathrm{K_S}}\geq2.9,\end{aligned}$$ so far away from the typical values of @RL85 or @C89, both close to $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}=2.5$. This points to an interstellar material that is more transparent towards the red than predicted by the extinction law, more in concordance with the results from studies as @Ni09 and @St09. This effect is not exclusive to the lines of sight used to produce Fig. \[l12ext\]; heavy extinction transforms the RCG strip in a CMD into a nearly horizontal band, so similar behaviors are observed in all the fields with $-8.0^\circ<l<-13^\circ$ and $b=0.0^\circ$ in Figs. \[av5\] to \[ab0\].
A change in the $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ extinction ratio implies an expansion/contraction in the distance scale in Figs. \[ngiants\] and \[ngiants15\], but will not change the overall shape of the structural features discussed. Because the analysis of these figures and the results drawn from are qualitative and the physical characteristics of the bar are calculated from the Galactic longitudes of its ends, a measure that is independent of extinction, our results are not affected by the choice of extinction law. Since a proper determination of the value of $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ is beyond the scope of this work, we opt to retain the value from @RL85 for homogeneity with similar studies [for example, @CL07]
This distance scale factor introduced through $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ can be appreciated when comparing Fig. \[ngiants\] with Fig. \[ngiants15\]: the bar overdensity seems to shift away from the observer at higher $|b|$. As increasing $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ implies decreasing $A_\mathrm{K_S}$ and a higher derived $d$, the error in this last parameter due to the difference in $A_\mathrm{J}/A_\mathrm{K_S}$ will be a monotonically increasing function of $E(J-K_\mathrm{S})$, hence higher for in-plane fields.
Bar-driven stellar formation in the Milky Way {#drive}
---------------------------------------------
A structure such as the Long Bar is expected to affect its environment in several ways. One of them is the triggering of star formation where its tips interact with the Galactic disc. Since RSGs are massive stars, their lifespans are expected to be short, just a few tens of Myr, so they trace recent stellar formation. We built a sample of photometrically selected RSG candidates following the methods discussed in Sect. \[rsgsearch\]; namely, we selected stars with $0.1\leq Q\leq0.4$, $(J-K_\mathrm{S})>1.3$ and $m_\mathrm{K}<9$. Since these values are well within the completeness of 2MASS, we use this survey. Doing so lets us obtain candidates for all the inner Galaxy, from $l=40^\circ$ to $l=-30^\circ$.
The vertical distribution of RSG candidates is, as expected for a young population, concentrated in low $b$ fields, and it can be roughly approximated with a Gaussian of $\sigma=2.4^\circ$. We find that in the region with $-30^\circ\leq l\leq40^\circ$ there are close to $30\,000$ candidates with $|b|\leq1^\circ$ (roughly a density of $200~\mathrm{deg^{-2}}$) and $60\,000$ in off-plane fields.
As reasoned in @CL07, the long bar is a very flat structure, so to locate traces of its associated stellar formation it is natural to restrict ourselves to the Galactic plane. Since several structures coexist in the region with $|l|<30^\circ$, we compared the in-plane ($|b|\leq1^\circ$) distribution of candidate RSGs with off-plane ($1^\circ<|b|\leq90^\circ$) fields. The results can be seen in Fig. \[RSGplane\] (to facilitate comparison, the off-plane distribution has been normalized to have the same total number of objects as for in-plane fields). As can be seen, rather than being smooth, the in-plane distribution presents a series of overdensities not present in off-plane fields (or present in a much less conspicuous manner).
These overdensities (outside the Galactic center) give us hints to possible underlying structures. This distribution follows the $2.2~\mathrm{\mu m}$ and $12~\mathrm{\mu m}$ emission studied by @H94 closely. As the structure of the first quadrant of the Galaxy is much better studied, the nature of some of these peaks has already been established: the overdensity at $l=32^\circ$ is related to the tangent line-of-sight towards the Scutum-Crux arm, and its counterpart in the fourth quadrant was already established by @H94 beyond $l<-29^\circ$ (hence outside our analysis). The next peak at $l=28^\circ$ is known to be related to one of the more massive episodes of star formation in our Galaxy, containing several massive clusters with $M_\odot>10^4~\mathrm{M_\odot}$, and probably with a combined mass well in excess of $10^5~\mathrm{M_\odot}$ [@CGF12; @N11]. Since the wings of this peak are wide, it also contains the extremely massive clusters RSGC1 [@F06; @NGF10] and Stephenson 2 [@D07]. All these clusters have been related to the interaction of the Long Bar and the Scutum-Crux Arm/molecular ring; this area also contains the more massive star forming region of the Milky Way, W43 [@NG11] (although it does not harbour any RSG yet).
It is expected that a similar wealth of structures should occur at the far end of the bar, here identified at $l=-13^\circ$, although the associated stellar formation has yet to be discovered. Some recent studies of massive clusters have started this search, but so far the only confirmed massive association detected is Mercer 81 [@D12]. It is associated by the authors to the far tip of the bar, but sitting at $l=-21.6^\circ$ is likely to be part of the 3-kpc arm, with a tangent at $l=-22^\circ$ (LC01). This is a prominent feature in gas emission that was the first indication of our Galaxy being barred [@DeV64]. Although it was previously suspected that this arm has not been subject to recent stellar formation [@Da08], in Fig. \[RSGplane\] it appears clearly delineated through its tangent line-of-sight, pointing towards an associated RSG population.
This arm occupies roughly the same space as the so-called molecular ring, a feature visible mostly in molecular emission [@Ja06]. Both structures are mostly young and will be poorly traced by RCGs. As a result, only their tangents are visible in our data and, it is visible in Fig. \[ngiants15\], is very difficult to distinguish between the two possible configurations, a closed ring or two tightly wound arms, by looking at both our CMDs and RSG distribution.
The exact stellar nature of the remaining overdensity in the near end, visible in Fig. \[RSGplane\] spanning from $l\sim20^\circ$ to $l\sim15^\circ$, has not been established yet. It might be part of the Scutum-Crux arm, might be stellar formation of the bar itself [^2], or a part of the molecular ring or the 3-kpc arm[@H94] (or any combination of the three). It does not have a clear counterpart at the far end, and this could point to it being part of the 3-kpc arm. As can be seen in Fig. \[schem\], the cross section offered by the far pass of the arm to the line-of-sight is much wider, so all the stellar formation that in the first quadrant is visible in $20^\circ\leq l\leq10^\circ$ would appear, due to the effect of projection, around the tangential line-of-sight towards the arm in the fourth quadrant (at $l=-22^\circ$). If there is any stellar formation along the dust lane, in Fig. \[RSGplane\] it would be visible with $l\leq-13^\circ$ and so it would be mixed with that of the tip of the Long Bar and the increased density towards the Galactic centre. As such, it is almost impossible to distinguish between both hypotheses without a proper spectroscopic study of the individual sources themselves.
Conclusions {#discu}
===========
In this work we obtained combined CMDs of 2MASS and VVV, mapping for the first time the innermost Milky Way at negative galactic longitudes. Using these data along with photometrically selected RSGs -used as proxies for recent stellar formation- we mapped the structures present at these latitudes, offering a fresh picture of the structure of our Galaxy.
The main conclusions drawn follow:
- Based on the analysis of the CMDs and the 2-D distribution of the RCGs along several lines of sight, we showed there is a flat structure that runs up to $l\sim-12^\circ$. It corresponds to the extension of the Long Bar into the fourth quadrant. With this new constraint, we concluded that it forms an angle of $41^\circ\pm5^\circ$ with the Sun-Galactic centre line.
- This Long Bar affects the structure of the disc. One of the more severe effects is the truncation of the stellar density with $R_{\mathrm{GC}}\leq5~\mathrm{kpc}$. Because it corresponds with two maxima of the bar potential, this area is devoid of stars and gas (outside the body of the bar itself).
- Using photometrically selected RSGs as a proxy for recent stellar formation, we demonstrated another of the predicted effects of a galactic bar, the triggering of formation regions at its ends, clearly visible at $l\sim27^\circ$ and $l\sim-12^\circ$. The tangents to the Scutum-Crux and the so-called 3-kpc arm are also visible in the distribution of these stars, showing that in both arms there are traces of recent massive stellar formation.
VVV+2MASS CMDs of the inner Milky Way {#appdcm}
=====================================
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
This research is partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MCINN) under AYA2010-21697-C05-5 and the Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Program grant CSD2006-00070: First Science with the GTC (http://www.iac.es/consolider-ingenio-gtc). MLC was supported by the grant AYA2007-67625-CO2-01 of the Spanish Science Ministry. Eduardo Amôres obtained financial support for this work from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) under the grant SFRH/BPD/42239/2007 and CNPq (311838/2011-1). We gratefully acknowledge use of data from the ESO Public Survey programme ID 179.B-2002 taken with the VISTA telescope, data products from the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit, and funding from the FONDAP Centre for Astrophysics 15010003, the BASAL CATA Centre for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies PFB-06, the MILENIO Milky Way Millennium Nucleus from the Ministry of Economy’s ICM grant P07-021-F, and by Proyecto FONDECYT Regular No. 1090213 from CONICYT. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. This research has made use of the NASA/ IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This research has made use of Aladin.
[^1]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/
[^2]: Although as stellar formation normally occurs in the dust lanes of bars, hence at these latitudes it should appear beyond the stellar bar itself, our cuts allow for RSGs at these distances to remain in the sample.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by team formation applications, we study discrete optimization problems of the form $\max_{S\in\mathcal{S}}\left(f(S)-w(S)\right)$, where $f:2^{V}\to\mathbb{R_{+}}$ is a non-negative monotone submodular function, $w:2^{V}\to\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is a non-negative linear function, and $\mathcal{S}\subseteq2^{V}$. We give very simple and efficient algorithms for classical constraints, such as cardinality and matroid, that work in a variety of models, including the offline, online, and streaming. Our algorithms use a very simple scaling approach: we pick an absolute constant $c\geq1$ and optimize the function $f(S)-c\cdot w(S)$ using a black-box application of standard algorithms, such as the classical Greedy algorithm and the single-threshold Greedy algorithm. These algorithms are based on recent works that use (time varying) scaling combined with classical algorithms such as the discrete and continuous Greedy algorithms (Feldman, WADS’19; Harshaw *et al.*, ICML’19).'
author:
- 'Alina Ene[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: A note on maximizing the difference between a monotone submodular function and a linear function
---
Introduction
============
Motivated by team formation applications, we study discrete optimization problems of the form
$$\max_{S\in\mathcal{S}}\left(f(S)-w(S)\right)$$
where $f:2^{V}\to\mathbb{R_{+}}$ is a non-negative monotone submodular function, $w:2^{V}\to\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is a non-negative linear function, and $\mathcal{S}\subseteq2^{V}$. The objective function $g(S)=f(S)-w(S)$ is submodular, but it is potentially negative and non-monotone. Most of the existing algorithms for (monotone or general) submodular maximization crucially rely on the assumption that the function is non-negative and thus they do not immediately apply to this setting. Indeed, the problem of maximizing a potentially negative submodular function is inapproximable in the following sense: it is $\mathbf{NP}$-hard to determine whether the optimum value is positive or not, and thus no multiplicative factor approximation is possible. Nevertheless, the objective functions that we consider have beneficial structure, and several works [@sviridenko2017optimal; @feldman2019guess; @harshaw2019submodular] have shown that we can obtain meaningful guarantees provided we aim for a slightly weaker notion of approximation. More specifically, these works give algorithms that construct a solution $S\in\mathcal{\mathcal{S}}$ satisfying
$$f(S)-w(S)\geq\alpha\cdot f(\opt)-w(\opt)$$ for some $\alpha\leq1$. The work [@sviridenko2017optimal] reduces the problem $\max_{S\in\mathcal{S}}f(S)-w(S)$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a matroid constraint, to the problem of maximizing $f(S)$ subject to both a knapsack constraint $w(S)\leq B$ and the matroid constraint. This is achieved by approximately guessing $w(\opt)$ and using each of those guesses as the knapsack budget $B$. For each fixed guess, the resulting problem can be solved using a variant of the continuous greedy algorithm, and the resulting solution satisfies (up to a small error) $f(S)-w(S)\geq\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\right)f(\opt)-w(\opt)$, which is the best guarantee one can hope for. Feldman [@feldman2019guess] showed that the guessing step can be removed and one can obtain the same approximation guarantee by using the continuous greedy algorithm on a distorted objective function: at time $t$, the objective being optimized is $e^{t-1}F(x)-\langle w,x\rangle$, where $F$ is the multilinear extension of $f$. Harshaw *et al.* [@harshaw2019submodular] showed that, for the special case of a cardinality constraint, one can obtain a much more efficient algorithm by combining the time-varying distortion approach with the standard Greedy algorithm.
In this note, we take these ideas one step further and obtain very simple and efficient algorithms that work in a variety of models, including the offline, online, and streaming. Our algorithms use a very simple scaling approach: we pick an absolute constant $c\geq1$ and optimize the function $f(S)-c\cdot w(S)$ using a black-box application of standard algorithms, such as the classical Greedy algorithm and the single-threshold Greedy algorithm.
An offline algorithm for a matroid constraint
=============================================
In this section, we consider the problem $\max_{S\in\mathcal{I}}f(S)-w(S)$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the set of independent sets in a matroid. Our algorithm applies the standard Greedy algorithm to the scaled objective $f(S)-2w(S)$. The solution obtained satisfies $f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)$. Note that this matches the approximation guarantee of the standard Greedy algorithm for monotone maximization (the special case when $w=0$), which is tight for the Greedy algorithm. For a set function $h$, we use the notation $h(e\vert S):=h(S\cup\{e\})-h(S)$ to denote the marginal gain of $e$ on top of $S$.
Throughout this note, we assume that there is a solution with positive objective, i.e., $f(S)-w(S)>0$ for some $S\in\mathcal{S}$ (this is for simplicity and without loss of generality, since otherwise $\emptyset$ is feasible and is optimal).
(matroid) Let $\mathcal{M}=(V,\mathcal{I})$, where $V$ is a finite ground set and $\mathcal{I}$ is a collection of subsets of $V$. We refer to each set in $\mathcal{I}$ as an independent set. Then $\mathcal{M}$ is a matroid if the collection $\mathcal{I}$ satisfies the following properties:
1. The empty set is independent: $\emptyset\in\mathcal{I}$.
2. (hereditary property) Every subset of an independent set is independent: if $A\subseteq B$ and $B\in\mathcal{I}$ then $A\in\mathcal{I}$.
3. (augmentation property or exchange property) If $A$ and $B$ are two independent sets and $|A|>|B|$, then there exists $e\in A\setminus B$ such that $B\cup\{e\}\in\mathcal{I}$.
Our analysis uses the following standard result for matroids, which follows from the matroid exchange property.
\[lem:mapping\]Let $I$ and $J$ be two independent sets in a matroid such that $|I|\leq|J|$. Then there is an injective mapping $\pi\colon I\setminus J\to J$ such that $(J\setminus\pi(e))\cup\{e\}$ is independent for every $e\in I\setminus J$.
$S\gets\emptyset$
$N\gets V$
for $i=1,2,\dots$
$\quad$if $N=\emptyset$
$\quad\quad$break
$\quad$ let $e_{i}=\arg\max_{e\colon S\cup\{e\}\in\mathcal{I}}$ $\tilde{g}(e\vert S)=\arg\max_{e\in N}\tilde{g}(e\vert S)$
$\quad$if $g(e_{i}\vert S)<0$
$\quad\quad$$N\gets N\setminus\{e_{i}\}$
$\quad$else
$\quad\quad$$S\gets S\cup\{e_{i}\}$
$\quad\quad$remove from $N$ every element $e$ such that $S\cup\{e\}\notin\mathcal{I}$
return $S$
Algorithm \[alg:matroid\] returns a solution $S\in\mathcal{I}$ satisfying $f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)$.
We first consider the case when $|S|=|\opt|$. We show at the end of the proof how to extend the analysis to handle the case when $|S|\neq|\opt|$. We apply Lemma \[lem:mapping\] with $I=\opt$ and $J=S$ and obtain a bijective mapping $\pi\colon\opt\to S$ such that $\pi(e)=e$ for all $e\in\opt\cap S$ and $(S\setminus\pi(e))\cup\{e\}$ is independent for every $e\in\opt$ (note that we simply augment the mapping guaranteed by the lemma so that elements in the intersection are mapped to themselves).
Let $k=|\opt|=|S|$. Let $e_{1},\dots,e_{k}$ be the elements of $S$ in the order in which they were added to $S$ by the algorithm. Let $o_{i}=\pi(e_{i})$ for all $i\in[k]$, and thus $\opt=\{o_{1},o_{2},\dots,o_{k}\}.$ Let $S^{(i)}=\{e_{1},\dots,e_{i}\}$ and $\opt^{(i)}=\{o_{1},\dots,o_{k}\}.$We now show that, for every $i\in[k]$, we have
$$\tilde{g}(e_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})\geq\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})$$
To see this, consider the iteration $i$ of the algorithm. If $o_{i}=e_{i}$, the inequality is immediate. Therefore we may assume that $o_{i}\neq e_{i}$. The choice of the mapping $\pi$ guarantees that $(S\setminus\{e_{i}\})\cup\{o_{i}\}\in\mathcal{I}$. Since $S^{(i-1)}\subseteq S\setminus\{e_{i}\}$, the hereditary property implies that $S^{(i-1)}\cup\{o_{i}\}\in\mathcal{I}$. Since $o_{i}$ was a candidate for $e_{i}$, it follows that $\tilde{g}(e_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})\geq\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})$, as claimed.
Thus, for all $i\in[k]$, we have
$$f(S^{(i)})-f(S^{(i-1)})-2w(e_{i})\geq f(S^{(i-1)}\cup\{o_{i}\})-f(S^{(i-1)})-2w(o_{i})$$
By submodularity,
$$f(S^{(i-1)}\cup\{o_{i}\})-f(S^{(i-1)})\geq f(S^{(k)}\cup\opt^{(i)})-f(S^{(k)}\cup\opt^{(i-1)})$$
Thus
$$f(S^{(i-1)}\cup\{e_{i}\})-f(S^{(i-1)})-2w(e_{i})\geq f(S^{(k)}\cup\opt^{(i)})-f(S^{(k)}\cup\opt^{(i-1)})-2w(o_{i})$$
Summing up over all $i$ and using monotonicity of $f$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
f(S)-2w(S) & \geq f(S\cup\opt)-f(S)-2w(\opt)\\
& \geq f(\opt)-f(S)-2w(\opt)\\
\Rightarrow2f(S)-2w(S) & \geq f(\opt)-2w(\opt)\\
\Rightarrow f(S)-w(S) & \geq\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose that $|S|<|\opt|$. The augmentation property guarantees that there exists an element $e\in\opt\setminus S$ such that $S\cup\{e\}\in\mathcal{I}$. Since $e$ was not added to the algorithm, we have $g(e\vert S)<0$ and thus $g(S\cup\{e\})<g(S)$. By repeating this argument, we can see that we can augment $S$ using elements of $\opt$ and obtain a set $S'$ such that $|S'|=|\opt|$ and $g(S')<g(S)$. We use the same argument as above but with $S'$ instead of $S$.
Finally, suppose that $|S|>|\opt|$. Let $S'$ be the first $|\opt|$ elements added to $S$. Note that we have $g(S)\geq g(S')$ since every element $e$ satisfies $g(e\vert S)\geq0$ when it was added to $S$. We use the same arugment as above but with $S'$ instead of $S$.
An online algorithm for the unconstrained problem
=================================================
In this section, we consider the unconstrained problem $\max_{S\in2^{V}}f(S)-w(S)$ in the online model where the elements arrive one at a time; when an element arrives, we need to decide whether to add it to the solution, and this decision is irrevocable. The algorithm considers the scaled objective $f(S)-2w(S)$ and it accepts every element that has positive marginal gain with respect to this scaled objective. The solution obtained satisfies $f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)$.
$S\gets\emptyset$
for each arriving element $e$:
$\quad$if $\tilde{g}(e\vert S)>0$:
$\quad\quad$$S\gets S\cup\{e\}$
return $S$
Algorithm \[alg:online\] returns a solution $S$ satisfying $f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)$.
For every item $o\in\opt\setminus S$, we have
$$\tilde{g}(o\vert S)\leq0$$
This is due to the fact that $o$ had non-positive marginal gain when it arrived and the marginal gains can only decrease due to submodularity (note that $\tilde{g}$ is submodular). Therefore we have
$$\begin{aligned}
0 & \geq\sum_{o\in\opt\setminus S}\tilde{g}(o\vert S)\\
& \geq\tilde{g}(S\cup\opt)-\tilde{g}(S)\\
& =\left(\underbrace{f(S\cup\opt)}_{\geq f(\opt)}-f(S)\right)-2\left(\underbrace{w(S\cup\opt)-w(S)}_{=w(\opt\setminus S)\leq w(\opt)}\right)\\
& \geq f(\opt)-f(S)-2w(\opt)\end{aligned}$$
The third inequality is by monotonicity of $f$ and non-negativity and linearity of $w$. The second inequality follows from submodularity. Let $O=\opt\setminus S$ and let $o_{1},o_{2},\dots,o_{|O|}$ be an arbitrary ordering of $O$. Let $O^{(i)}=\{o_{1},\dots,o_{i}\}$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}(S\cup O)-\tilde{g}(S) & =\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\left(\tilde{g}(S\cup O^{(i)})-\tilde{g}(S\cup O^{(i-1)})\right)\\
& =\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S\cup O^{(i-1)})\\
& \leq\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S)\end{aligned}$$
where the inequality is by submodularity.
Rearranging, we obtain
$$f(S)\geq f(\opt)-2w(\opt)$$
On the other hand, since the algorithm only added elements with positive marginal gain with respect to $\tilde{g}$, we have
$$\tilde{g}(S)>0$$
Indeed, let $e_{1},e_{2},\dots,e_{|S|}$ be the elements of $S$ in the order in which they were added. Let $S^{(i)}=\{e_{1},\dots,e_{i}\}.$ We have
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}(S)-\tilde{g}(\emptyset) & =\sum_{i=1}^{|S|}\left(\tilde{g}(S^{(i)})-\tilde{g}(S^{(i-1)})\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{|S|}\tilde{g}(e_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})>0\end{aligned}$$
Since $\tilde{g}(\emptyset)=f(\emptyset)-w(\emptyset)=f(\emptyset)\geq0$, we have $\tilde{g}(S)>0$. Therefore
$$f(S)-2w(S)>0\Rightarrow w(S)<\frac{1}{2}f(S)\Rightarrow f(S)-w(S)>\frac{1}{2}f(S)$$
By combining with the previous inequality, we obtain
$$f(S)-w(S)>\frac{1}{2}f(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(f(\opt)-2w(\opt)\right)=\frac{1}{2}f(\opt)-w(\opt)$$
A streaming algorithm for a cardinality constraint
==================================================
In this section, we consider the problem $\max_{|S|\leq k}f(S)-w(S)$ in the streaming model. The algorithm is an extension of the online algorithm from the previous section. As before, we consider the scaled objective $f(S)-c\cdot w(S)$, where $c\geq1$ is an absolute constant. Now, instead of picking elements whose (scaled) marginal gain is positive, we pick elements whose (scaled) marginal gain is above a suitable threshold. In other words, we apply the single-threshold Greedy algorithm [@badanidiyuru2014streaming; @kumar2015fast] to the scaled objective.
$S\gets\emptyset$
while stream not empty:
$\quad$$e\gets$next stream element
$\quad$if $\tilde{g}(e\vert S)\geq\tau$ and $|S|<k$:
$\quad\quad$$S\gets S\cup\{e\}$
return $S$
When run with scaling $c=\frac{1}{2}\left(3+\sqrt{5}\right)$ and threshold $\tau=\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{1}{2}(3-\sqrt{5})f(\opt)-w(\opt)\right)$, Algorithm \[alg:streaming\] returns a solution $S$ satisfying $f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\sqrt{5}\right)f(\opt)-w(\opt)$.
We consider two cases, depending on whether $|S|=k$ or $|S|<k$.
**Case 1: $|S|=k$.** We have
$$\tilde{g}(S)\geq\tau k\Rightarrow f(S)-c\cdot w(S)\geq\tau k$$
**Case 2: $|S|<k$.** For every item $o\in\opt\setminus S$, we have
$$\tilde{g}(o\vert S)\leq\tau$$
This is due to the fact that $o$ had marginal gain less than $\tau$ when it arrived and the marginal gains can only decrease due to submodularity of $\tilde{g}$. Therefore we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau|\opt\setminus S| & \geq\sum_{o\in\opt\setminus S}\tilde{g}(o\vert S)\\
& \geq\tilde{g}(S\cup\opt)-\tilde{g}(S)\\
& =\left(\underbrace{f(S\cup\opt)}_{\geq f(\opt)}-f(S)\right)-c\left(\underbrace{w(S\cup\opt)-w(S)}_{=w(\opt\setminus S)\leq w(\opt)}\right)\\
& \geq f(\opt)-f(S)-c\cdot w(\opt)\end{aligned}$$
The third inequality is by monotonicity of $f$ and non-negativity and linearity of $w$. The second inequality follows from submodularity. Indeed, let $O=\opt\setminus S$ and let $o_{1},o_{2},\dots,o_{|O|}$ be an arbitrary ordering of $O$. Let $O^{(i)}=\{o_{1},\dots,o_{i}\}$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}(S\cup O)-\tilde{g}(S) & =\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\left(\tilde{g}(S\cup O^{(i)})-\tilde{g}(S\cup O^{(i-1)})\right)\\
& =\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S\cup O^{(i-1)})\\
& \leq\sum_{i=1}^{|O|}\tilde{g}(o_{i}\vert S)\end{aligned}$$
where the inequality is by submodularity.
Rearranging, we obtain
$$f(S)\geq f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau\underbrace{|\opt\setminus S|}_{\leq k}\geq f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k$$
On the other hand, since the algorithm only added elements with marginal gain at least the threshold, we have
$$\tilde{g}(S)\geq\tau|S|$$
Indeed, let $e_{1},e_{2},\dots,e_{|S|}$ be the elements of $S$ in the order in which they were added. Let $S^{(i)}=\{e_{1},\dots,e_{i}\}.$ We have
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}(S)-\tilde{g}(\emptyset) & =\sum_{i=1}^{|S|}\left(\tilde{g}(S^{(i)})-\tilde{g}(S^{(i-1)})\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{|S|}\tilde{g}(e_{i}\vert S^{(i-1)})\geq\tau|S|\end{aligned}$$
Since $\tilde{g}(\emptyset)=f(\emptyset)-w(\emptyset)=f(\emptyset)\geq0$, we have $\tilde{g}(S)\geq\tau|S|$.
Therefore
$$f(S)-c\cdot w(S)\geq\tau|S|\geq0$$
To summarize, we have shown the following two inequalities:
$$\begin{aligned}
f(S) & \geq f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k\\
f(S)-c\cdot w(S) & \geq0\end{aligned}$$
Combining the two inequalities with coefficients $c-1$ and $1$ gives
$$\begin{aligned}
f(S)-w(S) & \geq\frac{c-1}{c}\left(f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k\right)\end{aligned}$$
**Setting $c,\tau$.** We now put together the two cases and set the two parameters $c\geq1$ and $\tau$.
In case 1, we obtain a solution $S$ with value $$f(S)-w(S)\geq f(S)-c\cdot w(S)\geq\tau k$$
where the first inequality is due to $w\geq0$ and $c\geq1$, and the second inequality is by our analysis above.
In case 2, we obtain a solution $S$ with value
$$f(S)-w(S)\geq\frac{c-1}{c}\left(f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k\right)$$
Thus overall we get a solution with value at least
$$\min\left\{ \tau k,\frac{c-1}{c}\left(f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k\right)\right\}$$ We set $\tau$ to balance the two terms:
$$\tau k=\frac{c-1}{c}\left(f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)-\tau k\right)\Rightarrow\tau k=\frac{c-1}{2c-1}\left(f(\opt)-c\cdot w(\opt)\right)$$
Finally, we set $c$ so that the coefficient of $w(\opt)$ becomes $1$:
$$\frac{c(c-1)}{2c-1}=1\Rightarrow c^{2}-3c+1=0$$
The above equation has two solutions: $c_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\sqrt{5}\right)$ and $c_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(3+\sqrt{5}\right)$. Since we want $c\geq1$, we pick the latter:
$$c=\frac{1}{2}\left(3+\sqrt{5}\right)$$
For this choice of $c$, the threshold $\tau$ and the objective value obtained are
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau & =\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\sqrt{5}\right)f(\opt)-w(\opt)\right)\\
f(S)-w(S) & \geq\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\sqrt{5}\right)f(\opt)-w(\opt)\end{aligned}$$
Setting the threshold as suggested by the above theorem requires knowing $\hat{g}(\opt)$, where $\hat{g}(S):=\frac{1}{2}(3-\sqrt{5})f(S)-w(S)$. To remove this assumption, we use a standard approach introduced by [@badanidiyuru2014streaming], which we now sketch. The largest singleton value $v=\max_{e}\hat{g}(\{e\})$ gives us a $k$-approximation to $\hat{g}(\opt)$. Given this approximation, we guess a $1+\epsilon$ approximation to $\hat{g}(\opt)$ by trying $O(\log k/\epsilon)$ values between $v$ and $kv$. The overall streaming algorithm runs in parallel $O(\log k/\epsilon)$ copies of the basic algorithm with different thresholds. As new elements arrive in the stream, the value $v=\max_{e}\hat{g}(\{e\})$ increases. To account for this, existing copies of the basic algorithm with small guesses are dropped and new copies with higher guesses are added. An important observation is that, when we introduce a new copy of the basic algorithm with a large guess, starting it from the middle of the stream has exactly the same outcome as starting it from the beginning of the stream: all previous elements have marginal gain much smaller than the guess and smaller than the threshold so they would have been rejected by the algorithm. We refer the reader to [@badanidiyuru2014streaming] for the full details.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science, Boston University. `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A bounded function ${\varphi}: G\to {\mathbb{C}}$ on an LCA group $G$ is called Hartman measurable if it can be extended to a Riemann integrable function ${\varphi}^*: X\to {\mathbb{C}}$ on some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$, i.e. on a compact group $X$ such that $\iota_X: G\to X$ is a continuous homomorphism with image $\iota_X(G)$ dense in $X$ and ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$. The concept of Hartman measurability of functions is a generalization of Hartman measurability of sets, which was introduced - with different nomenclature - by S. Hartman to treat number theoretic problems arising in diophantine approximation and equidistribution. We transfer certain results concerning Hartman sets to this more general setting. In particular we assign to each Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$ a filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ on $G$ and a subgroup $\Gamma({\varphi})$ of the dual $\hat{G}$ and show how these objects encode information about the involved group compactification. We present methods how this information can be recovered.
Key words: almost periodic function, Hartman measurable function, Hartman set, filter, Fourier series.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 37A45, 43A60, (11K70)
author:
- 'Gabriel Maresch[^1]'
title: |
Filters and subgroups associated\
with Hartman measurable functions
---
Introduction
============
Motivation:
-----------
In [@FP] the investigation of finitely additive measures in number theoretic context led to the concept of a Hartman measurable subset $H\subseteq G$ of a discrete abelian group $G$. By definition, $H$ is Hartman measurable if it is the preimage $H=\iota_X^{-1}(M)$ of a continuity set $M\subseteq X$ in a group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ of $G$. This, more explicitly, means that $\iota_X: G\to C$ is a group homomorphism with $\iota(G)$ dense in the compact group $X$ and that $\mu_X(\partial M)=0$. Here $\partial M$ denotes the topological boundary of $M$ and $\mu_X$ the normalized Haar measure on $X$. By putting $m_G(H)=\mu_X(M)$ one can define a finitely additive measure on the Boolean set algebra of all Hartman measurable sets in $G$. For the special case $G={\mathbb{Z}}$ a Hartman set $H\subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}$, by identification with its characteristic function, can be considered to be a two-sided infinite binary sequence, called a Hartman sequence. Certain number theoretic, ergodic and combinatorial aspects of Hartman sequences have been studied in [@SchW] and [@StW], while [@Wi] presents a method to reconstruct the group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ for given $H$.
In order to benefit from powerful tools from functional and harmonic analysis it is desirable to study appropriate generalizations of Hartman measurable sets by replacing their characteristic functions by complex valued functions not only taking the values 0 and 1. The natural definition of a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}: G \to {\mathbb{C}}$ is the requirement ${\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$, where $(\iota_X,X)$ is a group compactification of $G$ and ${\varphi}^*$ is integrable in the Riemann sense, i.e. its points of discontinuity form a null set with respect to the Haar measure on $X$. This definition is equivalent to the one of R-almost periodicity, introduced in [@H] by S. Hartman. The investigation of the space ${\mathcal{H}}(G)$ of all Hartman measurable functions on $G$ is the content of [@MW]. Here we are going to transfer ideas from [@Wi] into this context. Thus our main topic is to describe $(\iota_X,X)$ only in terms of ${\varphi}$. In particular we establish further connections to Fourier analysis. The natural framework for our investigation is that of LCA (locally compact abelian) groups.
Content of the paper
--------------------
After the introduction we collect in section 2 the necessary preliminary definitions and facts about Hartman measurable sets and functions.
Section 3 treats the following situation: Given a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}: G\to X$ on an LCA group $G$, we know by the very definition of Hartman measurability that there is some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ of $G$ such that ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$ for some Riemann integrable function ${\varphi}^*: X\to {\mathbb{C}}$. We say that ${\varphi}$ can be realized in $(\iota_X,X)$ resp. by ${\varphi}^*$. It is easy to see that in this case ${\varphi}$ can be realized as well on any “bigger” compactification $(\iota_{\tilde{X}},\tilde{X})$. The notion of “bigger” and “smaller” is made more precise in the next section.
In particular every Hartman measurable function can be realized in the maximal group compactification of $G$, the Bohr compactification $(\iota_b,bG)$. The question arises if there is a realization of ${\varphi}$ in a group compactification that is as “small” as possible. If a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$ possesses a so called aperiodic realization then the group compactification on which this aperiodic realization can be obtained is minimal (Theorem 1). This approach works for arbitrary Hartman measurable ${\varphi}$ if one allows “almost realizations”, i.e. if one demands ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$ almost everywhere with respect to the finitely additive Hartman measure $m_G$ on $G$ rather than ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$ everywhere on $G$ (Theorem \[weilthr\]). Whenever ${\varphi}$ is even almost periodic one can guarantee ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$ everywhere on $G$. The group compactification on which the minimal realization of ${\varphi}$ occurs is unique up to equivalence of group compactifications. It can be obtained by a method involving filters on $G$ similar to that presented in [@Wi].
The content of section 4 is motivated by the following reasoning: Every group compactification of the LCA group $G$ corresponds to a (discrete) subgroup $\Gamma$ of the dual $\hat{G}$ in such a way that it is equivalent to the group compactification $(\iota_{\Gamma}, C_{\Gamma})$ defined by $\iota_{\Gamma}: g\to (\chi(g))_{\chi \in \Gamma}$, $C_{\Gamma}:=
\overline{\iota_{\Gamma}(G)} \le {\mathbb{T}}^{\Gamma}$. If $(\iota_X, X)$ is a group compactification admitting an aperiodic almost realization of the Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$, the corresponding subgroup $\Gamma\le\hat{G}$ contains all characters $\chi$ such that the corresponding Fourier coefficient $m_G({\varphi}\cdot\overline{\chi})$ does not vanish. If ${\varphi}$ is almost periodic or if ${\varphi}$ can be realized on a finite dimensional compactification this result is sharp in the sense that the subgroup ${\Gamma}$ is minimal with the above property (Theorem \[mincorap\]). For general Hartman measurable functions the situation is more difficult. This is discussed and illustrated by an example.
Section 5 summarizes the main results and includes an illustrating diagram.
Preliminaries and Notation
==========================
Throughout this paper $G$ denotes always an LCA (locally compact abelian) group. For group compactifications of $G$ let us write $(\iota_{X_1}, X_1)\le (\iota_{X_2}, X_2)$ iff there is a continuous group homomorphism $\pi: X_2\to X_1$ such that the diagram
commutes. In this situation we say that $(\iota_{X_1}, X_1)$ is covered by $(\iota_{X_2}, X_2)$. If $(\iota_{X_1}, X_1)$ is covered by $(\iota_{X_2}, X_2)$ (via $\pi_1$) and $(\iota_{X_2}, X_2)$ is covered by $(\iota_{X_1}, X_1)$ (via $\pi_2$) then $(\iota_{X_1}, X_1)$ and $(\iota_{X_2}, X_2)$ are called equivalent. In this case compactness of $X_1$ and $X_2$ implies that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are both topological and algebraic isomorphisms between $X_1$ and $X_2$. $"\le"$ is a partial order on the class of group compactifications modulo equivalence. The maximal element with respect to this order is $(\iota_b,bG)$, the Bohr compactification of the topological group $G$. Recall that $AP(G)$, the set of almost periodic functions on $G$, is isometrically isomorphic to $C(bG)$, the set of continuous functions on $bG$. The mapping $\iota_b^*: C(bG)\to AP(G)$, defined via $f\mapsto f\circ\iota_b$, is an isometry. Note that this is just a different way to characterize those continuous functions on $G$, which can be extended to continuous functions on $bG$. This definition (which is best suited for our purposes) is equivalent to the notion of almost periodicity established by Bohr resp. Bochner.
For a locally compact abelian (LCA) group $G$ let us denote by $\hat{G}$ the set of all continuous homomorphisms $\chi: G \to {\mathbb{T}}\cong {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. We will occasionally identify ${\mathbb{T}}$ with the unimodular group $\{z\in {\mathbb{C}}: |z|=1\}$. This will cause no confusion.
$\hat{G}$ endowed with the compact-open topology is an LCA group in its own right. $\hat{G}$ is the Pontryagin dual of $G$. Every subset $\Gamma\subseteq \hat{G}$ induces a group compactification $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})$ of $G$ via $\iota_{\Gamma}(g):=(\chi(g))_{\chi\in \Gamma}\in
{\mathbb{T}}^{\Gamma}$ and $C_{\Gamma}:=\overline{\iota_{\Gamma}(G)} \le {\mathbb{T}}^{\Gamma}$
One can show that every group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ of an LCA group $G$ is equivalent to the group compactification induced by the subgroup $\{\iota_X\circ\eta: \eta\in\hat{X}\}\le \hat{G}$ (Theorem 26.13 in [@HR]). Thus group compactifications of LCA groups can be described by subgroups of the dual and vice versa.
The system $\Sigma(G)\subseteq \mathfrak{P}(G)$ of all Hartman measurable sets on $G$, i.e. the system of all preimages $\iota_b^{-1}(M)$ of $\mu_b$-continuity sets in the Bohr compactification $(\iota_b,bG)$ of $G$, is a Boolean set algebra and enjoys the property that there exists a unique translation invariant finitely additive probability measure $m_G$ on $\Sigma(G)$: $m_G(\iota_X^{-1}(M^*))=\mu_X(M^*)$. For details we refer to [@FP].
Let us denote by $\Delta$ the symmetric difference of sets and by $\tau_g$ the translation operator on an abelian group defined by $\tau_g (h):= g+h$. We introduce two mappings:
- for a Hartman measurable set $M$ denote by $d_M: G \to [0,1]$ the mapping $g\mapsto m_G( M \Delta \tau_g M )$,
- for a $\mu_X$-continuity set $M^*$ on some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ denote by $d_{M^*}: X \to [0,1]$ the mapping $g\mapsto \mu_X( M^* \Delta \tau_g M^* )$.
Note that the mapping $d_{M^{*}}$ (and similarly the mapping $d_{M}$) can be used to define a translation invariant pseudometric by letting $\rho_{M^{*}}(g,h):=d_{M^{*}}(g-h)$. The set of zeros $\{g: d_{M^{*}}(g)=0\}$ is always a closed subgroup. We will denote this subgroup by $\ker d_{M^{*}}$.
Now consider sets of the form $F(M,{\varepsilon}):=\{g\in G: d_M(g)<{\varepsilon}\}$ and denote by ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ the filter on $G$ generated by $\{F(M,{\varepsilon}):{\varepsilon}> 0\}$, i.e. the set of all $F\subseteq G$ such that there exists an ${\varepsilon}>0$ with $F(M,{\varepsilon})\subseteq F$. When we have a realization $M^*$ of $M$ on some group compactification $(\iota_X, X)$ we can transfer the topological data encoded in the neighborhood filter of the unit $0_X$ in $X$ to $G$ by considering the pullback induced by $\iota_X$.
To be precise: Let $(\iota_X,X)$ be a group compactification and ${\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)$ the filter of all neighborhoods of the unit $0_X$ in $X$. By ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ we denote the filter on $G$ generated by $\iota_X^{-1}\left({\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)\right)$. Note that if the mapping $\iota_X$ is one-one, $\iota_X^{-1}\left({\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)\right)$ is already a filter.
For ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the group of integers, Theorem 2 in [@Wi] states that for any Hartman set $M\subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}$ there is a group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ such that ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ and ${\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)$ coincide. Hence the filter ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ contains much information about the group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$: [*If $M\subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}$ is a Hartman measurable set and $(\iota_X, X)$ is a group compactification of the integers such that $M$ can be realized on $X$ via the continuity set $M^*$ then $H= \ker d_{M^*}$ is a closed subgroup of $X$ and ${\mathcal{F}}(M)={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\pi_H\circ \iota_X,X/H)}$, for $\pi_H: X\to X/H$ the canonical quotient mapping.*]{}
In what follows we need to generalize this result to arbitrary (LCA) groups. This poses no problem since the proof given in [@Wi] for $G={\mathbb{Z}}$ applies verbatim to an arbitrary topological group.
Recall that for a filter ${\mathcal{F}}\subseteq \mathfrak{P}(X)$ on some set $X$ and a function ${\varphi}: X\to {\mathbb{C}}$ the filter-limit ${\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{x\in X} {\varphi}(x)$ is defined to be the unique $\lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\forall {\varepsilon}> 0$ we have $\{x\in X: |{\varphi}(x)-\lambda|<{\varepsilon}\}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. In [@Wi] the filter ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{F}}(M)$ is also used to define the subgroup Sub$(M)$ of ${\mathbb{T}}$ consisting of all those elements $\alpha$ such that ${\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \lfloor n\alpha\rfloor=0$ (or equivalently: ${\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}} e^{2\pi i n\alpha}=1$).
All three objects - filter, compactification and subgroup - carry the same information regarding a fixed Hartman set $M$. It is interesting to note that any subgroup of a compact abelian group $G$ can be written as $\{g\in G: {\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{\chi\in\hat{G}} \chi(g)=1\}$ for some filter ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $\hat{G}$ (cf. [@BS]).
We transfer these concepts into our more general context. To that cause we need the following definitions. Recall that a bounded function $f$ on a group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ is called Riemann integrable iff the set $\mbox{disc}(f)$ of points of discontinuity is a $\mu_X$-null set, for $\mu_X$ the normalized Haar measure on $X$. Let us denote the set of all such functions by $R_{\mu_X}(X)$ or, simply, $R(X)$. We use the following characterization, a proof of which can be found in [@Ta].
\[riemannchar\] Let $X$ be a compact space and $\mu_X$ a finite positive Borel measure on $X$. For a bounded real-valued $\mu_X$-measurable function $f$ the following assertions are equivalent:
1. $f$ is Riemann integrable.
2. For every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exist continuous functions $g_{{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ such that $g_{{\varepsilon}}\le f \le h_{{\varepsilon}}$ and $\int_X (h_{{\varepsilon}}-g_{{\varepsilon}}) d\mu_X< {\varepsilon}$.
Let ${\varphi}$ be a function defined on a topological group $G$ and $(\iota_b,bG)$ the Bohr compactification of $G$. We call a function ${{\varphi}}_b$ defined on $bG$ an extension (or realization) of ${\varphi}$ iff ${\varphi}={{\varphi}}_b\circ\iota_b$. For example: The set of almost periodic functions on $G$ coincides with the set of those functions that can be extended to continuous functions on the Bohr compactification.
Let $(\iota_b,bG)$ be the Bohr compactification of the topological group $G$. We call a bounded function ${\varphi}$ on $G$ Hartman measurable iff ${\varphi}$ can be extended to a Riemann integrable function ${\varphi}_b$ on $bG$. The set of Hartman measurable functions $\{{\varphi}^*\circ\iota_b: {\varphi}^*\ \in R_{\mu_b}(bG)\}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{H}}(G)$.
Given a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$, we say that *${\varphi}^*$ realizes ${\varphi}$* if ${\varphi}^*$ is a Riemann integrable function defined on some group compactification $(\iota_X, X)$ such that ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$, cf. the diagram below:
In this situation we also say that ${\varphi}$ can be realized on $(\iota_X, X)$. Most of this paper is devoted to the task of finding a minimal group compactification on which a given ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ can be realized. Note that ${\varphi}^* \in R(X)$ implies ${\varphi}_b={\varphi}^*\circ\pi \in R(bG)$ (cf. [@MW]).
Filters associated with Hartman measurable functions
====================================================
By definition every ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}(G)$ has a realization on $bG$ by a Riemann integrable function ${\varphi}^*\in R_{\mu_b}(bG)$. The mapping $$d_{{\varphi}^*}: x\mapsto \|{\varphi}^* -\tau_x {\varphi}^*\|_1:=\int_{bG} |{\varphi}^* -\tau_x {\varphi}^*|d\mu$$ is continuous (cf. [@El], Corollary 2.32). This implies that $d_{\varphi}:=d_{{\varphi}^*} \circ \iota_b$ is an almost periodic function on $G$.
The finitely additive invariant measure $m_G$ can be extended to an invariant mean on ${\mathcal{H}}(G)$, i.e. to an invariant and non-negative normalized linear functional on ${\mathcal{H}}(G)$. It will cause no confusion if we denote this invariant mean again by $m_G$ (cf. [@MW]). Thus we can also write $d_{{\varphi}}(g)= m_G(|{\varphi}-\tau_g{\varphi}|)$. It is then obvious to define $F({\varphi},{\varepsilon}):=\{g\in G: d_{{\varphi}}(\tau_g {\varphi})<{\varepsilon}\}$ and denote by ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ the filter on $G$ generated by $\{F({\varphi},{\varepsilon}):{\varepsilon}> 0\}$.
In the LCA setting, we can apply the tools developed in [@Wi] to conclude a functional analogue of Theorem 2 in [@Wi].
Let ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}(G)$ be realized by ${\varphi}^*$ on the group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. ${\varphi}^*$ is called an aperiodic realization iff $\ker d_{{\varphi}^*}:=\{x\in X: \|{\varphi}^*-\tau_x {\varphi}^*\|_1=0\}= \{0_X\}$.
\[ganzleicht\] Let ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}(G)$ be realized by ${\varphi}^*$ on the group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. Then ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})\subseteq {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$. Furthermore ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ if ${\varphi}^*$ is an aperiodic realization.
Suppose ${\varphi}={\varphi}^*\circ\iota_X$ with ${\varphi}^*\in R_{\mu_X}(X)$ for a group compactification $(\iota_X, X)$. For any set $A\in {\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that $d_{{\varphi}}(x)<{\varepsilon}$ implies $x\in A$. Using almost periodicity of $d_{{\varphi}}$, i.e. continuity of $d_{{\varphi}^*}$, we find a neighborhood $U\in {\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)$ such that $d_{{\varphi}^*}(U)\subseteq [0,{\varepsilon})$. For every $x\in\iota_X^{-1}(U)$ we have $d_{{\varphi}}(x)<{\varepsilon}$. Consequently $\iota_X^{-1}(U)\subseteq A \in {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ and hence ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})\subseteq {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$.
Suppose that ${\varphi}^*\in R_{\mu_X}(X)$ is aperiodic, i.e. $d_{{\varphi}^*}(x)=0$ iff $x=0_X$, the unit in $X$. Let $A \in {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ be arbitrary; w.l.o.g. we can assume $A\supseteq \iota_X^{-1}(U)$ for an open neighborhood $U\in {\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)$. Due to the continuity of $d_{{\varphi}^*}$ and compactness of $X$ we have $d_{{\varphi}^*}(x)\ge{\varepsilon}>0$ for $x\in X\setminus U^{\circ}$. This implies $\iota_X (\{g\in G: d_{{\varphi}}(g)<{\varepsilon}\}) \subseteq U$ and hence $\{g\in G: d_{{\varphi}}(g)<{\varepsilon}\}\subseteq\iota_X^{-1}(U)
\subseteq A \in {\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$. Thus ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ and consequently ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}= {\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$.
Let ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}(G)$ and let $(\iota_X, X)$ be a group compactification of $G$. A function $\psi^*\in R_{\mu_X}(X)$ is called an almost realization of ${\varphi}$ iff $m_G(|{\varphi}-\psi|)=0$ for $\psi:=\psi^*\circ\iota_X$ and $m_G$ the unique invariant mean on ${\mathcal{H}}(G)$.
\[weilthr\] Every ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ has an aperiodic almost realization on some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. If ${\varphi}^*: X\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is any aperiodic almost realization of ${\varphi}$ then ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$.
We only have to prove that an aperiodic almost realization exists, the rest follows from Theorem \[ganzleicht\]. Let ${\varphi}^*$ be a realization of ${\varphi}$ on $X$. The reader will easily check that $H:=\ker d_{{\varphi}^*}=\{x\in X: d_{{\varphi}^*}(x) = 0\}$ is a closed subgroup of the compact abelian group $X$.
Weil’s formula for continuous functions on quotients (Theorem 3.22 in [@El]) states that there exists $\alpha>0$ such that for every $f\in C(X)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Weil}
\int_{X/H}\Big(\underbrace{\int_H f(s+t) d\mu_H(t)}_{={{}^{\flat}\!}f(s)}\Big) d\mu_{X/H}(s)&=&\alpha \int_X f(u)d\mu_X(u)\end{aligned}$$ holds. This implies that the canonical mapping ${{}^{\flat}\!}: C(X)\to C(X/H)$, $f\to {{}^{\flat}\!}f$ defined by ${{}^{\flat}\!}f(s+H)=\int_H f(s+t)d\mu_H(t)$ satisfies $\|{{}^{\flat}\!}f\|_1\le \alpha \|f\|_1$. We rescale the Haar measure on $H$ such that $\alpha=1$. Thus we can extend ${{}^{\flat}\!}$ to a continuous linear operator $L^1(X)\to L^1(X/H)$. Furthermore positivity of ${{}^{\flat}\!}$ enables us to extend ${{}^{\flat}\!}$ to a mapping defined on $R_{\mu_X}(X)$ in the following way:
According to Proposition \[riemannchar\] $f \in R_{\mu_X}(X)$ implies that there are $g_n,h_n \in C(X)$ such that $g_n\le f \le h_n$ and $\|h_n-g_n\|_1\to 0 $ as $n\to \infty$. Thus every function $\tilde{f}$ on $X/H$ satisfying $$f_{\bullet}:=\sup_{n\ge 0} {{}^{\flat}\!}g_n \le \tilde{f} \le \inf_{n\ge 0} {{}^{\flat}\!}h_n=:f^{\bullet}$$ is in $R_{\mu_{X/H}}(X/H)$. Note that $f_{\bullet}$ and $f^{\bullet}$ are $\mu_H$-measurable and coincide $\mu_H$-a.e.; to define ${{}^{\flat}\!}f$ we pick any function $\tilde{ f}$ satisfying $f_{\bullet}\le \tilde{f}\le f^{\bullet}$. Then Weil’s formula (\[Weil\]) will still be valid, regardless of the particular choice of the $g_n,h_n$ and ${{}^{\flat}\!}f$.
Since ${\varphi}^*$ is Riemann integrable on $X$, there exist functions ${\varphi}_n\in C(X)$ such that $\|{\varphi}^*-{\varphi}_n\|_1\to 0$. Note that $d_{{\varphi}_n}\to d_{{\varphi}^*}$ even uniformly on $X$: $$|d_{{\varphi}_n}(s)-d_{{\varphi}^*}(s)| = \Big| \|\tau_s {\varphi}_n - {\varphi}_n\|_1 - \|\tau_s {\varphi}^* - {\varphi}^*\|_1\Big|
\le 2 \| {\varphi}_n -{\varphi}^*\|_1 \to 0.$$ Using the continuity of ${{}^{\flat}\!}$ as a mapping on $L^1(X)$ the same argument also shows that $|d_{{{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*}(s+H)-d_{{{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}_n}(s+H)|\le 2 \|{\varphi}_n-{\varphi}^*\|_1\to 0$ uniformly on $X/H$. Suppose $d_{{{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}}^*(s+H)=0$. Then $$d_{{\varphi}^*}(s)=\lim_{n\to \infty}d_{{\varphi}_n}(s)=\lim_{n\to \infty}d_{{{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}_n}(s+H)=0$$ implies $s\in H$, i.e. $s+H=0_X+H \in X/H$. So ${{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*$ is aperiodic.
We show that ${\varphi}^*$ being a realization of ${\varphi}$ implies that ${{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*$ is an almost realization of ${\varphi}$. By definition $t\in H$ iff $A_t:=\{ s \in X: {\varphi}^*(s+t)={\varphi}^*(s)\}$ has $\mu_{X}$-measure $1$. Applying Weil’s formula (\[Weil\]) to the function $f={\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_{A_t}\in L^1(X)$ gives $$\label{vorher}
\int_{X/H}{{}^{\flat}\!}f d\mu_{X/H}=\int_{X/H}{{}^{\flat}\!}{\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_{A_t}(s+H) d\mu_{X/H}(s+H)=\int_X fd\mu_X =1.$$ Plugging the definition of $\;{{}^{\flat}\!}\;$ into (\[vorher\]) we get $\mu_{X/H}$-a.e. the identity $${{}^{\flat}\!}{\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_{A_t}(s+H)= \int_H {\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_{A_t}(s+u)d\mu_H(u)=1.$$ So for every $t\in H$ and $\mu_{X/H}$-a.e. $s+H$ we know that the set $\{u\in H: {\varphi}^*(s+t+u)\neq{\varphi}^*(s+u)\}$ is a $\mu_H$-null set. This means $$\tau_{t}(\tau_s{{\varphi}^*}_{|H})=\tau_s{{\varphi}^*}_{|H}\quad \mu_H\mbox{-a.e.}$$
Thus $\tau_s{\varphi}^*$ is constant $\mu_H$-a.e. on $H$ and for $\mu_{X/H}$ almost all $s+H$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^* (s+H)&=&\int_H \tau_s{\varphi}^*(t) d\mu_H(t)=\int_H {\varphi}(s)^* d\mu_H(t)={\varphi}^*(s).\end{aligned}$$
Let $\pi_H: X\to X/H$ be the quotient mapping onto the group compactification $(\iota_{X/H},X/H)$. Let $\psi^*:= {{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*\circ \pi_H $. Since ${{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*$ is Riemann integrable on $X/H$ it is an elementary fact that $\psi^*$ is Riemann integrable on $X$ (cf. [@MW]). Once again, Weil’s formula (\[Weil\]) together with the fact that the Haar measure on the quotient $X/H$ is given by $\mu_{X/H}=\pi_H^{-1}(\mu_{X})$ implies $\psi^*= {\varphi}^*$ $\mu_{X}$-a.e. Thus the function $\psi$ defined by $$\psi:=\psi^*\circ \iota_X = {{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*\circ\iota_{X/H}$$ satisfies $m_G(|{\varphi}-\psi|)=\|{\varphi}^*-\psi^*\|_1=0$ for the unique invariant mean $m_G$. Thus $\psi^*$ is the required almost realization of ${\varphi}$.
\[apreal\] Every ${\varphi}\in{AP}(G)$ has an aperiodic realization on some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$.
We use the notation from Theorem \[weilthr\]. If ${\varphi}$ is almost periodic then ${\varphi}^*$ is continuous. Consequently ${{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*$ and $\psi^*:={{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^*\circ\pi$ are also continuous. Since these functions coincide $\mu_X$-a.e. they coincide everywhere on $X$. This implies that ${\varphi}^*$ is constant on $H$-cosets and ${{}^{\flat}\!}{\varphi}^* (s+H)={\varphi}^*(s)$ for all $s+H \in X/H$. So ${\varphi}^*$ is truly a realization of ${\varphi}$, not only an almost realization.
This Corollary is a special case of Følner’s “Main Theorem for Almost Periodic Functions”, for a detailed treatment cf. [@Fo].
*Remark:* Note that for any given realization of a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ on a group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ we can always assume that there exists an aperiodic almost realization of ${\varphi}$ on a group compactification $(\tilde{\iota_X},\tilde{X})$ with $(\tilde{\iota_X},\tilde{X})\le (\iota_X,X)$. Since in [@MW] it is shown that every Hartman measurable function on an LCA group with separable dual has a realization on a metrizable group compactification, every Hartman measurable function on such a group has an aperiodic almost realization on a metrizable group compactification.
\[compsub\] Let $G$ be an LCA group and let $(\iota_X,X)$ be a group compactification. Then there exists a unique subgroup $\Gamma\le \hat{G}$ such that $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})$ and $(\iota_X,X)$ are equivalent. Furthermore $(\iota_X,X)$ is the supremum of all group compactifications $(\iota_{\gamma},C_{\gamma})$ such that $(\iota_{\gamma},C_{\gamma})\le (\iota_X,X)$ (writing in short $(\iota_{\gamma},C_{\gamma})$ for $(\iota_{\langle\gamma\rangle},C_{\langle\gamma\rangle})$).
The mapping $(\iota_X,X)\mapsto C_{\Gamma}$ is a bijection between equivalence classes of group compactifications of $G$ and subgroups of $\hat{G}$.
See Theorem 26.13 in [@HR].
\[unique\] Let ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$. Any two group compactifications $(\iota_{X_1},X_1)$ and $(\iota_{X_2},X_2)$ on which ${\varphi}$ has an aperiodic almost realization are equivalent.
By Theorem \[ganzleicht\] we have ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{X_1},X_1)}={\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})
={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{X_2},X_2)}$. A straight forward generalization of Theorem 1 in [@Wi] implies that the mapping $$\Phi: \hat{G}\ge \Gamma \mapsto (\iota_{{\Gamma}},C_{\Gamma})$$ coincides with the composition of the mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma: (\iota_b,bG)\ge(\iota_X,X) &\mapsto& {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)},\\
\Psi: \mathfrak{P}(G)\supset {\mathcal{F}}&\mapsto&
\{\chi \in \hat{G}: {\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{g\in G}\chi(g) = 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since Lemma \[compsub\] states that $\Phi=\Psi\circ\Sigma$ is invertible, $\Sigma$ must be one-one. In particular ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{X_1},X_1)}={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{X_2},X_2)}$ implies that $(\iota_{X_1},X_1)$ and $(\iota_{X_2},X_2)$ are equivalent group compactifications.
[*For the rest of this section assume that $G$ is an LCA group with separable dual.*]{}
Every filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ with ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ coincides with a filter ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ for a metrizable group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. If ${\varphi}^*$ is an arbitrary realization of ${\varphi}$, say on the Bohr compactification $bG$, we can take $X\cong bG/\ker d_{{\varphi}^*}$.
Hartman measurable functions induce exactly the filters coming from metrizable group compactifications.
In Theorem 3 in [@Wi] for every metrizable group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ of the integers $G={\mathbb{Z}}$, an aperiodic Hartman periodic function of the form $f={\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_A$ is constructed. The same construction can be done in an arbitrary LCA group $G$ as long as the dual $\hat{G}$ contains a countable and dense subset. This shows that any ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ with metrizable $X$ can be obtained already by Hartman measurable *sets*, i.e. by a filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ with ${\varphi}={\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_A$. Since any Hartman measurable function on $G$ can be realized on a metrizable group compactification (cf. [@MW]). Thus Theorem \[ganzleicht\] implies that no filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ can coincide with ${\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_X,X)}$ for a non metrizable group compactification $(\iota,C)$.
Subgroups associated with Hartman measurable functions
======================================================
For Hartman measurable ${\varphi}$ let us denote by $\Gamma({\varphi})$ the (countable) subgroup of $\hat{G}$ generated by the set $$\mbox{spec}\;{\varphi}:=\{\chi\ \in \hat{G}: m_G({\varphi}\cdot\overline{\chi})\neq 0\}$$ of all characters with non vanishing Fourier coefficients. We will prove that $\Gamma=\Gamma({\varphi})$ determines a group compactification $(\iota_{\Gamma}, C_{\Gamma})$ such that ${\varphi}$ can be realized aperiodically on $C_{\Gamma}$. First we deal with almost periodic functions:
\[fact1\] Let ${\varphi}\in{AP}(G)$ and $(\iota_X, X)$ a group compactification such that every character $\chi\in \Gamma({\varphi})$ has a representation $\chi = \eta \circ \iota_X$ with a continuous character $\eta \in \hat{X}$. Then every function $f\in \overline{\mbox{span}}\,\Gamma({\varphi})\subseteq AP(G)$ has a realization on $(\iota_X, X)$.
This is essentially a reformulation of Theorem 5.7 in [@B]. In fact the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem implies that $\overline{\mbox{span}}\,\Gamma({\varphi})= \iota_{\Gamma}^*\;C(X)$. Furthermore ${\varphi}\in\overline{\mbox{span}}\,{\Gamma}({\varphi})$, i.e. ${\varphi}$ can be realized by some continuous ${\varphi}^*: X \to {\mathbb{C}}$.
\[characterreal1\] Let ${\varphi}\in{AP}(G)$ and $(\iota_{\Gamma}, C_{\Gamma})$ the group compactification of $G$ induced by the subgroup $\Gamma=\Gamma({\varphi})\le \hat{G}$. Then for every continuous character $\psi\in \Gamma({\varphi})$ there exists a continuous $\psi^*: C_{\Gamma} \to {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\psi=\psi^*\circ\iota_{\Gamma}$.
Given the group compactification $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})$, then the compact group $C_{\Gamma}$ is by definition topologically isomorphic to $\overline{\{(\chi(g))_{\chi\in \Gamma}: g\in G\}} \le
{\mathbb{T}}^{\Gamma}$.
The restriction of each projection $$\pi_{\chi_0}: C_{\Gamma}\le{\mathbb{T}}^{\Gamma} \to {\mathbb{T}},\quad
(x_{\chi})_{\chi \in \Gamma}\mapsto x_{\chi_0}$$ is a bounded character of $C_{\Gamma}$ for each $\chi_0 \in \Gamma({\varphi})$. I.e. $\pi_{\chi_0}$ is an element of $\widehat{C_{\Gamma}}$. Thus $\chi_0= \pi_{\chi_0} \circ \iota_{\Gamma}$ for each $\chi_0\in \Gamma({\varphi})$ and we may apply Proposition \[fact1\] to obtain the assertion.
\[characterreal2\] Let ${\varphi}\in {AP}(G)$ and let $(\iota_X,X)$ be a group compactification of $G$ such that ${\varphi}$ can be realized by a continuous function ${\varphi}^*: X \to {\mathbb{C}}$. Then each continuous character $\chi\in \Gamma({\varphi})$ has a representation $\chi = \eta \circ \iota_{\Gamma}$ with $\eta \in \hat{X}$.
Obviously it is enough to prove the assertion for a generating subset of $\Gamma({\varphi})$. Let $\chi\in \hat{G}$ be such that $m_G({\varphi}\cdot\overline{\chi})\neq 0$. Define a linear functional $m_{\chi}: C(X) \to {\mathbb{C}}$ via $\psi\mapsto m_{\chi}(\psi)=m_G(( \psi\circ\iota_{\Gamma}) \cdot \overline{\chi})$. It is routine to check that $m_{\chi}$ is bounded and $\|m_{\chi}\|=1$. Since $X$ is compact the complex-valued mapping $\tilde{\eta}:
X \mapsto m_{\chi}(\tau_x {\varphi}^*)$ is continuous on $X$ (the mapping $x\mapsto \tau_x {\varphi}^*$ is continuous). For $g\in G$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\eta} \circ \iota_X (g) &=& m_G((\tau_{\iota_X(g)} {\varphi}^*\circ \iota_X) \cdot\overline{\chi})
= m_G(\tau_g ({\varphi}^*\circ \iota_X)\cdot\overline{\chi})\\
&=& m_G( ({\varphi}^*\circ \iota_X)\cdot \tau_{-g}\overline{\chi})
= m_G( ({\varphi}^*\circ \iota_X) \cdot\chi(g)\overline{\chi})\\
&=&\chi(g) m_{\chi}({\varphi}^*)= \chi(g) \tilde{\eta} (0).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde{\eta}(0)=m_{\chi}({\varphi}^*)=m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})\neq 0$ we can define $\eta := \tilde{\eta}(0)^{-1}\tilde{\eta}$. The mapping $\eta: X \to {\mathbb{T}}$ is continuous and satisfies the functional equation $$\eta(\iota_X(g)+\iota_X(h))=
\tilde{\eta}(0)^{-1}\tilde{\eta}(\iota_X(g)+\iota_X(h))=
\chi(g)\chi(h)=\eta(\iota_X(g))\eta(\iota_X(h))$$ on the dense set $\iota_X(G)$. Hence $\eta$ is a bounded character on $X$ and $\eta\circ\iota_X = \chi$.
\[characterreal2a\] Let ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}(G)$ be realized by ${\varphi}^*$ on the group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. Then each $\chi\in \Gamma({\varphi})$ has a representation $\chi = \eta \circ \iota_X$ with $\eta \in \hat{X}$.
For every $\chi\in\hat{G}$ with $m_G({\varphi}\cdot\overline{\chi})=\alpha\neq 0$ we can pick a continuous function $\psi^*:X\to {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\|\psi^*-{\varphi}\|_1 < |\alpha|/2$. Then $\psi:=\psi^*\circ\iota_X$ satisfies $$|m_G({\varphi}\cdot\overline{\chi})-m_G(\psi\cdot\overline{\chi})|\le m_G(|{\varphi}-\psi|)\le
\|\psi^*-{\varphi}^*\|_1 < |\alpha|/2.$$ In particular $m_G(\psi\cdot\overline{\chi})\neq 0$. Applying Proposition \[characterreal2\] to the function $\psi\in{AP}(G)$ yields that the character $\chi$ can be realized on $X$.
Thus for almost periodic functions ${\varphi}$ the subgroup $\Gamma({\varphi})$ contains all the relevant information to reconstruct ${\varphi}$ from its Fourier-data in a minimal way. It is not obvious how to obtain similar results for Hartman measurable functions that are not almost periodic. The following example illustrates how a straight forward approach may fail.
[*Let ${\varphi}_n(k):=\prod_{j=1}^n \cos^2\left(2\pi \frac{k}{3^j}\right)$ on $G={\mathbb{Z}}$. Each ${\varphi}_n$ is a finite product of periodic (and hence almost periodic) functions. Since ${AP}({\mathbb{Z}})$ is an algebra, ${\varphi}$ is almost periodic. In [@MW] it is shown that ${\varphi}(k):=\lim_{n\to \infty} {\varphi}_n(k)$ exists and defines a non negative Hartman measurable function with $m_{{\mathbb{Z}}}({\varphi})=0$. Since $\Gamma({\varphi}_n)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}/3^n {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have (using obvious notation): $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Gamma({\varphi}_n)=
\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} \Gamma({\varphi}_n)\cong
{\mathbb{Z}}_3^{\infty},$$ the Prüfer 3-group (i.e. the subgroup of all complex $3^n$-th roots of unity for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$), but $$\Gamma(\lim_{n\to\infty} {\varphi}_n)=\{0\}.$$*]{}
\[fejer\] Let $\{K_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ denote the family of Fejér kernels on ${\mathbb{T}}^k$ $$K_n(\exp(it_1),\ldots, \exp(it_k))=\frac{1}{k}
\prod_{j=1}^{k} \left(\frac{\sin( \frac{1}{2}nt_j)}{\sin( \frac{1}{2}t_j)}\right)^2.$$ The linear convolution operators on $L^1({\mathbb{T}}^k)$ defined by $$\sigma_n: {\varphi}\mapsto K_n*{\varphi}$$ are non negative, their norm is uniformly bounded by $\|\sigma_n\|=1$ and $\sigma_n {\varphi}(x) \to {\varphi}(x)$ a.e. for every ${\varphi}\in L^1({\mathbb{T}}^k)$. Furthermore $\sigma_n {\varphi}\in \mbox{span } \Gamma({\varphi})$ for every $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
This is a reformulation of the results in section 44.51 in [@HR].
Let $f$ be Riemann integrable on $X={\mathbb{T}}^k$, w.l.o.g. real-valued, and ${\varphi}_{i}, \psi_i\in C(X)$ such that ${\varphi}_{i}\ge f\ge \psi_i$ and $\|{\varphi}_{i}-\psi_i\|_1<{\varepsilon}_i$ for a sequence $\{{\varepsilon}_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of positive real numbers, tending monotonically to $0$. We know that $\sigma_n f(x)\to f(x)$ for a.e. $x\in X$. Thus we have $$\label{rapf}
{\varphi}_n^*:=\sigma_n {\varphi}_n \ge \sigma_n f \ge \sigma_n \psi_n=\psi_n^*$$ and $$\|{\varphi}_n^*-\psi_n^*\|_1\le \|\sigma_n ({\varphi}_n^*-\psi_n^*)\|_1
\le \|\sigma_n\|\, \|{\varphi}_n-\psi_n\|_1 \le {\varepsilon}_n.$$ Let ${\varphi}^*:=\inf_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}{\varphi}_n$ and $\psi^*:=\sup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\psi_n$. If we assume w.l.o.g. $\psi_n$ to increase and ${\varphi}_n$ to decrease as $n\to\infty$, the same will hold for $\psi_n^*$ and ${\varphi}_n^*$. This implies that in the inequality $${\varphi}^*(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty} {\varphi}_n^*(x) \ge \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sigma_n f
\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty} \sigma_n f \ge
\lim_{n\to\infty}\psi_n^*(x)=\psi^*(x)$$ actually equality holds $\mu_X$-a.e. on $X$. Thus we can apply Proposition \[riemannchar\] and conclude that any function $f^*$ with ${\varphi}^*\ge f^*\ge\psi^*$ is Riemann integrable (and coincides $\mu_X$-a.e. with $f$). In particular $f^{\bullet}:=\limsup_{n\to \infty} \sigma_n f$ and $f_{\bullet}:=\liminf_{n\to \infty} \sigma_n f$ are (lower resp. upper semicontinuous) Riemann integrable functions that coincide $\mu_X$-a.e. with $f$.
Let us call a group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ finite dimensional iff $X$ is topologically isomorphic to a closed subgroup of ${\mathbb{T}}^n$ for some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Note that if $(\iota_X,X)$ is finite dimensional, then every group compactification covered by $(\iota_X,X)$ is finite dimensional as well. A Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ can be realized finite dimensionally iff there exists a realization of ${\varphi}$ on some finite dimensional group compactification.
For a compact LCA group $C$ the following assertions are equivalent:
1. $C$ is finite dimensional,
2. $\hat{C}$ is finitely generated,
3. $C$ is topological isomorphic to ${\mathbb{T}}^k\times F$ for $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a finite group $F$ of the form $$F=\prod_{i=1}^N ({\mathbb{Z}}/n_i{\mathbb{Z}})^{p_i},\quad p_i \mbox{ prime}.$$
Folklore.
Let ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$. If ${\varphi}$ can be realized finite dimensionally, then there is an almost realization of ${\varphi}$ on the (finite dimensional) compactification induced by $\Gamma:=\Gamma({\varphi})$.
Let ${\varphi}$ be realized finite dimensionally on some group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$. Since there exists a group compactification covered by $(\iota_X,X)$, on which ${\varphi}$ can be almost realized aperiodically (cf. Theorem \[weilthr\]), we can assume w.l.o.g. that ${\varphi}$ can be almost realized aperiodically already on $(\iota_X,X)$. We have to show that $(\iota_X,X)$ and $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})$ are equivalent.
Let $\psi^*$ be an aperiodic realization of ${\varphi}$ on $C_{\Gamma}\cong {\mathbb{T}}^k\times F$ with $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $F$ finite. Let us denote the elements of ${\mathbb{T}}^k\times F$ by tuples $(\vec{\alpha},x)$. For every fixed $\vec{\alpha}\in {\mathbb{T}}^k$ define a mapping $\psi_{\vec{\alpha}}: F\to {\mathbb{R}}$ via $$\psi^*_{\vec{\alpha}}(x):=\psi^*(\vec{\alpha},x).$$ For each $\overline{\chi} \in \hat{F}$, the dual of the finite group $F$, define the $F$-Fourier coefficient of $\psi^*_{\vec{\alpha}}$ as $$c_{\overline{\chi}}(\vec{\alpha}):= \int_F \psi^*_{\vec{\alpha}}(x)\overline{\chi}(x) dx= \frac{1}{\# F}
\sum_{x\in F} \psi^* (\vec{\alpha};x) \overline{\chi}(x)\in{\mathbb{C}}.$$ We want to show that $c_{\overline{\chi}}: {\mathbb{T}}^k\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is a Riemann integrable function: The mapping $\gamma_x: {\mathbb{T}}^k\to X$ defined via $\vec{\alpha}\mapsto(\vec{\alpha};x)$ is continuous and measure-preserving for every $x\in F$. $\psi^*$ is by definition Riemann integrable. Thus the mapping $\psi^*\circ\gamma_x: {\mathbb{T}}^k\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is Riemann integrable for each $x\in F$. Note that $$c_{\overline{\chi}}(\vec{\alpha})=
\sum_{x\in F} (\psi^*\circ\gamma_x) (\vec{\alpha}) \overline{\chi}(x).$$ Hence, for each fixed character $\chi \in \hat{F}$, the mapping $c_{\overline{\chi}}: {\mathbb{T}}^k \to {\mathbb{C}}$ defined via $\vec{\alpha}\mapsto \sum_{x\in F} (\psi^*\circ\gamma_x) (\vec{\alpha}) \overline{\chi}(x)$ is Riemann integrable on ${\mathbb{T}}^k$.
Thus Proposition \[fejer\] implies $\sigma_n c_{\chi}(\vec{\alpha})\to c_{\chi}(\vec{\alpha}) $ a.e. on ${\mathbb{T}}^k$. Taking into account that the Haar measure on $F$ is the normalized counting measure, we get $$\label{syn} \psi^*_n(\vec{\alpha};x):=
\sum_{\overline{\chi}\in \hat{F}} \left(\sigma_n c_{\overline{\chi}}(\vec{\alpha})\right)
\overline{\chi}(x) \to \sum_{\overline{\chi}\in \hat{F}} c_{\overline{\chi}}(\vec{\alpha})\overline{\chi}(x) =
\psi^*_{\vec{\alpha}}(x)= \psi^*(\vec{\alpha};x)$$ for almost every $\vec{\alpha}\in {\mathbb{T}}^k$ and every $x\in F$, as $n\to \infty$. Since Haar measure $\mu_C$ on $C$ is the product measure of the Haar measures on the groups ${\mathbb{T}}^k$ and $F$, the relation (\[syn\]) holds $\mu_C$-a.e. on $C$. We conclude that any function majorizing $\liminf_{n\to \infty} \psi^*_n$ and minorizing $\limsup_{n\to \infty} \psi^*_n$ is an almost realization of ${\varphi}$. Note that according to the properties of the Fejér kernels on ${\mathbb{T}}^k$ (see 44.51 in [@HR]) for each character $(\eta\times\chi) (\vec{\alpha};x):=\eta(\vec{\alpha})\chi(x)$, $\eta\in \hat{{\mathbb{T}}^k}$ and $\chi\in\hat{F}$, there exists an $n_0\in N$ such that for $n\ge n_0$ in the Fourier expansion of $\psi^*_n$ the Fourier coefficient (computed in $C$) associated with the character does not vanish iff the ${\mathbb{T}}^k$-Fourier coefficient of $c_{\chi}$ $$c_{\eta}(c_{\chi})=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^k} c_{\chi }(\vec{\alpha})\overline{\eta}(\vec{\alpha})d\vec{\alpha}$$ does not vanish. A simple computation shows that the Fourier coefficients of $\psi^*$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\eta \times \chi}(\psi^*)&=&
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^k}\int_F \psi^*(\vec{\alpha},x)\overline{\eta}(\vec{\alpha})\overline{\chi}(x) d\vec{\alpha} dx \\
&=& \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^k} c_{\chi}(\vec{\alpha}) \overline{\eta}(\vec{\alpha}) d\vec{\alpha}
= c_{\eta}(c_{\chi}) \end{aligned}$$
So the character $\eta\times\chi$ contributes to the Fourier expansion of $\psi^*$ if and only if $c_{\eta \times \chi}(\psi)\neq 0$. Thus $\psi^*_n\in \mbox{span } \Gamma({\varphi})$ for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, implying that there exist almost realizations of ${\varphi}$ on the group compactification induced by $\Gamma({\varphi})$, e.g. $\liminf_{n\to \infty} \psi^*_n$ or $\limsup_{n\to \infty} \psi^*_n$.
Combining this result with the results of the previous section we obtain
\[mincorap\] Let ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ and $\Gamma=\Gamma({\varphi})\le \hat{G}$. The following assertions hold:
1. $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})\le (\iota_X,X)$ for every compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ on which ${\varphi}$ can be realized. In particular ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})\subseteq {\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})}$.
2. Assume that ${\varphi}\in {AP}(G)$ or that ${\varphi}$ can be realized finite dimensionally. Then ${\varphi}$ can be realized aperiodically on $C_{\Gamma}$. In particular ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})={\mathfrak{U}}_{(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})}$.
We strongly conjecture that the second assertion in Theorem \[mincorap\] holds for *any* Hartman measurable function, at least on LCA groups $G$ with separable dual $\hat{G}$. A proof of this might utilize more general summation methods (in the flavour of Theorems 44.43 and 44.47 in [@HR]) than the Fejér summation presented here.
In [@Wi] it is shown that for any Hartman measurable set $M\subseteq G={\mathbb{Z}}$ and the induced filter ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{F}}(M)$ there is an aperiodic realization of ${\varphi}_M={\mbox{1\hspace{-.9mm}\mbox{I}}}_M$ on the compactification determined by the subgroup Sub$(M)=\{\alpha: {\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \lfloor n\alpha\rfloor=0\}$ or, equivalently, Sub$(M)=\{\alpha: {\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}} e^{2\pi i n\alpha}=1\}$.
Together with Theorem \[mincorap\] this implies that for Hartman sets $M$ with finite dimensional realization both the group compactifications of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ induced by the subgroups $\Gamma({\varphi}_M)$ and Sub$(M)$ admit aperiodic realizations of ${\varphi}_M$. Hence uniqueness of the minimal compactification with aperiodic realization (Corollary \[unique\]) implies that in this special case $\Gamma({\varphi}_M)=\mbox{Sub}(M)$. In the general situation we can prove up to now far only the following
For a Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}(G)$ let ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$, $\Gamma=\Gamma({\varphi})$ and $\mbox{Sub}({\varphi})=\{\chi\in \hat{G}:
{\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{g\in G} \chi(g) = 1_{{\mathbb{C}}}\}$. Then $\Gamma({\varphi})\le \mbox{Sub}({\varphi})$.
Suppose $\chi \in \Gamma({\varphi})$. To prove ${\mathcal{F}}\!\!-\!\!\lim_{g\in G} \chi(g) = 1_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ (unit element of the multiplicative group of complex numbers) we have to show that for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ the set $\{g\in G: |1-\chi(g)|<{\varepsilon}\}$ belongs to the filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$, i.e. that there exists $\delta=\delta({\varepsilon})>0$ such that $$\label{filterlimes}
\{g\in G: m_G(|\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi}|)<\delta\}\subseteq \{g\in G: |1-\chi(g)|<{\varepsilon}\}\in{\mathcal{F}}({\varphi}).$$
Using the fact that $m_G$ is an invariant mean and that $\chi$ is a homomorphism, we have $$\chi(g)\,m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})= m_G(\tau_g{\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})=
m_G( (\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi})\cdot\overline{\chi})+ m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi}).$$ Using $\|\chi\|_{\infty}=1$ this implies $$\label{fcesti}
|1-\chi(g)|\cdot |m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})| = |m_G( (\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi})\cdot\overline{\chi})|
\le m_G(|\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi}|).$$ Since $m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})\neq 0$ we can define $\delta:= {\varepsilon}\cdot \frac{m_G(|\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi}|)}{|m_G({\varphi}\cdot \overline{\chi})|}>0$. With this choice of $\delta$ indeed $m_G(|\tau_g{\varphi}-{\varphi}|)<\delta$ implies $|1-\chi(g)|<{\varepsilon}$, i.e. the inclusion (\[filterlimes\]) holds.
Summary
=======
The content of the present paper essentially deals with the definition and properties of the objects occurring in the diagram below. Abusing the terminus technicus of *commutative diagrams* in a kind of sloppy way, the theorems of this paper circle around the question under which assumptions this diagram is commutative:
Section 3 deals with the left half of this diagram: to every Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$ a filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ is associated and to every group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ on which ${\varphi}$ can be realized a filter ${\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)$ is associated. In general ${\mathfrak{U}}(X,0_X)\supseteq
{\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$, and there always exists compactifications such that equality holds (indicated by $\uparrow\downarrow$).
Section 4 deals with the right half of the diagram: to every Hartman measurable function ${\varphi}$ a subgroup $\Gamma({\varphi})$ of the dual is associated, which in turn induces a group compactification $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})$. In general $(\iota_{\Gamma},C_{\Gamma})\le (\iota_X,X)$ for every group compactification $(\iota_X,X)$ on which ${\varphi}$ can be realized. If ${\varphi}$ is either almost periodic or can be realized finite dimensionally then $(\iota_A,X_A)$ is itself a group compactification on which ${\varphi}$ can be realized (indicated by [${\rightarrow\atop\leftarrow}$]{}) and the filter ${\mathfrak{U}}(X_A,0_{X_A})$ associated with this particular compactification coincides with ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$. The filter ${\mathcal{F}}({\varphi})$ in turn defines a subgroup Sub(${\varphi}$) of the dual $\hat{G}$. While it can be shown that in general $\Gamma({\varphi})\le\mbox{Sub}({\varphi}) $ it is and open problem whether this inclusion can be reversed.
[AA]{} R. Burckel, *Weakly Almost Periodic Functions on Semigroups*, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970. M. Beiglböck, C. Steineder, R. Winkler *Sequences and filters of characters characterizing subgroups of compact abelian groups*, to appear in Top. Appl. J. Elstrodt, *Maß- und Integrationstheorie*, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1999. E. Følner, *A Proof of the Main Theorem for Almost Periodic Functions in an Abelian Group*, Ann. of Math., 50/5 (1949), 559-569. S. Frisch, M. Pašteka, R. Tichy, R. Winkler, *Finitely additive measures on groups and rings*, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, Series II, 48 (1999), 323-340. S. Hartman, *Remarks on equidistribution on non-compact groups*, Compositio Math., 16 (1964), 66-71. E. Hewitt and K. Ross, *Abstract Harmonic Analysis I,II*, Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1963. G. Maresch and R. Winkler, *Hartman measurable functions and related function spaces*, E-print, 2005, available at *www.dmg.tuwien.ac.at/maresch* J. Schmeling, E. Szabò, R. Winkler, *Hartman and Beatty bisequences*, Algebraic Number Theory and Diophantine analysis, 405-421, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin New York, 2000. C. Steineder and R. Winkler, *Complexity of Hartman sequences*, to appear in Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux. M. Talagrand, *Closed convex hull of measurable functions, Riemann measurable functions and measurability of translations*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 32/1 (1982), 39-69. R. Winkler, *Ergodic Group Rotations, Hartman Sets and Kronecker Sequences*, Monatsh. Math., 135 (2002), 333-343.
Author’s address:\
Gabriel Maresch\
Technical University Vienna\
Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry\
Wiedener Hauptstraße 8-10\
1040 Vienna, Austria\
email: [[email protected]]{}\
web: http://www.dmg.tuwien.ac.at/maresch
[^1]: The author would like to thank the FWF for financial support through grant S8312
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A solid state emitter coupled to a photonic crystal cavity exhibits increased photon emission into a single frequency mode. However, current designs for photonic crystal cavities coupled to quantum emitters have three main problems: emitters are placed near surfaces that can degrade their optical properties, the cavity fluorescence cannot be collected into a single useful mode for further routing, and post-fabrication tuning is not currently possible in a stable and reversible manner for each node individually. In this paper, we introduce a hybrid cavity design with minimal fabrication of the host material that keeps the emitter $\geq100\,$nm from all surfaces. This cavity has an unloaded quality factor ($Q$) larger than $1\times10^6$ and a loaded $Q$ of $5.5\times10^4$ with more than 75% of the emission coupled directly into an underlying photonic integrated circuit built from a convenient material that provides low loss waveguides. Finally this design can be actively and reversibly tuned onto resonance with the emitter, allowing tuning over more than 10 times the cavity linewidth while maintaining $\geq50$% of the $Q$ factor with no effects to other cavities on the same chip.'
author:
- 'Sara L. Mouradian'
- Dirk Englund
bibliography:
- '2016\_TunableCav\_ArXiv.bib'
- 'revtex-custm.bib'
title: 'A Tunable Waveguide-Coupled Cavity Design for Efficient Spin-Photon Interfaces in Photonic Integrated Circuits'
---
Solid state quantum emitters, such as defects in diamond or quantum dots in III-V materials, have been demonstrated as high quality single photon sources and quantum memories. The entanglement rate between quantum repeaters in a quantum communication network, or between quantum bits (qubits) in a distributed quantum computation platform scales with the square of the collection rate of indistinguishable photons. Thus, the cavity enhancement of the transition of interest can significantly increase secure communication rates as well as the size of an entangled network. Photonic crystal (PhC) cavities are an attractive choice for solid state qubits as they provide high quality factors ($Q$) with wavelength-scale mode volumes ($V$) with direct patterning of the host material. Cavity enhancement of quantum dots in III-V materials has enabled strong light-matter coupling [@englund2007controlling] and record rates of indistinguishable photons [@santori2002indistinguishable; @somaschi2016near]. Recent advances in diamond nanofabrication [@Schroder2016_Review] have enabled enhancement of optically active defect centers in diamond. Silicon vacancy centers coupled to PhC cavities increased emission rates and mediated entanglement between multiple centers [@riedrich2014deterministic; @sipahigil2016single]. The zero phonon line (ZPL) transition of the negatively charged nitrogen vacancy (NV) center in diamond has also been enhanced by PhC cavities [@li2015coherent; @wolters2010enhancement; @englund2010deterministic; @2014Igal_APL; @burek2014high; @schukraft2016imp; @faraon2011resonant; @faraon2012coupling].
![(a) Structure of the hybrid cavity. Two suspended AlN beams (gray) periodically patterned with holes sit on either side of a width-modulated diamond (blue). (b) Unloaded cavity mode profile $(|E|^2)$. []{data-label="struct"}](Figure1_Struct_v4.pdf){width="3.5in"}
There are currently three main challenges limiting progress in scaling to multiple coupled emitter-cavity systems. (1) Nanofabrication of PhC cavities can introduce defects in the crystal and on the surface due to the ion bombardment that is necessary to etch the host material. These defects trap charges in unstable configurations that lead to pure dephasing and spectral diffusion that in turn lead to a decrease in entanglement rate due to a loss of indistinguishability between photons emitted by distinct emitters. (2) In order to improve the entanglement rate, the cavity design must not only enhance the emission of the desired transition via a high Q mode at the transition frequency, but also increase the collection efficiency of that transition. Thus the loss pathways of the cavity must be engineered to funnel the enhanced light into a single useable mode that is indistinguishable with other nodes. (3) Finally, fabrication inconsistencies across a single chip cause a spread in the resonant frequencies of the final devices that can severely decrease the enhancement of the desired transition.
In this letter, we present a hybrid cavity design that addresses all three of these challenges: First, the emitter’s host material is minimally patterned, and the emitter remains 100nm from every surface. The periodic change in the dielectric environment needed to produce a band gap is provided by the patterning of a second material. Second, $\>75$% of the mode is coupled into a single waveguide mode. Finally, the frequency is tunable over 10 linewidths while maintaining a $Q$ factor within 50% of the maximum value.
While the design presented in this paper can be easily modified to enhance other solid state emitters, or connect with other PIC systems, we focus on a design to enhance the NV center’s ZPL in a diamond node integrated into an Aluminum Nitride (AlN) PIC.
The NV center has exceptional spin properties for a solid state quantum emitter, with second-scale electron spin coherence times [@2012Maurer; @2013.NComm.Bar-Gill-] that can be optically initialized, manipulated, and measured [@2010Neumann_Science_SSRO], and can be mapped onto nearby auxiliary nuclear memories [@2007Dutt_Sci_register] for increased coherence times. The long coherence time and ease of state measurement and manipulation enables entanglement generation and state teleportation between two spatially separate quantum memories [@2014Pfaff_Sci_teleport; @2013Bernien_Nat_entangle; @2016Hensen]. However, the reported entanglement rates remain well below even the nuclear spin decoherence rate, eliminating the possibility of creating entanglement over three or more nodes. This low entanglement rate is currently limited by the small probability of collecting a photon coherent with the spin state into the frequency and spatial mode needed for entanglement due to low collection efficiency, spectral diffusion, and phonon interactions present even at cryogenic temperatures. Thus, cavity enhancement is essential to scale entanglement from two NV centers to three or more. AlN is chosen to create the optical band-gap at the cavity region, and as the backbone PIC material as it has a wide direct band-gap (6.015eV) that allows low-loss single-mode operation at the NV ZPL wavelength (637nm). Moreover, nanoelectromechanical functionality [@karabalin2009piezoelectric; @sinha2009piezoelectric], and frequency conversion [@guo2016chip; @zou2016cavity] have been demonstrated that make it a promising platform for reconfigurable quantum circuits that can interface with fibers for long-distance communication.
As shown in Figure \[struct\](a), the cavity consists of an underlying AlN PIC—suspended at the cavity region—with a height $H/\lambda_{\text{NV}}=0.345$ where $\lambda_{\text{NV}}=637$nm is the free-space ZPL wavelength. Two parallel AlN beams (with width $W/\lambda_{\text{NV}} = 0.383$) are patterned with periodic holes with constant spacing ($a/\lambda_{\text{NV}}=0.356$) and constant radius ($r/a=0.295$). A diamond slab with height $H/\lambda_{\text{NV}}=0.345$) containing a single NV center is placed between the two AlN beams, centered at a distance $D_1=D_2=0.235\lambda_{\text{NV}}$ from each AlN beam. The width of the suspended diamond membrane increases parabolically from $W_1/\lambda_{\text{NV}}=0.157$ to $W_2/\lambda_{\text{NV}}=0.314$ over 7 periods. The periodic patterning of the two AlN waveguides creates a bandgap in the $x$ direction, while the increased width of the diamond membrane at the center of the structure increases the effective refractive index in a localized spot in the otherwise periodic structure, pulling the air bands into the diamond. Finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulations show a radiation-limited $Q$ factor of $>1$ million with 50 holes on either side of the center of the cavity. Figure \[struct\]b shows the energy distribution $(|E|^2)$ in the cavity with a clear maximum in the diamond due to the high index ($n=2.4$).
FDTD simulations reveal a mode volume of $V \approx 10 (\lambda_{NV}/n)^3$. Due to the large transverse extent of the hybrid structure, this mode volume is larger than other nanobeam cavity designs, which provide mode volumes on the order of $(\lambda/n)^3$. However, the high $Q$ ensures a large Purcell enhancement. Additionally, the bulk of the patterning is done in the AlN, leaving the NV center 100nm from every fabricated surface, while still maintaining a high $Q$ with a mode volume on the order of the resonant wavelength. This is essential because the spectral diffusion of solid state emitters increases with proximity to fabricated surfaces [@faraon2012coupling; @2015_PRX_Mouradian], and previous work in bulk diamond has demonstrated lifetime limited linewidths of NVs 100nm from the surface [@chu2014coherent].
![(a) The enhancement of collection into the waveguide mode vs the number of holes leading to the loading waveguide (b) The collection spectrum into the waveguide mode, as well as the losses into the y and z planes at $N_R=16$. (c) Loaded cavity mode profile $(|E|^2)$. []{data-label="wgCouple"}](Figure2_WG_v2.pdf){width="3.5in"}
To efficiently collect the NV emission into the PIC, the cavity must be coupled to the waveguide. The unloaded design described above has a high $Q$, but the emitted light cannot be efficiently collected into the waveguide as it radiates mainly into the $z$-plane. Thus, despite the large enhancement due to the high $Q/V$, there is only a marginal increase of light collected into a single AlN waveguide mode over a simpler, broadband architecture of an NV coupled to a single diamond waveguide mode that is adiabatically tapered to transfer the optical mode to the underlying PIC mode [@2015_PRX_Mouradian]. The cavity is loaded into a single waveguide mode by reducing the number of holes on one of the four sides of the cavity, as seen in Fig. \[wgCouple\](a). In general, the fraction of emission into the waveguide can be estimated from the ratio $F=Q_l/(Q_l+Q_i)$ where $Q_i$ is the intrinsic Q factor, and $Q_l$ is the loaded $Q$ factor. However, modifying the cavity geometry can also increase scattering into other loss pathway. Moreover, the figure of merit of interest is the overall collection enhancement, which is a function of $Q$ and $F$. Therefore, we performed detailed FDTD simulations to measure the collection enhancement into the waveguide port. As seen in Fig. \[wgCouple\](a), the collection enhancement is maximized when the number of holes leading to the output waveguide is $N_R=16$. At this configuration, the loaded $Q$ is 55,000, with 75% of the light coupled into the waveguide as calculated with FDTD simulations. The collection spectra into the waveguide, as well as into the $y$ and $z$ planes is shown in Fig. \[wgCouple\]b. Fig. \[wgCouple\]c shows the mode profile (log$(|E|^2)$) of the loaded cavity, with clear coupling into the bottom right waveguide.
![(a) Resonant wavelength and $Q$ factor as the two AlN DBRs are displaced. (b) Cavity spectrum for different positions of the AlN beams. []{data-label="tuning"}](Figure3_Tune_v2.pdf){width="3in"}
For efficient high-fidelity entanglement between two NV centers, they both must emit into the same Fourier-limited frequency mode. The ZPL transition frequency of 2 or more NV centers can be tuned to overlap via the Stark effect [@tamarat2006stark]. However, the cavities must also be at the same frequencies. Unfortunately, fabrication imperfections across a single chip can cause inhomogeneities in the resonant frequencies. Therefore, it is necessary to tune the frequency of the cavity post-fabrication without a significant drop in the quality factor of the cavity. Previous works have demonstrated cavity tuning in other material systems. For instance, the fast and reversible tuning of PhC cavities in semiconductors such as Si and GaAs has been demonstrated via injection of free carriers, either electrically [@fushman2007ultra] or via two photon absorption [@tanabe2005all]. However, PN junctions are notoriously difficult to make in diamond and doping the diamond may have deleterious effects on the NV center. Previous cavity results in diamond [@li2015coherent; @sipahigil2016single] have used gas adsorption and sublimation to tune a cavity’s resonance frequency, but this approach affects all cavities on the chip simultaneously. Works in other material systems employed nano-electrical-mechanical systems (NEMS) to couple two cavity modes [@chew2010plane; @frank2010programmable] or modify the evanescent field of the cavity mode to induce wavelength shifts [@chew2011enhanced; @tian2012tuning; @chew2010dynamic]. This is not currently feasible in an all-diamond system as large-scale free-standing membranes are not widely available, and moving the diamond would cause strain which would shift the NV center’s optical transitions [@batalov2009low]. In the hybrid design presented in this paper, the AlN layer can provide the needed NEMS functionality using electrostatic or piezoelectric [@karabalin2009piezoelectric; @sinha2009piezoelectric] actuation. FDTD simulations show that displacing the two patterned AlN beams changes the cavity’s effective refractive index, and thus the resonant frequency. The tuning simulations were performed on the loaded cavity. Moving the waveguide-coupled AlN beam a certain distance ($D_1$) provides different tuning than moving the non-coupled beam the same distance ($D_2=D_1$). Figure \[tuning\]a summarizes the results showing the effect of beam displacements on resonant frequency and $Q$, plotted against ($D_2-D_1$). Figure \[tuning\]b demonstrates that the cavity can be tuned over 10 linewidths while maintaining $Q\geq Q_{\text{max}}$. Finally, if such a high loaded Q is not necessary, lower Q designs can be tuned farther without sacrificing $Q$.
Finally, this hybrid cavity design is compatible with the scalable “pick-and-place” assembly of a photonic backbone populated with pre-selected diamond nodes [@2015_PRX_Mouradian]. The probability of creating a single optimally positioned and aligned NV center remains at $\sim$1-3% even with apertured nitrogen implantation [@schukraft2016imp; @scarabelli2016nanoscale; @bayn2015generation] due to the stochastic process of NV creation. In this hybrid system however, the diamond nodes can be pre-screened and only the best integrated into the PhC cavity, leading to a high yield in the final system.
In conclusion, we introduced a novel hybrid cavity design that enhances the collection of photons from a transition of an embedded quantum emitter that is at the resonant frequency of the cavity. This is achieved by loading a high-$Q$ cavity directly into a single mode PIC network. Moreover, the emitter remains $\geq$100nm away from every surface, reducing spectral diffusion due to trapped charges on the surface. Finally, NEMS actuation permits the reversible tuning of the resonance frequency. The implementation of this design across a multi-node PIC will enable efficient multi-qubit entanglement across the PIC.
This research was supported in part by the Army Research Laboratory Center for Distributed Quantum Information (CDQI). S.M. was supported by IQUISE. We thank Mikkel Heuck and Tim Schröder for valuable discussions
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Whole disk brightness ratios for Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars are reported at 5.7, 9.5, 16.4, and 22.5 . Using models for the brightness temperature of Mars, the whole disk brightness temperatures for Jupiter and Saturn are also given for the four frequencies.'
author:
- 'A. B. Goldin, M. S. Kowitt, E. S. Cheng, D. A. Cottingham, D. J. Fixsen, C. A. Inman, S. S. Meyer, J. L. Puchalla, J. E. Ruhl, and R. F. Silverberg'
title: ' Whole Disk Observations of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars in Millimeter–Submillimeter Bands '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Whole-disk brightness temperature measurements of the planets are frequently used as calibrators for radio and infrared astronomy. For instruments with beam size larger than $\sim 1\arcmin$, planets are bright, unresolved sources ideal for mapping the shape of the far-field antenna pattern as well as providing an absolute calibration. In particular, for studies of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), precise common calibration targets are needed to permit comparison of experimental results with each other and with theories. Jupiter and Saturn, while bright and frequently observable, have complicated atmospheres which introduce substantial uncertainties in modeling their brightness temperatures. Mars, however, has only a tenuous CO$_2$ atmosphere which, for broad-band millimeter and submillimeter observations, can be safely neglected compared with thermal emission from the Martian surface ([@griffin86] and [@wright76]).
We report here the results of multi-frequency observations of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Primary results are whole-disk brightness ratios of Mars to Jupiter, and Saturn to Jupiter; using model calculations of the Martian brightness temperature, we also present whole disk brightness temperatures for Jupiter and Saturn.
Instrument and Observation {#sec:obs}
==========================
The observations were performed with the Medium Scale Anisotropy Measurement, MSAM1, a balloon-borne instrument designed to measure anisotropy in the CMBR at 05 scales. This instrument has been described in [@fixsen96a]; only the salient features are reviewed here.
MSAM1 uses a 1.4 m off-axis Cassigrain telescope with a nutating secondary mirror for beamswitching. The main lobe of the telescope is 28 FWHM, and the beam follows a 2 Hz four phase square wave chop (i.e., center, left, center, right) with $\pm$ 40 amplitude. The telescope has a multimode feed, instrumented with a 4 band bolometric radiometer. The effective frequency and bandwidths of the four bands, using Rayleigh-Jeans color corrections, are given in Table \[tab:bands\]. A gyroscope is aligned with the telescope main beam to provide an inertial reference, while absolute pointing is determined using a CCD star camera.
[crr]{} 1 & 5.73 & 1.32 2 & 9.54 & 2.39 3 & 16.4& 1.82 4 & 22.5& 1.32
The observations were made in a flight from the National Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas on 1995 June 2. At the beginning of the flight, we performed a raster scan across Jupiter to determine the antenna pattern, and then performed horizontal calibration scans across Jupiter and Mars for flux calibration. For the next 5 hours, the telescope executed deep scans above the North Celestial Pole to measure CMBR. After the CMBR observations, the telescope was again slewed to Jupiter. Another raster was performed to re-check the antenna pattern, followed by another calibration scan on Jupiter. Finally, a calibration scan was performed on Saturn. The detailed circumstances for each of the four calibration scans are given in Table \[tab:circumstances\]. Because the observations are made from balloon altitudes, atmospheric extinction is completely negligible. Of particular note is that, for these observations, the Saturn ring inclination angle to Earth is nearly zero ($-0\fdg37$); thus, we are measuring only the disk.
[rccccc]{} Jupiter–1 & 03:41:51 – 03:49:12 & 3119 N & 9541 W & 34.9 & 2532 – 2630 Mars & 03:59:01 – 04:11:47 & 3117 N & 9544 W & 36.1 & 3255 – 3009 Jupiter–2 & 09:47:05 – 09:53:49 & 3128 N & 9827 W & 37.6 & 1856 – 1748 Saturn & 10:11:03 – 10:17:13 & 3123 N & 9839 W & 37.3 & 3007 – 3115
Data Analysis {#sec:data}
=============
These planet observations have a high signal-to-noise ratio, even in the raw time-ordered data. This requires a somewhat different approach for the data reduction than that previously reported for CMBR anisotropy ([@cheng94], [@cheng95], and [@inman96]). Systematic effects, particularly with regards to precise telescope pointing, are the limiting factors here.
Pointing
--------
The accurate determination of the telescope orientation is critical for this measurement. We find the telescope pointing by matching star camera images against a star catalog. This fixes the position of the camera frame at the time of the exposure; between exposures, pointing is interpolated with the gyroscope outputs. Typically, the pointing drifts about 2 between successive camera exposures. The residual errors from interpolating between exposures is presumably several times smaller than this. The position of the main telescope beam within the camera frame is determined from the raster scan across Jupiter. Note that for the planetary observations, the image of the planet itself is deleted from the CCD frame, and background stars are used to establish the celestial coordinates of the beam. This ensures that blooming in the CCD due to the bright planet does not compromise the attitude solution. Noise in the gyroscope readout leads to a random RMS pointing uncertainty of 07.
Detector Data Reduction {#reduction}
-----------------------
In this analysis, we use a “double-difference” demodulation of the data. For each complete cycle of the secondary mirror, the data for the two side beams are averaged and subtracted from the average of the central beam data, producing a single demodulated value every 0.5 s for each of the four radiometer bands. This results in a symmetrical, three-lobe antenna pattern that is well suited to absolute flux determinations.
Slow offset drifts are present in the data, and must be removed. For each observation listed in Table \[tab:circumstances\], a single linear drift in time is fit to those portions of the data corresponding to times when the telescope was pointed well away from the target planet. This linear drift is then subtracted from the data. Since the observations are short and the drifts are slow, this simple model is adequate for dedrifting.
The detector signal contains transient spikes due to cosmic rays striking the detectors. In our previous analyses, the very low instantaneous signal-to-noise permitted the identification and removal of these transients directly from the time-ordered data. The presence of large signals from the target planets prevents this procedure; instead, a smooth spatial model is fit to the data, and cosmic ray spikes are identified as significant outliers from the fit. For the raster observations, each of the 9 horizontal scans was fit to a cubic spline with 30 uniformly-spaced knots. An initial noise estimate $\sigma$ is formed from the RMS of the residuals from the fit, and then $3\sigma$ outliers are deleted. The fit is then repeated, and vertical splines are used to interpolate between the scan lines to form a $2\fdg8 \times 0\fdg9$ beammap. Finally, raw detector noise is estimated from the RMS of a subset of the data pointed at least 14 away from the target planet.
The calibration scans were analyzed in a similar way, except that instead of free splines, the fit model was constructed from the beammap derived in the raster analysis. For each datum in a calibration scan, the telescope pointing is used to determine a planetocentric $X,Y$ coordinate, which is then referenced to obtain the beammap amplitude. A single free parameter, the overall scan-to-raster flux ratio, is then fit to the data. Again, $3\sigma$ outliers are deleted, and the fit is repeated. Between 2% and 8% of the data are removed this way, depending on scan. For this procedure, the early Jupiter raster is used for fitting the two scans at the beginning of the flight, while the late Jupiter raster is used for the two scans at the end of the flight. A systematic check on this processing is provided by the Jupiter calibration scans, which should yield a scan-to-raster flux ratio of 1 (within errors). The fit results are given in Table \[tab:fratio\].
[cllll]{} 1 & $1.036\pm 0.016$ & $(256\pm 2.2)\times 10^{-4}$ & $0.979\pm 0.016$ & $ (111\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-3}$ 2 & $1.016\pm 0.015$ & $(263\pm 2.3)\times 10^{-4}$ & $0.994\pm 0.015$ & $ (101 \pm 0.9)\times 10^{-3} $ 3 & $1.011\pm 0.016$ & $(325\pm 2.8)\times 10^{-4}$ & $0.993 \pm 0.016$ & $ (109\pm 0.9)\times 10^{-3} $ 4 & $0.985\pm 0.019$ & $(335\pm 2.9)\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.044 \pm 0.016$ & $ (112\pm 1.2)\times 10^{-3} $
Error Analysis {#errors}
--------------
Detailed Monte-Carlo simulations were used to estimate the errors on the scan-to-raster flux ratios. Each realization was generated by starting with the measured bolometer and pointing data, and adding normally distributed random numbers with variances corresponding to the estimated bolometer and position-readout noise, respectively. An additional random linear position drift, corresponding to the slow absolute pointing uncertainty, was also added to the simulated pointing data. Note that pointing noise and drift were simulated in both azimuth and elevation. For each simulated dataset, we reconstruct the beammaps and scan-to-raster flux ratios according to the procedure described above. Final error estimates for the scan-to-raster flux ratios are determined from the standard deviation of the simulated ratios. In contrast to our CMBR measurements, here we find that the uncertainty is dominated by the position readout noise, and not the bolometer noise.
We note the presence among the Jupiter scan results in Table \[tab:fratio\] of two values out of eight (Jupiter–1 band 1, and Jupiter–2 band 4) with greater than $2\sigma$ deviations from unity. This has $\sim 3\%$ probability (based on $\chi^2=17$ for 8 degrees of freedom), and so may be evidence of an additional unaccounted systematic error in the data. We have conservatively decided to inflate the estimated uncertainties that follow by a factor of 1.46, which forces the reduced $\chi^2$ of the Jupiter scans to unity.
[cll]{} 1 & $1.158\pm 0.015$ & $0.833\pm 0.012$ 2 & $1.189\pm 0.015$ & $0.758\pm 0.010$ 3 & $1.470\pm 0.019$ & $0.818\pm 0.012$ 4 & $1.515\pm 0.019$ & $0.840\pm 0.012$
Whole-Disk Brightness Temperature Ratios
----------------------------------------
The raw flux ratios determined in §\[reduction\] are converted to whole-disk brightness temperature ratios using the effective mm/sub-mm band planetary equatorial radii and ellipticities of [@hildebrand85]: $R_{\rm eq}$ $(\varepsilon) =$ 3397 (0.006), 71495 (0.065), and 60233 km (0.096) for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, respectively, along with their geocentric distances and polar inclinations at the epoch of observation.
These constitute the primary results reported here, and are given in Table \[tab:tratio\]. The errors reported in the table reflect the total uncertainty, as determined in §\[errors\], and include the extra scale factor (1.46).
Mars Models {#sec:models}
===========
To convert the brightness ratios into whole-disk brightness temperatures, an epoch-dependent thermal model of Mars is needed to provide an absolute calibration. We have used two distinct models for this purpose.
The first model considered ([@wright76], [@wright80]) is extensively used in the literature (see, e.g., [@hildebrand85] and [@griffin86]), and is based on 10–20 radiometer observations of Mars by the [*Mariner 6 & 7*]{} spacecraft. We follow the example of [@hildebrand85], and truncate this model assuming $T(\lambda \ge 350 \micron) = T(\lambda = 350 \micron)$. The estimated model uncertainty at long wavelengths is $\pm 10$K ([@wright76]).
The second model used ([@rudy87a], [@rudy87b], [@muhleman91]) is based on a physical model of the dielectric properties of the upper meter of the Martian surface, constrained by polarized flux measurements obtained from ${\sl VLA}$ observations at $\lambda = 2$ and 6 cm. Some extrapolation is needed to estimate the properties of the regolith at our wavelengths; we have assumed a dielectric constant $\epsilon = 2.25 \pm 0.25$, and a power absorption length $l_\nu = (11 \pm 4)\lambda$ ([@muhleman91]). The model uncertainty due to the input parameter uncertainties ($\pm 3$ K) is somewhat smaller than that due to neglecting the effect of scattering (estimated at $\lambda=2.7$ mm to be $\pm 6$ K), giving a total model uncertainty of $\pm 7$ K.
Both of these models involve substantial extrapolations in wavelength to reach our bands. We find it reassuring, however, that the two models, tuned to substantially different observations at very different wavelengths, give predicted brightness temperatures that agree well within their estimated uncertainties.
Brightness Temperatures
=======================
The modeled Mars temperatures, along with the derived whole-disk brightness temperatures for Jupiter and Saturn, are presented for both models in Table \[tab:temperatures\]. Note that the errors listed reflect the uncertainty in the brightness ratios described in §\[errors\], but do not include the $\sim$5% Mars model uncertainties which are common to all the points.
[ccccccc]{} 1 & 196 & $169\pm 2$ & $141\pm 3$ & 196 & $169\pm 2$ & $141\pm 3$ 2 & 196 & $165\pm 2$ & $125\pm 2$ & 198 & $166\pm 2$ & $126\pm 2$ 3 & 196 & $133\pm 2$ & $109\pm 2$ & 201 & $137\pm 2$ & $112\pm 2$ 4 & 196 & $129\pm 2$ & $109\pm 2$ & 203 & $134\pm 2$ & $112\pm 2$
Figures \[fig:jupiter\] and \[fig:saturn\] plot the brightness temperatures for Jupiter and Saturn using the Wright model for Mars; this is chosen to permit easy comparison with the earlier measurements of [@ulich81], [@hildebrand85], and [@griffin86]. Also plotted in the figures are two representative model temperature spectra, together with the series of molecular lines from which they are derived. The Jupiter models are from [@griffin86], and assume clear-sky (dashed) or NH$_3$ cloud cover with particle size 100 $\mu$m and a particle scale height to gas scale height ratio of 0.15 (dotted). The Saturn models are from [@hildebrand85], and assume an NH$_3$ mixing ratio of $2\times 10^{-4}$ in the deep atmosphere, and PH$_3$ mixing ratios equal to $1.5\times 10^{-6}$ (dashed) or $1.0\times 10^{-5}$ (dotted).
Note that our results at 16.4 for both Jupiter and Saturn are significantly lower than previous measurements that cover this band. While we do not completely understand the cause of this, we offer several observations: The bandwidth of our 16.4 filter is significantly narrower than the previous measurements (due to [@hildebrand85]). This band is nearly coincident with the first expected strong dip in the spectra of the giant planets, near the $\sim$ 19 NH$_3$ and PH$_3$ resonances. Additionally, the measurements reported here had essentially 100% atmospheric transmission. The earlier measurements were made from the ground on Mauna Kea, and were corrected to a fixed value of the line of sight water vapor before taking ratios of unknown to calibration signals.
\
\
Conclusions
===========
We have reported a new set of whole-disk brightness ratios for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn which, when combined with a thermal model of Mars, give new calibration values for Jupiter and Saturn. The overall uncertainties on the brightness temperatures are still dominated by model uncertainty in the mm/sub-mm emission of Mars, but the ratio measurements presented here should remain useful well into the future, permitting a straightforward revision of the brightness temperatures of the giant planets with improvements in the Martian model. As was mentioned in [@hildebrand85], the effective mm/sub-mm emission radii of the gas giants are uncertain by as much as 1%, but while this uncertainty is important for understanding the precise brightness temperature of the planet, it does not affect the total flux density, and thus is not an issue for use in large-beam calibration studies.
We would like to thank E. Weisstein and D. Muhleman for several useful discussions on the thermal model for Mars. We also thank the Free Software Foundation for the GNU software tools, and J. W. Eaton for Octave, both of which were extensively used in this work. This research was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the Office of Space Science.
Cheng, E. S. [*et al.*]{} 1994, , [**422**]{}, L37.
Cheng, E. S. [*et al.*]{} 1996, , [**456**]{}, L71.
Fixsen, D. J. [*et al.*]{} 1996, , [**470**]{}, 63.
Griffin, M. J., Ade, P. A. R., Orton, G. S., Robson, E. I., Gear, W. K., Nolt, I. G., and Radostitz, J. V. 1986, Icarus, [**65**]{}, 244.
Hildebrand, R. H. [*et al.*]{} 1985, Icarus, [**64**]{}, 64–87.
Inman, C. A. [*et al.*]{} 1996, . submitted, preprint [astro-ph/9603017]{}.
Muhleman, D. O. and Berge, G. L. 1991, Icarus, [**92**]{}, 263.
Page, L. A., Cheng, E. S., Golubovic, B., Gundersen, J., and Meyer, S. S. 1994, , [**33**]{}, 11.
Rudy, D. J. 1987. . PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.
Rudy, D. J., Muhleman, D. O., Berge, G. L., Jakosky, B. M., and Christensen, P. R. 1987, Icarus, [**71**]{}, 159.
Ulich, B. L. 1981, , [**86**]{}, 1619.
Wright, E. L. 1976, , [**210**]{}, 250.
Wright, E. L. and Odenwald, S. 1980, , [**12**]{}, 456.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Wuming Yang
- Shaolan Bi
title: 'Rotation profiles of solar-like stars with magnetic fields'
---
Introduction
============
Helioseismology has given us detailed internal information about the structure and rotation of the Sun: the Sun’s rotation is slow in the core and is almost uniform in the radiative region, but the angular velocity has a latitudinal gradient in the convective zone (Gough et al. [@Gough96]; Schou et al. [@scho98]; Chaplin et al. [@chap99]). Although the data of inversion of solar-like stars are limited, it has been revealed that the localized information of stellar interior can be given by asteroseismology (Gough & Kosovichev [@gough93]; Gough [@gough98]; Roxburgh et al. [@rox98]; Berthomieu et al. [@bert01]; Basu et al. [@basu02]; Basu [@basu03]). Furthermore, it has been shown that localized information on the internal rotation profile of a solar-like star can be obtained from the frequencies of oscillations (Gough & Kosovichev [@gough93]; Gough [@gough98]; Goupil et al. [@goup96]; Lochard et al. [@loch04; @loch05]). The information on the internal rotation of $\beta$ Cepheid has already been provided by asteroseismology (Aerts et al. [@aert03]). And using the data of the Microvariability and Oscillation of Star (MOST) satellite, Walker et al. ([@walk07]) found that kappa1 Ceti has a differential rotation profile closely resembling that for the Sun. With ongoing and forthcoming space seismic missions: COvection, ROtatin and planetary Transits (COROT) (Baglin [@bagl06]) and Kepler (Christensen-Dalsgaard [@chri07]), it is possible to extract the information on the internal rotation profile of solar-like stars.
Moreover, magnetic fields of the active regions on solar surface are believed to originate from strong toroidal magnetic fields generated by solar dynamo at the base of the convective zone. The understanding of both the stellar magnetic activity and the generation of magnetic fields is dependent on the information about the interior rotational properties of stars (Thompson et al. [@thom03]; Fan [@fan04]; Charbonneau [@char05]). However the evolution of rotation profile inside stars is poorly understood. Therefore it is an important problem to get a global picture of the evolution of rotation profile inside stars.
The influence of rotation on the stellar structure and evolution is studied by many investigators (Kippenhaln & Thomas [@kipp70]; Endal & Sofia [@endal76]; Pinsonneault et al. [@pins89]; Meynet & Maeder [@meyn97]; Huang et al. [@huang07]). Redistribution of angular momentum within the interiors of stars has also been considered by many authors (Endal & Sofia [@endal81]; Chaboyer et al. [@chab95]; Maeder & Meynet [@maed00]; Palacios et al. [@pala03]; Huang [@huang04]). These studies show that hydrodynamic angular momentum transport processes are unefficient in stars. Therefore magnetic angular momentum transport or other mechanisms should be considered in rotating stars. In addition, magnetic angular momentum transport in massive stars has been investigated by Maeder & Meynet ([@maed03; @maed04; @maed05]). The massive stars with magnetic fields rotate almost as a solid body throughout the whole star (Maeder & Meynet [@maed04]). Eggenberger et al. ([@egge05]) and Yang & Bi ([@yang06]) study the rotation profile of the Sun and show that the quasi-solid rotation in the Sun can be achieved by considering the effect of the magnetic fields. In this paper, we mainly focus on the internal rotation profiles of solar-like stars. In Sect. 2 diffusion coefficient of magnetic angular momentum transport is given. In Sect. 3 numerical calculation and results are presented. Then, discussion and conclusion are made in Sect. 4.
Diffusion coefficient of magnetic angular momentum transport
============================================================
Spruit ([@spr99]; [@spr02]) developed the Tayler-Spruit dynamo, which can generate magnetic fields in the radiative region of differentially rotating stars. These fields are predominantly azimuthal components, $B\sim B_{\phi}$. If magnetic fields exist in stars, magnetic angular momentum transport can be described by magnetic induction and momentum equations. For a constant magnetic diffusivity and shellular rotation (Zahn [@zahn92]), under axisymmetry and only considering Lorentz force, the azimuthal components of the induction and momentum equations are (Barnes et al. [@barn99]; Yang & Bi [@yang06]) $$\frac{\partial B_{\phi}}{\partial t}+\eta(\frac{1}{r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}
-\nabla^{2})B_{\phi}=r\sin\theta \mathbf{B_{p}}\cdot\nabla\Omega \,,
\label{induc1}$$ $$\rho r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}=
\frac{1}{4\pi}\mathbf{B_{p}}\cdot \nabla (r\sin\theta B_{\phi}) \,.
\label{moment1}$$ If the effect of the magnetic diffusivity is to limit the growth of the toroidal field after some time, the growth of the instability is halted by dissipative processes that operate on a timescale $\tau$. Accordingly the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[induc1\]) may be replaced simply by $B_{\phi}/\tau$ (Barnes et al. [@barn99]). Substituting for the second term of Eq. (\[induc1\]) and differentiating the Eq. (\[induc1\]) with respect to time, one can obtain (Barnes et al. [@barn99]) $$\frac{\partial^{2}B_{\phi}}{\partial t^{2}}+\frac{1}{\tau}
\frac{\partial B_{\phi}}{\partial t}= r\sin\theta \mathbf{B_{p}}\cdot
\nabla\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}\,.$$ For much longer times than the timescale of the instability, one would expect the term involving the first time derivative to dominate (Barnes et al. [@barn99]), so that $$\frac{1}{\tau}\frac{\partial B_{\phi}}{\partial t} \approx
r\sin\theta \mathbf{B_{p}}\cdot\nabla\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}\,.
\label{}$$ For shellular rotation $\Omega(r, \theta) \sim\Omega(r)$ (Zahn [@zahn92]), then $$B_{\phi}\sim \tau r\sin\theta B_{r} \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial r}\,.
\label{bphi}$$ Using Eq. (\[bphi\]), equation (\[moment1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{array}{ll}
\rho r^{2}\frac{\partial\Omega}{\partial t}&\approx \frac{1}{4\pi
\sin^{2}\theta}\mathbf{B_{p}}\cdot \nabla (\tau r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta B_{r}
\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial r}) \\
& \approx \frac{B_{r}}{4\pi }\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
(\tau r^{2}B_{r}\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial r}) \\
& \approx \frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
(\frac{\tau B_{r}^{2}}{4\pi\rho}r^{4}\rho
\frac{\partial\Omega}{\partial r})\,.
\end{array}
\label{jdiff}$$ The diffusion coefficient for angular momentum transport can thus be obtained as $$D_{m} =\frac{\tau B_{r}^{2}}{4\pi \rho}.
\label{dm1}$$ In paper I (Yang & Bi [@yang06]) we also got a similar diffusion coefficient, but it was only an assumption that the coefficient can be used in the equation of the transport of angular momentum. From Eq. (\[jdiff\]) it can be found that the magnetic angular momentum transport approximately obeys the diffusion coefficient $D_{m}$.
For a steady equilibrium, the dissipating timescale $\tau$ has to match the growth timescale $\sigma^{-1}$ of the instability. Using the growth time scale of magnetic instability given by Pitts & Tayler ([@pitt85]) and Spruit ([@spr99]), $$\sigma^{-1}=\frac{\Omega}{\omega_{A}^{2}}, \omega_{A}= \frac{B_{\phi}}{(4\pi
\rho)^{1/2}r},$$ one can get the diffusion coefficient $$\begin{array}{lll}
D_{m}&=&\frac{B_{r}^{2}}{4\pi \rho}\frac{\Omega}{\omega_{A}^{2}}\\
&= &r^{2}\Omega (\frac{B_{r}}{B_{\phi}})^{2}.
\end{array}
\label{dm2}$$ Equation (\[dm2\]) can also be rewritten as $$D_{m}=r^{2}\Omega (\frac{\omega_{rA}}{\omega_{A}})^{2},
\label{dm3}$$ where $$\omega_{rA}= \frac{B_{r}}{(4\pi \rho)^{1/2}r}.$$ Equation (\[dm3\]) hints that magnetic angular momentum transport is related to Alfvén waves.
The distribution of magnetic fields inside a star is poorly known. One of the distributions of magnetic fields was given by Spruit ([@spr02]) $$\frac{B_{r}}{B_{\phi}}=q(\frac{\Omega}{N_{\mu}})^{2},
\label{bb1}$$ where $q = -\frac{\partial \mathrm{ln}\Omega}{\partial
\mathrm{lnr}}$, for the case 0 that the effect of thermal diffusion can be neglected, namely $N_{\mu}>N_{T}$, and $$\frac{B_{r}}{B_{\phi}}=2^{1/4}(\frac{\Omega}{N_{T}})^{1/4}
(\frac{\kappa}{r^{2}N_{T}})^{1/4}
\label{bb2}$$ for the case 1 with the effect of thermal diffusion. Using the expressions (\[bb1\]) and (\[bb2\]), one can rewrite Eq. (\[dm2\]) as $$D_{m0}=r^{2}\Omega q^{2}(\frac{\Omega}{N_{\mu}})^{4}
\label{dmc0}$$ for the case 0 and $$D_{m1}=2^{1/2}r^{2}\Omega(\frac{\Omega}{N_{T}})^{1/2}
(\frac{\kappa}{r^{2}N_{T}})^{1/2}
\label{dmc1}$$ for the case 1. Equations (\[dmc0\]) and (\[dmc1\]) are consistent with the effective magnetic viscosity defined by Spruit ([@spr02]) and Maeder & Meynet ([@maed04]) for the radial transport of angular momentum. The expression of (\[dmc0\]) and (\[dmc1\]) is only one of the cases of $D_{m}$. Braithwaite ([@brai06]) validates the Tayler-Spruit dynamo scenario, but which is contrary to the findings of Zahn et al. ([@zahn07]). The rotation profile of massive stars with magnetic fields was investigated by Maeder & Meynet [@maed04]. And the rotation profile of the Sun with magnetic fields was studied by Eggenberger et al. [@egge05]. In this work we focus on solar-like stars with mass 1.0 - 1.5 $M_{\odot}$.
Numerical calculation and results
=================================
Angular momentum transport and loss
-----------------------------------
The Yale Rotation Evolution Code (YREC7) is used to construct stellar models in its rotating configuration (Pinsonneault et al. [@pins89]; Guenther et al. [@gue92]). All models are evolved from fully convective pre-main sequence (PMS) to somewhere near the end of the Main Sequence (MS). The newest OPAL EOS-2005[^1] (Rogers & Nayfonov [@rog02]), OPAL opacity (Iglesias & Rogers [@igl96]), and the Alexander & Ferguson ([@ale94]) opacity for low temperature are used. The models take into account diffusion of helium and metals, using the prescription of Thoul et al. ([@tho94]). The initial chemical composition of the models is fixed at $Z_{0}=0.02$, $X_{0}=0.706$.
Hydrodynamic instabilities considered in the YREC7 have been presented by Pinsonneault et al. ([@pins89]). It is assumed that convection enforces solid-body rotation in the convective regions of a star. Therefore the rotational instabilities are effective only in the radiative regions. The transport of angular momentum is treated as (Endal & Sofia [@endal78]; Pinsonneault et al. [@pins89]) $$\rho r^{2}\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}
=f_{\Omega}\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial}
(\rho r^{4}D\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial r})$$ in the radiative regions of a star, where $f_{\Omega}$ is an adjustable parameter introduced to represent some inherent uncertainties in the diffusion equation. In stars with $M \leq 1.5
M_{\odot}$, angular momentum loss due to magnetic braking is treated as a parameterized formula (Kawaler [@kaw88]) $$\frac{d J}{d t}
=f_{K}K_{\Omega}(\frac{R}{R_{\odot}})^{1/2}
(\frac{M}{M_{\odot}})^{-1/2}\Omega^{3}
\label{agloss}$$ to reproduce the Skumanich relationship (Skumanich [@sku72]), where $K_{\Omega} \simeq 1.13\times10^{47}$ g cm$^{2}$ s, $f_{K}$ is an adjustable parameter. It is assumed that the magnetic braking has an effect on the whole convective envelope. In some case, a PMS star could be locked by the surrounding accretion disk. However the disk can extract angular momentum from the star as well as can supply angular momentum to the star (Stassun & Terndrup [@stas03]). Moreover, it has been argued by Matt & Pudritz ([@matta; @mattb]) that the spin-down of PMS stars may not be due to a magnetic star-disk interaction, but may result from a magnetic stellar wind. Thus for simplicity, we do not consider the magnetic star-disk interaction.
The initial angular momentum of a star is still uncertain. Kawaler ([@kaw87]) shows that the angular momentum $J$ of stars more massive than 1.5 $\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ is proportional to squared mass $\mathrm{M}^{2}$. But the mass-momentum relation of stars below 1.5 $\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ is uncertain. As a first test, we take the initial angular momentum to be a free parameter. The adjustable parameters mentioned above are listed in Table \[tab1\].
------- ------------- -------------------------------------- --------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
model mass $J^{a}_{0}$ $f_{k}$ $f_{\Omega1}^{\mathrm{b}}$ $f_{\Omega2}^{\mathrm{c}}$
M$_{\odot}$ $10^{50}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2} s^{-1}}$
M1.0a 1.0 1.591 3.0 1.0 0
M1.0b 1.0 1.591 3.0 1.0 0.01
M1.2 1.2 1.9095 3.0 1.0 0.01
M1.4 1.4 1.534 1.0 1.0 0.01
M1.5 1.5 1.095 1.0 1.0 0.01
------- ------------- -------------------------------------- --------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
: Model parameters[]{data-label="tab1"}
The initial angular momentum;
The value of $f_{\Omega}$ for the coefficient of hydrodynamic instabilities (Pinsonneault et al. [@pins89]);
The value of $f_{\Omega}$ for $D_{m}$; model M1.0a with only hydrodynamic instabilities.
Results of calculation
----------------------
Figure \[fig1\] compares the evolution of the internal rotation profile of 1.0 M$_{\odot}$ models with only hydrodynamic instabilities given by Pinsonneault et al. ([@pins89]) and with both the hydrodynamic instabilities and magnetic fields. Both models are evolved from PMS with initial angular momentum $J_{0}=1.591
\times 10^{50}$ g cm$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$ to the age of 4.5 Gyr. During the PMS phase, although with angular momentum loss from the surface of models, the rotation rate rapidly increases due to quickly contracting. The internal rotation profile of model with magnetic fields has been different from that of model with only hydrodynamic instabilities when the models are near the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS). The model with only hydrodynamic instabilities has a fast rotation core. The rotation of model with magnetic fields is, however, almost uniform. During the early stage of the MS, the rotation of the model M1.0a is differential, but the model M1.0b is a quasi-solid body rotation. At the age of 4.5 Gyr, the surface rotation rates of two models are around 2.7 $\times$ $10^{-6}$ rad/s. However, internal distribution of angular velocity is quite different. The model M1.0a shows a strong differential rotation with a factor of about 40 between the angular velocity in the core and at the surface; but the model M1.0b shows an almost uniform angular velocity, with a small increase in $\Omega(r)$ in the center of $r$ $<$ 0.2 $R_{\odot}$, as that obtained by Eggenberger et al. ([@egge05]). The surface rotation rate of model M1.0b is higher than that of model M1.0a in the early evolutionary stage. And the loss rate of angular momentum is related to $\Omega^{3}$. Consequently the amount of the angular momentum loss of model M1.0b is larger than that of model M1.0a. The total angular momentum of model M1.0a is 2.628 $\times$ $10^{49}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2}s^{-1}}$ at the age of 4.5 Gyr, which is about 13 times larger than the seismical result (1.94 $\pm$ 0.05) $\times$ $10^{48}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2}s^{-1}}$ (Komm et al. [@kom03]); but the total angular momentum of model M1.0b is 2.045 $\times$ $10^{48}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2}s^{-1}}$ at the age of 4.5 Gyr, which is consistent with the result of helioseismology at the level of 3 $\sigma$.
Figure \[fig2\] shows the evolution of the internal rotation profile of model M1.2. In the early evolutionary stage, the angular velocity $\Omega (r)$ is almost constant. At the stage of $X_{c}
\sim$ 0.69, about 90 percent of the initial angular momentum has been lost; the rotation is nearly uniform in the radiative region; but the rotation of the convective core is faster than that of the radiative region. There is a transition region between the convective core and the radiative region, where the angular velocity has a sharp radial change due to the spin-down of the outer parts of model resulting from angular momentum loss and the decrease of the horizontal coupling provided by the magnetic field resulting from the increase in $\mu$-gradient in the region. The loss of angular momentum mainly occurs in the early evolutionary stage. During the late stage of the MS, the total angular momentum of model M1.2 is only several percent of the initial angular momentum; the rotation is slow; thus the loss rate of angular momentum is very low. Consequently, the angular momentum of model M1.2 is almost conservative from the stage of $X_{c} = 0.153$ to the stage of $X_{c}=0.058$.
The evolution of the internal rotation profiles of models M1.4 and M1.5 are shown in Figs. \[fig3\] and \[fig4\]. The model M1.4 has lost about 50 percent of the initial angular momentum at the stage of $X_{c} = 0.675$. But the model M1.5 has only lost about 15 percent of the initial angular momentum even at the stage of $X_{c}
= 0.487$. The distributions of the angular velocity of models M1.4 and M1.5 are different from that of model M1.2. The angular velocity between the convective core and the radiative region of models M1.4 and M1.5 decreases obviously when the radius increases. The radial change of the angular velocity between the convective core and the radiative region in models M1.4 and M1.5 is larger than that in model M1.2, which should be due to the $\mu$-gradient and the fast spin-down occurring at the same stage in models M1.4 and M1.5. However, in model M1.2, the fast spin-down occurs in the early evolutionary stage when the $\mu$-gradient is small.
Figure \[fig5\] shows the distribution of the hydrogen mass fraction $X$ of models M1.2 and M1.4. It is obvious that there is a sharp $\mu$-gradient at the bottom of the radiative region of models M1.2 and M1.4 at the late stage of MS. The $\mu$-gradient and the $\Omega$-gradient are in the same region. The ratio of magnetic field, $B_{r}/B_{\phi}$, is related to $\nabla_{\mu}^{-1}$ in Tayler-Sprut dynamo, namely $D_{m}\sim \nabla_{\mu}^{-2}$. Thus the increase in $\mu$-gradient must lead to the decrease in the coupling provided by magnetic fields. This scenario was first found by Eggenberger et al. ([@egge05]) in the Sun.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
The surface velocity is sensitive to the loss rate of the angular momentum. The equation (\[agloss\]) may overestimate the loss rate of angular momentum of the rapid rotation stars (Andronov et al. [@andr03]). But it can reproduce the Sun’s rotation. Thus we take it in our models. The adjustable parameter, $f_{k}$, is adjusted to obtain the solar rotation rate at the age of 4.5 Gyr in models M1.0a and M1.0b. However the same value of $f_{k}$ cannot be applied to models M1.4 and M1.5 because the convective envelope of models M1.4 and M1.5 is too shallow. Thus we take a small $f_{k}$ for models M1.4 and M1.5.
The value of parameter $f_{\Omega2}$ is adjusted to obtain a quasi-solid rotation in our models. The value of 0.01 can do work in our models. However this value is less than 1. This could be a consequence of overestimating the ratio of $B_{r}$ to $B_{\phi}$ in Tayler-Spruit dynamo.
The distribution of angular velocity of models M1.0a and M1.0b shows that the rotation profile strongly depends on the efficiency of angular momentum transport. The angular momentum is effectively transported outward by magnetic fields in M1.0b. Thus the rotation of the core of M1.0b is slow comparing with that of M1.0a. The surface rotation rate mainly depends on the loss rate of angular momentum and the amount of outward transport of angular momentum. Because both M1.0a and M1.0b have same value of $f_{k}$ and initial $\Omega$, the discrepancy of the surface velocity between M1.0a and M1.0b relies on the efficiency of outward transport of angular momentum. In M1.0b, the loss of angular momentum is counteracted by magnetic angular momentum transport. Thus the surface velocity of M1.0b is higher than that of M1.0a when the interior of M1.0b has enough angular momentum to transport outward. The loss rate of angular momentum is related to $\Omega^{3}$. Consequently the amount of angular momentum loss of model M1.0b is larger than that of model M1.0a. This scenario takes place in the early evolutionary stage.
At the early stage of M1.2, the fast spin-down leads to the sharp radial change of angular velocity at the top of the convective core. But at the same stage of models M1.4 and M1.5, the spin-down is slow. At the late evolutionary stage of M1.2, although there is a large $\mu$-gradient at the top of the core, the spin-down is very slow. Thus the radial change of the angular velocity is small comparing with that of models M1.4 and M1.5 at the top of the core. However in models M1.4 and M1.5, the $\mu$-gradient and the fast spin-down resulting from angular momentum loss and stellar expansion occur on the same stage. Therefore the radial change of angular velocity is large at the top of the core in models M1.4 and M1.5.
The 1.0 $\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ model with only hydrodynamic instabilities has a fast rotation core, and its total angular momentum is 2.628 $\times$ $10^{49}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2}s^{-1}}$ at the age of 4.5 Gyr, which disagrees with the helioseismic results. However the 1.0 $\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ model with magnetic fields has a slow rotation core, and the rotation is almost uniform in the radiative region, which are consistent with the seismical results. Moreover the total angular momentum of the model with magnetic fields is 2.045 $\times$ $10^{48}$ g $\mathrm{cm^{2}s^{-1}}$ at the age of 4.5 Gyr, which agrees with the helioseismic result at the level of 3 $\sigma$.
A diffusion coefficient of magnetic angular momentum transport is obtained. Not only can the magnetic fields reproduce a quasi-solid rotation, but they can enhance the loss rate of angular momentum. The rotation of solar-like stars with magnetic fields is almost uniform in the radiative regions, which is consistent with the results of helio- and asteroseismology. However there is a transition region between the convective core and the radiative region, where the angular velocity has a sharp radial change, which is different from that of solar model and that of massive stars shown by Maeder & Meynet ([@maed04]). Moreover the changes of the angular velocity in the transition region increase with the increasing in the age and mass.
————————————–
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s republic of China through grant 2007CB815406, and by the NSFC though grants 10173021, 10433030, 10773003, and 10778601.
[99]{}
Aerts C., Daszynska J., Scuflaire R. et al., 2003, Sci, 300, 1926 Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 1994, ApJ, 437, 846 Andronov N., Pinsonneault M., Sills A., 2003, ApJ, 582, 358 Baglin A., Michel E., Auvergne M. et al., 2006, In: K. Fletcher, M. Thompson, ed., Proceeding of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun, ESA SP-624, p34 Basu S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Thompson M. J., 2002, In: F. Favata, I. W. Roxburgh, D. Daladi-Enriquez, ed., Proc. 1st Eddington Meeting ‘Stellar Structure and habitable Planet Finding’, ESA SP-485, 407 Basu S., 2003, Ap&SS, 284, 153 Barnes G., Charbonneau P., MacGregor K. B. 1999, ApJ, 511, 466
Berthomieu G., Toutain T., Gonczi G. et al., 2001, In: A. Wilson, ed., Proc. SOHO 10/GONG 2000 Workshop: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millennium, ESA SP-464, 411 Braithwaite J., 2006, A&A, 449, 451 Chaboyer B., Demarque P., Pinsonneault M. H., 1995, ApJ, 441, 865 Chaplin W. J., Christensen-dalsgaard J., Elsworth Y. et al., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 405 Charbonneau P., 2005, LRSP, 2, 2 Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Arentoft T., Brown T. M. et al., 2007, CoAst, 150, 350
Eggenberger P., Maeder A., Meynet G., 2005, A&A, 440, L9 Endal A. S., Sofia S., 1976, ApJ, 210, 184 Endal A. S., Sofia S., 1978, ApJ, 220, 279 Endal A. S., Sofia S., 1981, ApJ, 243, 625 Fan Y., 2004, LRSP, 1, 1
Gough D. O., Kosovichev A. G., 1993, ASPC, 40, 541 Gough D. O., Kosovichv A. G., Toomre J. et al., 1996, Sci, 272, 1296 Gough D. O., 1998, In: H. Kjeldsen, T.R. Bedding, eds., The First MONS Workshop: Science with a Small Space Telescope, Aarhus University: p. 33. Goupil M. J., Dziembowski W. A., Goode P. R. et al., 1996, A&A, 305, 487 Guenther D. B., Demarque P., Kim Y. C. et al., 1992, ApJ, 387, 372G
Huang R. Q., 2004, A&A, 422, 981H Huang R. Q., Song H. F., Bi S. L., 2007, ChJAA, 7, 235 Iglesias C., Rogers F. J., 1996, ApJ, 464, 943 Kawaler S. D., 1987, PASP, 99, 1322 Kawaler S. D., 1988, ApJ, 333, 236 Kippenhaln R., Thomas H. C., In Stelllar Rotation (Slettebak, A., ed), New York: Gordon and Breach, 1970, p.20 Komm R., Howe R., Durney B. R. et al., 2003, ApJ, 586, 650
Lochard J., Samadi R., Goupil M. J., 2004, SoPh., 220, 199 Lochard J., Samadi R., Goupil M. J., 2005, A&A, 438, 939 Maeder A., Meynet, G., 2000, ARA&A, 38, 43 Maeder A., Meynet, G., 2003, A&A, 411, 543 Maeder A., Meynet, G., 2004, A&A, 422, 225 Maeder A., Meynet, G., 2005, A&A, 440, 104 Matt S., Pudritz R. E., 2005a, MNRAS, 356, 167 Matt S., Pudritz R. E., 2005b, ApJ, 632, L135 Meynet G., Maeder A. 1997, A&A, 321, 465
Palacios A., Talon S., Charbonnel, C. et al., 2003, A&A, 399, 603 Pinsonneault M. H., Kawaler S. D., Sofia S. et al., 1989, ApJ, 338, 424 Pitts E., Tayler R. J., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 139 Rogers F. J., Nayfonov A, ApJ, 2002, 576,1064 Roxburgh I. W., Audard N., Basu S. et al., 1998, In: J. Provost and F. X. Schmider, eds., Proc. IAU Symp. 181: Sounding Solar and Stellar Interiors, Nice Observatory, 245
Schou J., Antia H. M., Basu S. et al., 1998, ApJ, 505, 390 Skumanish A., 1972, ApJ, 171, 565 Spruit H. C., 1999, A&A, 349, 189 Spruit H. C., 2002, A&A, 381, 923 Stassun K. G., Terndrup D., 2003, PASP, 115, 505 Thoul A. A., Bahcall J. N., Loeb A., 1994, ApJ, 421, 828 Thompson M, J., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Miesch M. S., et al., 2003, ARA&A, 41, 599
Walker G. A. H., Croll B., Kuschnig R. et al., 2007, ApJ, 659, 1611W Yang W. M., Bi S. L., 2006, A&A, 449, 1161 (paper I) Zahn J.-P., 1992, A&A, 265, 115 Zahn J.-P., Brun A. S., Mathis, S., 2007, A&A, 474, 145
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: http://physci.llnl.gov/Research/OPAL/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Reviewing the ideas developed in [@myself], the ground state life time of a finite size atomic Bose Einstein condensate is studied for coherent, squeezed coherent and thermal coherent ground states. Ground state evolution of coherent and squeezed coherent states in a double well potential is studied. Effects of thin spectrum on Bose-Einstein condensates is discussed and quasiparticle excitation lifetimes are calculated. It is shown that the effect of the states we use on the free energy vanishes in the thermodynamic limit. Possible extension to a double well potential and effect of a second broken symmetry is also discussed.'
author:
- 'T. Birol'
- 'Ö. E. Müstecapl[i]{}oğlu'
title: Effects of Zero Mode and Thin Spectrum on the Life Time of Atomic Bose Einstein Condensates
---
Introduction
============
Shortly after Bose Einstein condensation [@bec_original] was obtained in trapped Alkali atoms [@bec95], many theoretical and experimental studies focused on the quantum coherence properties of such systems. It was shown that apart from the usual decoherence, which stems from the imperfect isolation from the environment, the system also suffers phase diffusion [@walls; @you96], which is due to the atomic number fluctuations in the condensate [@hansch]. There is a third source of decoherence which limits the life time of excitations in BECs. This mechanism is based on the existence of a group of *thin spectrum* states [@wezel06]. The relation of thin spectra with decoherence of excitations is recently proposed and applied to Lieb-Mattis model and superconductors by the same authors [@wezel05; @wezel07]. Effect of a thin spectrum on quasiparticle excitations on BECs is discussed in [@myself]. In this paper we review these ideas with some extensions and also discuss the decoherence that a double well BEC experiences.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II begins with a review of a toy model for zero mode dynamics, studying coherent, squeezed coherent and thermal coherent ground state lifetimes. A toy model for a double well condensate is also introduced and coherent and squeezed coherent states in such a system is studied. In section III we apply the thin spectrum formalism to atomic BECs and discuss its similarities and differences with other calculations. After making some comments about the existence of a second thin spectrum in a double well system and outlining the calculation of lifetime in a double well system, we conclude in section IV. Acknowledgements are in section V.
Toy Model
=========
Introduction
------------
In order to understand the basic idea underlying the phase diffusion at zero temperature, it is useful to introduce a toy model [@toy1; @toy2]. The total Hamiltonian of a homogeneous Bose Einstein condensate in the weakly interacting limit is $$\mathcal{H}= \sum_k E_k a^\dagger_k a_k + \frac{\tilde u}{2}\sum_{k,
p, q}a_{p+q}^\dagger a_{k - q}^\dagger a_k a_p \label{equ_ham1}$$ where $a_k$ is the annihilation operator of the $k$ mode and $\tilde{u}$ is the parameter determining the strength of interactions between bosons, that is $\tilde{u}=\frac{4 \pi
\hbar^2 a_s}{m V}$, where $V$ is the quantization volume. In order to fix the average number of atoms, a chemical potential $\mu$ is also included in single particle energy: $E_k=\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2
m} - \mu$.
We are interested in the zero-mode dynamics of the system, so we discard terms including $a_{\vec{k}\neq 0}$ and redefine $\mu$ in order to get the basic $U(1)$ gauge symmetric Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{\tilde{u}}{2}a^\dagger a^\dagger a a - \mu
a^\dagger a, \label{u1hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ The grounstate of such a Hamiltonian is clearly a Fock state with a number $N$ determined by $\mu$. However, Fock states have no definite phase and since Bose Einstein condensation entails a phase-symmetry broken state, the groundstate we seek cannot simply be a Fock state. The simplest idea is to consider a coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$ with $\alpha= \sqrt{N}$, as coherent states are the simplest states carrying a (almost) definite phase. A second step can be considering squeezed coherent states [@mandel], which again carry some phase information, but the uncertainty in their phase can be larger or less than a corresponding coherent state. And finally, it is important to find a state which both carries phase information and is temperature dependent. For this purpose, we are going to introduce the *thermal coherent states* after studying the zero-mode evolutions of coherent and squeezed coherent states.
Lifetime for coherent groundstate
---------------------------------
The coherent (or quasi-classical [@cohentannoudji]) state $|
\alpha \rangle$ is defined as the right eigenstate of the annihilation operator and has the Fock state expansion $$|\alpha\rangle = {\rm e}^{-|\alpha|^2 /2} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}} |n\rangle .$$ This simple expansion makes it possible to calculate the time dependence of the expectation value of the annihilation operator $a$, which we consider as the order parameter, possible. We define the energy of the $n$-[th]{} Fock state $|n\rangle$ as $E_n=\frac{\tilde{u}}{2}(n^2 - n) - \mu n$ through $\mathcal{H}|n\rangle = E_n |n\rangle$. This gives the simple time dependent expression $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \alpha|a|\alpha\rangle
&=&\sqrt{N} \exp\left(N[{\rm e}^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}
\tilde{u}t}-1]\right){\rm e}^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\mu t},
\label{gte}\end{aligned}$$ whose short time behavior is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \alpha|a|\alpha\rangle = \sqrt{N} {\rm
e}^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\mu t}{\rm e}^{-i\frac{N\tilde{u}}{\hbar}t} {\rm
e}^{-\frac{N \tilde{u}^2}{2\hbar^2} t^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the order parameter decays exponentially [@walls; @you96]. At longer time scale $\langle
\alpha|a|\alpha\rangle$ revives due to discrete and thus periodic nature of the exact time evolution (\[gte\]). However, the ratio of the revival time $t_r$ to the collapse time scales as $t_r/t_c
=\sqrt{N}$, and hence in the thermodynamic limit the collapse is irreversible. Denoting the density of condensed atom numbers in the quantization volume as $\rho=N/V$, collapse time $t_c=\hbar/\sqrt{N}\tilde{u}$ can be written as $t_c=\hbar\sqrt{N}/\rho u_0$ to see its behavior in the thermodynamic limit more directly. As $\rho$ is fixed in the thermodynamic limit where $N$ and $V$ increases indefinitely, we see that $t_c$ increases indefinitely. Revival time $t_r=\hbar/\tilde{u}=\hbar N/u_0\rho$ increases with $N$ linearly. In practice, the available condensates contain small number of atoms and furthermore, they are in traps that makes them inhomogeneous systems. Our homogeneous system Hamiltonian can qualitatively describe their collapse time behavior by letting $V$ denote the condensate mode volume, though $t_c,t_r$ would have different expressions for the case of a trapped condensate. In particular, collapse time of a harmonically trapped three dimensional isotropic condensate in a coherent state behaves like $t_c\sim N^{1/10}$ in the Thomas-Fermi limit [@toy2]. Homogenous condensate collapse time is growing much faster, as $t_c\sim N^{1/2}$. Despite these quantitative differences, we can still express $t_c$ of homogeneous BEC in terms of parameters of a trapped BEC. For that aim we shall only eliminate $m$ via the characteristic length scale for a harmonic trap potential as $a_{\rm ho}=\sqrt{\hbar/m \omega_{\rm
tr}}$ in terms of the harmonic trap frequency $\omega_{\rm tr}$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
t_c=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{4 \pi N_{\rm eff}}\frac{1}{\omega_{\rm tr}},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\rm eff}=\rho a_{\rm ho}^2 a_s$. Assuming a typical situation of current experiments with $N\sim 10^6$, $a_s=10$ nm, $a_{\rm ho}=1$ $\mu$m, and $\rho=10^{21}$ m$^{-3}$, we get $t_c\simeq 10/\omega_{\rm tr}$. For a harmonic trap with $\omega_{\rm tr}=100$ Hz, this amounts to $t_c\sim 10^{-1}$ seconds, clearly within the regime to be confirmed and studied experimentally [@hansch].
Lifetime for squeezed coherent groundstate
------------------------------------------
The squeezed coherent state [@mandel] $|\alpha, \gamma\rangle$ is defined as $|\alpha, \gamma\rangle =
D(\alpha)S(\gamma)|vac\rangle$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S(\gamma)={\rm e}^{\frac{\gamma}{2} a a- \frac{\gamma^*}{2}
a^\dagger a^\dagger}.\end{aligned}$$ is the unitary squeezing operator and $D(\alpha)=\exp(\alpha a
-\alpha^* a^\dagger)$ is the displacement operator. This again is a minimum uncertainty state, but the quantum fluctuations of two quadratures are not equal to each other. Arguments of $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ determine which quadrature is *squeezed* at the expense of increased uncertainty of the other one. In particular, if both parameters are real and positive, then the state is *number squeezed*, that is the uncertainty of the number operator is reduced whereas the conjugate variable, phase, has a higher uncertainty. Such a state resembles a Fock state more than a coherent state and therefore is expected to have a longer life time, since the phase collapse speed is generally proportional to $\Delta
N$, which is smaller in this case, as have recently observed experimentally [@mara; @ibloch]. This situation is analogous to the dispersion of a wavepacket consisting of different frequency components.
In terms of a new parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta= \gamma \frac{\tanh(|\gamma|)}{|\gamma|}\end{aligned}$$ the Fock state expansion of the squeezed coherent state is [@wunsche] $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha, \gamma \rangle
&=& \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A_n(\alpha, \zeta) |n\rangle\nonumber\\
&=& (1-|\zeta|^2)^{1/4}
{\rm e}^{- \frac{(\alpha + \zeta \alpha^*)\alpha^*}{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\sqrt{\frac{\zeta^n}{2^n n!}} H_n\left(\frac{\alpha+\zeta \alpha^*}{\sqrt{2 \zeta}}\right)
|n\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $H_n$ is the n-th Hermite Polynomial. The order parameter becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \alpha, \gamma | \hat{a}(t) | \alpha,\gamma \rangle =
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sqrt{n+1}A_n^* A_{n+1}
{\rm e}^{\frac{i}{\hbar}(E_n - E_{n+1})t},
\label{esg}\end{aligned}$$ which is not possible to evaluate analytically. We therefore attack the problem using simple numerical methods, and plot the time dependence of the order parameter for various values of $\zeta$, both real and imaginary. It is clearly seen in figure \[figstm1\] that squeezing in the number direction increases the life time, whereas in figure \[figstm2\] we see squeezing in phase direction leads to a faster decay.
![The comparison of the short time decay character for a coherent state condensate with that for squeezed states with $\zeta=0.5$ and $\zeta=0.9$. Sample parameters used are $a_s=10nm$, $a_{\rm ho}=1$ $\mu$m, $n=10^{21}$ m$^{-3}$, and $\alpha=10$ corresponds to $N=100$. In this case, the dimensionless time is in units of $\hbar/\tilde{u}$ becomes $\hbar/\tilde{u}= \omega_{\rm
tr}^{-1}$. The fastest decay (solid line) is for the coherent state, while the dashed (dotted) line refers to that of a squeezed state with $\zeta=0.5$ ($\zeta=0.9$). \[figstm1\]](stm1.eps){width="3.5in"}
![Decay of the order parameter for the coherent state and squeezed states of $\zeta=0.5$, $\zeta=0.5 i$ and $\zeta=-0.5$ as a function of $t \omega_{tr}$. The same sample parameters with the previous plot are used. The solid line is the coherent state, the dashed line is the squeezed state with $\zeta=0.5$, and the dotted ones are the squeezed states with $\zeta=0.5i$ and $\zeta=-0.5$. \[figstm2\]](stm2.eps){width="3.5in"}
Considering the time evolution of the Q-functions might provide some extra insight into the phase diffusion. In a contour plot of a Q function, radial distribution corresponds to the number distribution whereas angular one gives the phase information. Beginning with a state with some phase information, we expect it to get a rotationally symmetric form as time passes and phase diffusion occurs. This is seen in the figures \[scsQ1\] and \[scsQ2\] which correspond to squeezed coherent states with $\alpha=10$ and $\zeta=\mp0.5$ respectively.
![Time evolution of the Q-function for squeezed-coherent state with $\alpha=10$ and $\zeta=0.5$ for increasing values of $t
\omega_{tr}$. Figures (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond to $t
\omega_{tr}=0$, $t \omega_{tr}=0.02$, $t \omega_{tr}=0.10$ and $t
\omega_{tr}=0.40$. \[scsQ1\]](scsQ1.eps){width="3.5in"}
![Time evolution of the Q-function for squeezed-coherent state with $\alpha=10$ and $\zeta=-0.5$ for increasing values of $t
\omega_{tr}$. Figures (a), (b), (c) and (d) again corresponds to same time steps; $t \omega_{tr}=0$, $t \omega_{tr}=0.02$, $t
\omega_{tr}=0.10$ and $t \omega_{tr}=0.40$. The speed of phase diffusion is higher since the state is a phase-squeezed state. \[scsQ2\]](scsQ2.eps){width="3.5in"}
Lifetime for thermal coherent groundstate
-----------------------------------------
In order to study groundstate lifetime in finite temperature, we need a state with both a thermal characteristic and phase information. The thermal state with the density matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm th} &=& {\rm e}^{-\beta \mathcal{H}}\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_n {\rm e}^{- \beta E_n} |n\rangle\langle n|,
\label{eqt}\end{aligned}$$ has a uniform phase, that is $\langle a \rangle = 0$. We introduce the thermal coherent state as $\rho = D(\alpha) \rho_{\rm th}
D^\dagger (\alpha)$, where $\rho_{\rm th}$ is defined using a Hamiltonian without free energy, that is $E_n|n\rangle=(\tilde{u}/2) a^\dagger a^\dagger a a |n\rangle$. Using the Fock state expansion of displaced number state $|n,\alpha\rangle$ [@roy82] $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha)|n\rangle &=& |n, \alpha\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{- \frac{1}{2}
|\alpha|^2} \sqrt{\frac{n!}{m!}}
\alpha^{m-n} L_n^{m-n}(|\alpha|^2)|m\rangle \hskip 24pt\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} C_m (n, \alpha)
|m\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $L_k^l$ are the generalized Laguerre polynomials, $\rho$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=&\sum_{n m m'} {\rm e}^{-\beta E_n} C_m(n,\alpha)
C_{m'}^*(n,\alpha) |m\rangle \langle m'|.\end{aligned}$$ The order parameter, which is found by taking the trace of $a \rho$equals $$\begin{aligned}
\langle a(t) \rangle &=& \sum_{nmm'k} {\rm e}^{-\beta E_n}
C_m(n,\alpha) C_{m'}^\dagger(n,\alpha) \langle k|m\rangle \langle
m'|{\rm e}^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\mathcal{H}t}a {\rm
e}^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\mathcal{H}t}|k\rangle ,\\
&=& \sum_{n m} {\rm e}^{-\beta E_n}
C_{m+1}(n, \alpha) C_{m}^*(n, \alpha) \sqrt{m}\, {\rm
e}^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}(E_{m+1}-E_m) t}.\end{aligned}$$ There will be destructive interference since $E_{n+1} - E_n$ is not constant. The number of contributing factors is determined by $\beta$, that is, temperature. Increased temperature will make more terms contribute and hence lead to shorter lifetime. Time evolution of the order parameter is plotted in figure \[dtsop\] for $\alpha=10$.
![The short time decays for thermal coherent states. The lines correspond respectively to $T=1000$ nK, 100 nK, 10 nK, 1 nK, and 0.001 nK from left to right. The humps are due to the ground degeneracy $E_0=E_1$. Even as the temperature approaches zero, the state does not approach the ordinary coherent state $D(\alpha)
|0\rangle$. Instead, it approaches a superposition state $D(\alpha)
(|0\rangle + |1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. It can be seen that the envelope of the function for small $T$ decays at the same time scale as a coherent state.\[dtsop\]](dts.eps){width="3.5in"}
{width="3.5in"}
{width="3.5in"}
Toy Model for Double Well Potential
-----------------------------------
We now consider the case when two condensates in identical potential wells are brought into contact via a Josephson-like junction. The toy model Hamiltonian is of the form [@toy1; @toy2] $$\mathcal{H}=\frac{\tilde{u}}{2}(a^\dag a^\dag a a + b^\dag b^\dag b
b)-\mu(a^\dag a + b^\dag b) - \lambda (a^\dag b + b^\dag a)$$ where $a$ ($b$) is the annihilation operator for the zero mode of the condensate in well A (B). We denote the state which has $n$ atoms in well A and $m$ atoms in well B by $|n, m\rangle$. Assuming the total number of atoms in both wells is fixed and equal to $N$, the ground state $|gr\rangle$ of the double well condensate can be expanded as $$|gr\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n |n, N-n\rangle .$$ For identical wells, $c_n$ is expected to be peaked around $n=N/2$. The strength $\lambda$ of the coupling determines the dispersion of the number of atoms in a well. In particular, if one makes the ansatz $$|c_n|^2 \propto {\rm e}^{- \frac{(n-N/2)^2}{2 \sigma^2 (N/2)}}$$ expanding the Schroedinger equation gives [@toy1; @toy2] $$\sigma^2=\frac{N}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{N \tilde{u}/2 +\lambda}}.$$
In order to study the phase collapse, we consider the correlation $G=\langle gr|b^\dag a |gr\rangle$. The time evolution of this expectation value after the coupling is turned off can be easily shown to be $$G=\sum_{n=0}^\infty {\rm e}^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} (E_n -E_{n+1}) t}
c_n^* c_{n+1} \sqrt{(n+1)(N-n)}.$$ We have defined $\mathcal{H}|n,N-n\rangle =E_n|n,N-n\rangle$, so $E_n=\frac{\tilde{u}}{2} \left(n (n-1) + (N-n)(N-n-1)\right)-\mu N$. Plotting this for coherent, number squeezed and phase squeezed states we see that the qualitative results we got from single well toy model is still valid, as expected.
{width="3.5in"}
{width="3.5in"}
When the results for single and double well systems are compared, it is seen that although decay times are both in the same order of magnitude, a double well condensate with equal number of atoms in each well as a single well condensate suffers faster decay. This agrees with the analytical results obtained in [@toy1] using the same ansatz for single and double well ground states.
Thin spectrum formalism
=======================
Introduction
------------
By thin spectrum, we refer to a group of states whose energy spacings are so low that they are not controllable by any experiment and whose effect on the free energy becomes zero in the thermodynamic limit. That the existence of a thin spectrum leads to decoherence of excitations at finite temperature is proved in [@wezel05; @wezel06]. In [@wezel05] it is shown that excitations on a Lieb-Mattis system suffer decoherence with a rate proportinal to $k_B T / N \hbar$ where $N$ is the system size. In [@wezel05] the same authors claim that this time scale, being independent of the details of the system, applies to other physical systems too, and in [@wezel07] they prove that Hubbard model superconductors suffers the same decay. In this section, we apply the thin spectrum formalism to atomic BECs and show that they suffer collapse in the same time scale.
Quasiparticle lifetime in Bose-Einstein condensates
---------------------------------------------------
We now go back to the Hamiltonian (\[equ\_ham1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=\sum_k E_k a_k^\dagger a_k + \frac{\tilde
u}{2}\sum_{k,p,q}a_{p+q}^\dagger a_{k-q}^\dagger a_k a_p.\end{aligned}$$ Omitting the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ order terms in the non-condensed modes (${k\neq 0}$) we get $$\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_z + \mathcal{H}_e,$$ $$\mathcal{H}_z = \frac{\tilde u}{2} (\hat{n}_0^2 -\hat{n}_0),$$ $$\mathcal{H}_e = \sum_{k\neq0}\left[\left(E_k +2\tilde{u}
\hat{n}_0\right)\hat{n}_k +
\frac{\tilde u}{2}\left(a_k^\dagger a_{-k}^\dagger a_0 a_0 +
h.c.\right)\right].$$ In order to study the excitations and zero mode separately, we need $[\mathcal{H}_z,\mathcal{H}_e]=0$ and for this we neglect the quantum nature of $a_0$ in $\mathcal{H}_e$ by replacing $\hat{n}_0/V$ appearing in $\mathcal{H}_e$ by $\rho_0 = N_0 /V$. Here $N_0$ denotes the number of atoms in the zero mode, and so $\rho_0$ is the corresponding density. After substituting the chemical potential that gives the correct number of atoms, $\mu_0=u_0 \rho_0 -u_0\rho_0/2N_0$, we get $$\mathcal{H}=\frac{u_0 \rho_0}{2 N_0} \hat{n}_0^2 -\rho_0 u_0
\hat{n}_0 + \mathcal{H}_e .$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_e=\sum_{k \neq 0}\left[\epsilon_k \hat{n}_k + \frac{u_0
\rho_0}{2}(a_k^\dagger a_{-k}^\dagger + h.c.)\right]. \label{Hbg}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $u_0$ is the interaction strength not scaled with V, that is $u_0= V \tilde{u}$, and $\epsilon_k$ is defined as $\epsilon_k =
E_k+2u_0\rho_0$. The excitation Hamiltonian can be diagonalized to give $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_e=\sum_{k \neq 0} \omega_k b_k^\dagger b_k + const.,\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_k=[\epsilon_k^2 - u_0^2 \rho_0^2]^{1/2}$ [@greiner] and $b_k=S a_k S^{-1}$. $S$ is the multi-mode squeeze operator [@haque06].
For simplicity, we consider a system with quasiparticle excitations in only one mode. We denote such a system with $n$ atoms in the condensate and $m$ quasiparticles with $\omega$ by $|n,m\rangle$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{n}_0|n,m\rangle &=& n |n,m\rangle,\\
\hat{n}_{k'}|n,m\rangle &=& m\,\delta_{k,k'} |n,m\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\mathcal{H}|n,m\rangle = E_m^{(n)} |n,m\rangle,$$ We consider single-particle regime such that quasiparticle and particle occupation numbers become the same. Due to the number conservation, sum of condensate atoms and the quasiparticles should remain the same. To excite $m$ quasiparticles, we have to decrease condensate atom number by $m$. The energy of the corresponding state becomes $$E_m^{(n)} = \left[\frac{u_0 \rho_0n^2}{2(N_0 - m)} - u_0 \rho_0 n +
m\omega\right].$$
Following [@wezel06], we assume that in the beginning the system has no quasiparticle excitations at all, and therefore has a Boltzmann weighted distribution over the states $|n,0\rangle$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t=0)\propto\sum_n {\rm e}^{- \beta E_0^{(n)}}
|n,0\rangle\langle n,0|. \label{equ42}\end{aligned}$$ This state has no phase, and therefore is not the perfect starting point for a BEC. However, if we are interested only in the collapse of the excitations and if this take place on a time scale smaller than the time of phase diffusion of the zero mode, then we can get an estimate. For the time being we will study excitations on this thermal state, and in the following subsection we will generalize our ideas to thermal coherent states.
Before proceeding further, we replace the sum in eq. (\[equ42\]) by an integral. Since the value of $E_n$ will be extremely small for $n<0$, it is also legitimate to expand this integral to include the negative values of n too.
Now we bring the system to a superposition of the zero-quasiparticle state and the one quasiparticle state, that is we bring each $|n,0\rangle$ to $(|n,0\rangle+|n,1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. Such a state can be interpreted as a particular qubit [@wezel06]. For thin spectrum to affect the system, it is essential that we bring the system to a superposition rather than simply exciting a quasiparticle. Now, the off diagonal element of the resulting state’s density matrix will evolve according to $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm od}(t>0) &\propto& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm
e}^{-\beta E_0^{(n)}}
{\rm e}^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}(E_1^{(n)} - E_0^{(n)}) t} dn \nonumber\\
&\propto& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{(-\beta u_0
\rho_0/2 N_0 + i t u_0 \rho_0/2\hbar N_0^2)n^2 +
\beta \rho_0 u_0 n} dn \nonumber\\
&\propto& \sqrt{\pi} \frac{\exp\left(\frac{\beta^2
\rho_0^2 u_0^2}{2\beta u_0 \rho_0 / N_0 - 2 i t u_0
\rho_0 / \hbar N_0^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\beta u_0 \rho_0 / 2N_0 - i t u_0 \rho_0 / 2 \hbar
N_0^2}},\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
|\rho_{\rm od}(t)|^2 \propto \frac{\exp\left(\frac{\beta^3 N_0^3 u_0
\rho_0}{\beta^2 N_0^2 + t^2/\hbar^2} \right)}{\sqrt{\beta^2 + t^2
/\hbar^2 N_0^2}}, \label{decay_4}\end{aligned}$$ after omitting terms with only a phase factor. Although the denominator and the numerator have quite different forms, we find that both decay in a time proportional to $t_{c}\sim \hbar N_0 / k_B
T$. This is the same result that Wezel *et. al.* have found for a crystal [@wezel06].
For a BEC, we can let $N_0\sim 10^6 - 10^8$ and $T\sim 10^{-8} -
10^{-7}$ K. This gives $t_{c} \sim 10^2 - 10^5$ seconds, which is much larger than even the ground state life times. Unlike the room temperature mesoscopic system discussed in [@wezel06], BECs are extremely cold systems therefore one single excitation has such a long life time. However, this does not make the calculation unuseful. This life time is given only for a single quasi-particle excitation. In general it might be useful to have more than one quasiparticles excited at a time. If, for example, the condensate will be used as the building block of a quantum computer, having an excitation consisting of $\sim N$ quasiparticles will make observation of the qubit (superpositions of states with $m=0$ and $m$ quasiparticles), easier. In order to find a decay time for $m>1$, the only approximation required is $1/N(N-m) \simeq 1/N^2$ and the timescale will be inversely proportional to m. For $m \sim
N_0$, so long as it is not the case that $1-m/N\ll 1$, we have $t_{c} \sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-3}$ seconds. This time scale is much smaller than both the observed and expected ground state life times, therefore is of interest.
There are different studies [@gora; @liu] concerning the life times of quasiparticle excitations, such as using perturbation theory, etc. Namely, [@gora] has found a linear temperature dependence for high energy quasiparticles. Our calculation will make a quantitative contribution to this decay rate. However, low energy excitations are shown to have more complex temperature dependencies [@liu]. Our calculations do not make any predictions for that regime, since we have assumed $E_k\gg u_0\rho_0$. Also, our theory predicts a certain dependence of the life time on the number of quasiparticles excited (which is almost linear for small $m$), and this might be used to differentiate it from other theories.
As discussed before, for a group of states to be a thin spectrum, their effect on the free energy must vanish. For this purpose, we write the partition function as $$Z=Z_{thin} \cdot Z_{observable}$$ with $Z_{thin}=\sum_n {\rm e}^{-\beta u_0 \rho_0 (n^2/2N_0 -n)}$. Again replacing the sum by an integral we find that the leading term in the free energy per particle $\ln(Z_{thin})/N_0 \sim
\ln(N_0)/N_0$. This means that the mode we consider has no effect on free energy and satisfies all the criteria to constitute a thin spectrum.
The next step might be to generalize the calculations for coherent of squeezed coherent zero mode occupations. However, following this path doesn’t give any finite life time, since the excitation decay due to thin spectrum requires finite temperature, but coherent states have no temperature characteristic. But it is natural to do the same calculations for thermal coherent zero mode occupation. Such a calculation is presented in [@myself]. Decay rate does not have a linear temperature dependence in this case, therefore it might be possible to differentiate between thermal and thermal coherent occupations experimentally.
Effect of Thin Spectra on a Double Well Condensate
--------------------------------------------------
In [@toy1], it is shown that the phase related part of the Hamiltonian of a double well condensate can be reduced to the form $$\mathcal{H}=\alpha_+ P_+^2 + \alpha_- P_-^2 + \lambda \gamma_- Q_-^2
.$$ Here, $\alpha_+$, $\alpha_-$ and $\gamma_-$ are parameters depending on system details, $P_+$ and $P_-$ are the momenta corresponding to the total and relative phases of the condensates, and $Q_-$ is the coordinate corresponding to the relative phase. $\lambda$, again, is a number parameterizing the tunneling between different wells. (This Hamiltonian, originally derived for a condensate consisting of two different types of atoms in a single potential well, is applicable to a double well system when the parameter corresponding to collisions between different types of atoms is taken to be zero.) When coupling $\lambda$ between the wells is taken to be zero, this Hamiltonian reduces to one of two free particles: $$\mathcal{H}=\alpha_+ P_+^2 + \alpha_- P_-^2 .$$ It is seen that the system has two modes corresponding to motions without restoring forces. The reason is that now that there are two wells, there is an extra symmetry that is spontaneously broken. Therefore, there are two different thin spectra.
Cumulative effect of multiple broken symmetries (and hence multiple thin spectra) on excitation lifetime is studied in [@myself]. If lifetime corresponding to individual thin spectra are $t_1$ and $t_2$, then the resultant collapse time is the harmonic sum of individual life times: $$t_r^{-1}=t_1^{-1}+t_2^{-1}.$$ Using $\alpha$’s corresponding to the system under consideration, it is thus possible to find the resultant life time, which is supposed to be in the same order of magnitude with the smaller life time.
Conclusions
===========
Generalizing the Toy model calculations [@toy1; @toy2], we discussed the phase decoherence of coherent, squeezed coherent and thermal coherent states. For visual clarity, time dependence of various Q functions is shown. A generalization of the toy model to double well systems is also discussed and time evolution of the order parameter is studied for coherent and squeezed coherent states. This step, being important not only for double well BECs, might bear important results for any Josephson-coupled system.
The effect of thin spectrum [@wezel06; @wezel05] on quasiparticle excitations in BECs is briefly reviewed. It is shown that the presence of the so called thin spectrum states, which have vanishing level spacing, also has no effect on free energy per particle in the thermodynamic limit. Qualitative dependence of life time on the number of excitations is given. Finally, as a simple example of a system with more than one spontaneously broken symmetry [@myself], a calculation of excitation life time in a double well system is outlined.
Acknowledgements
================
T.B. is supported by TÜBİTAK. O.E.M. acknowledges the support from a TÜBA/GEBİP grant. T.B. acknowledges fruitful discussions with Jasper van Wezel and Patrick Navez.
T. Birol *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 043616 (2007).
S. N. Bose, Z. Phys. [**26**]{}, 178 (1924); A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. [**22**]{}, 261 (1924); [*ibid*]{} [**23**]{}, 3 (1925).
M. H. Anderson *et. al.*, Science **269**, 198 (1995); C. C. Bradley *et. al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 1687 (1995); K. B. Davis *et. al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett., **75**, 3969 (1995).
E.M. Wright, D.F. Walls, and J.C. Garrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2158 (1996).
M. Lewenstein and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3489 (1996).
M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, Nature [**419**]{}, 51 (2002).
J. van Wezel, J. Zaanen, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 094430 (2006).
J. van Wezel, J. van den Brink, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94** 230401 (2005).
J. van Wezel, J. van den Brink, arxiv:cond-mat/07043703 (2007).
P. Villain *et. al*, J. of Mod. Optics **44**, 1775 (1997).
A. Imamoglu, M. Lewenstein, and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 2511 (1997).
L. Mandel and E. Wolf, *Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics*, Cambridge University Press (1995), page 1038.
C. Cohen Tannoudji, B. Diu, F. Laloe, *Quantum Mechanics*, Wiley & Sons (1977).
G.-B. Jo, Y. Shin, S. Will, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, M. Vengalattore, and M. Prentiss, Phy. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 030407 (2007).
F. Gerbier, S. Foelling, A. Widera, O. Mandel, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 090401 (2006).
A. Wünsche in *Theory of Nonclassical States of Light*, edited by V. V. Dodonov and V. I. Man’ko, (Taylor and Francis, New York, 2003).
S. M. Roy and C. Singh, Phys. Rev. D **25**, 3413 (1982).
W. Greiner, *Quantum Mechanics—Special Chapters*, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998), Chapter 6.
M. Haque and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. A **74**, 043622 (2006); P. Navez, Mod. Phys. Lett. B **12**, 705 (1998).
P. O. Fedichev and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 3146 (1998).
W. V. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4056 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quark-hadron duality addresses some of the most fundamental issues in strong interaction physics, in particular the nature of the transition from the perturbative to non-perturbative regions of QCD. I summarize recent developments in quark-hadron duality in lepton–hadron scattering, and outline how duality can be studied at future high-luminosity facilities such as Jefferson Lab at 12 GeV or an electron–hadron collider such as EPIC.'
address: |
Jefferson Lab, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606, and\
Special Research Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter,\
Adelaide University, Adelaide 5005, Australia
author:
- 'W. Melnitchouk'
title: |
Quark-Hadron Duality\
in Electron Scattering[^1]
---
JLAB-THY-00-35
ADP-00-50/T430
Introduction
============
Understanding the structure and interaction of hadrons in terms of the quark and gluon degrees of freedom of QCD is the greatest unsolved problem of the Standard Model of nuclear and particle physics. If one accepts QCD as the correct theory of the strong interactions, then the transition from quark-gluon to hadron degrees of freedom should in principle amount to a change of basis, with all physical quantities independent of which basis is used. However, although the duality between quark and hadron descriptions is formally exact, in practice the necessity of truncating any Fock state expansion means that the extent to which duality holds reflects the validity of the truncations under different kinematical conditions and in different physical processes. Quark-hadron duality is therefore an expression of the relationship between confinement and asymptotic freedom, and is intimately related to the nature of the transition from non-perturbative to perturbative QCD.
In nature, the phenomenon of duality is in fact quite general and can be studied in a variety of processes, such as $e^+ e^- \rightarrow$ hadrons, or heavy quark decays [@HQ]. One of the more intriguing examples, initially observed some 30 years ago, is in inclusive inelastic electron–nucleon scattering.
Bloom-Gilman Duality
====================
In studying inelastic electron scattering in the resonance region and the onset of scaling behavior, Bloom and Gilman [@BG] found that the inclusive $F_2$ structure function at low $W$ generally follows a global scaling curve which describes high $W$ data, to which the resonance structure function averages. More recently, high precision data on the $F_2$ structure function from Jefferson Lab [@F2JL], shown in Fig. 1, have confirmed the earlier observations, demonstrating that duality works remarkably well for each of the low-lying resonances, including the elastic, to rather low values of $Q^2$ ($\sim 0.5$ GeV$^2$).
Before the advent of QCD, Bloom-Gilman duality was initially interpreted in the context of finite-energy sum rules [@DHS]. Formulated originally for hadron-hadron scattering, they relate the high-energy behavior of amplitudes, described within Regge theory in terms of $t$-channel Regge pole exchanges, to the behavior at low energy, which can be well described by a sum over a few $s$-channel resonances [@VEN]. Later Harari [@HARARI] suggested a generalization of the duality picture to include both resonant and non-resonant background contributions to cross sections, in which resonances were dual to non-diffractive Regge pole exchanges, while the non-resonant background was dual to Pomeron exchange. For electron scattering, this translates into a duality between resonances and valence quarks (whose small $x \sim 1/s$ behavior is given in Regge theory by non-diffractive Reggeon exchanges), with the background dual to sea quarks (for which the small-$x$ behavior is determined by diffractive Pomeron exchange).
In QCD, Bloom-Gilman duality can be reformulated in the language of the operator product expansion, in which QCD moments of structure functions are organized according to powers of $1/Q^2$ [@RUJ]. The leading terms are associated with free quark scattering, and are responsible for the scaling of the structure function, while the $1/Q^2$ terms involve interactions between quarks and gluons and hence reflect elements of confinement dynamics. The weak $Q^2$ dependence of the low moments of $F_2$ is then interpreted as indicating that the non-leading, $1/Q^2$-suppressed, interaction terms do not play a major role even at low $Q^2$ ($\approx 1$ GeV$^2$).
An important consequence of duality is that the strict distinction between the resonance and deep-inelastic regions is quite artificial. As observed by Ji and Unrau [@JU], at $Q^2 = 1$ GeV$^2$ around 70% of the total cross section comes from the resonance region, $W < W_{\rm res} = 2$ GeV, however, the resonances and the deep-inelastic continuum conspire to produce only about a 10% correction to the lowest moment of the scaling $F_2$ structure function at the same $Q^2$. The deep-inelastic and resonance regions are therefore intimately related, and properly averaged resonance data can help us understand the deep-inelastic region [@ISGURTALK; @JIMV]. This has immediate implications for global analyses of parton distribution functions, in which the standard procedure is to omit from the data base the entire resonance region below $W = 2$ GeV. This is of practical relevance especially for the large-$x$ region, where deep-inelastic data are scarce [@LARGEX].
Testing the Bounds of Duality
=============================
Since the details of quark–hadron duality are process dependent, there is no reason to expect the accuracy to which it holds and the kinematic regime where it applies to be similar for different observables. In fact, there could be qualitative differences between the workings of duality in spin-dependent structure functions and spin-averaged ones [@CM; @JM], or for different hadrons — protons compared with neutrons, for instance.
At present there are data on the $F_2$ structure function of the proton and deuteron [@F2JL], but little or no information at all exists on the spin-dependent $g_1$ and $g_2$ structure functions (which correspond to differences of cross sections), nor on the longitudinal to transverse structure function ration, $R$. It is vital for our understanding of duality and its practical exploitation that the spin and flavor dependence of duality, as well as its nuclear dependence, be established empirically.
Another largely unexplored domain with potentially broad applications is the production of mesons ($M$) in semi-inclusive electron scattering, $e N \rightarrow e' M X$. At high energy the scattering and production mechanisms factorize, with the cross section at leading order in QCD given by a simple product of the structure function and a quark $\rightarrow$ meson fragmentation function, as in Fig. 2. In terms of hadronic variables the same process can be described through the excitation of nucleon resonances, $N^*$, and their subsequent decays into mesons and lower lying resonances, $\widetilde N^*$. The hadronic description is rather elaborate, however, as the production of a fast outgoing meson in the current fragmentation region at high energy requires non-trivial cancellations of the angular distributions from various decay channels [@ISGURTALK; @JIMV]. Heuristically, the duality between the quark and hadron descriptions of semi-inclusive meson production (see Fig. 2) can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N^*,\widetilde N^*}
F_{\gamma^* N \to N^*}(Q^2,W^2)\
{\cal D}_{N^* \to \widetilde N^* M}(W^2,\widetilde W^2)\
&\sim&\
\sum_q e_q^2\ q(x)\ D_{q \to M}(z)\ ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{q \to M}$ is the quark $\to$ meson fragmentation function for a given $z=E_M/\nu$, $F_{\gamma^* N \to N^*}$ is the $\gamma^* N \to N^*$ transition form factor, which depends on the mass of the virtual photon and the excited nucleon ($W = M_{N^*}$), and ${\cal D}_{N^* \to \widetilde N^* M}$ is a function representing the decay $N^* \to \widetilde N^* M$, where $\widetilde W$ is the invariant mass of the final state $\widetilde N^*$.
The virtue of semi-inclusive production lies in its ability to identify individual quark species in the nucleon by tagging specific mesons in the final state, enabling both the flavor and spin of quarks and antiquarks to be systematically determined. To what extent factorization applies at lower energy is an open question, and the signatures of duality in the resonance region of semi-inclusive scattering are still under investigation. Confirmation of duality in inclusive hadron production would clearly open the way to an enormously rich semi-inclusive program in the pre-asymptotic regime, allowing unprecedented spin and flavor decomposition of quark distributions.
Conclusion
==========
Quark-hadron duality offers the prospect of addressing the physics of the transition from the strong to weak coupling limits of QCD, where neither perturbative QCD nor effective descriptions such as chiral perturbation theory are applicable. While considerable insight into quark-hadron duality has already been gained from recent theoretical studies, it will be important in future to understand more quantitatively the features of the electron scattering data in the resonance region and the phenomenological $N^*$ spectrum in terms of realistic models of QCD.
On the experimental side, the spin and flavor dependence of duality can be most readily accessed through semi-inclusive scattering, which requires a facility with both high luminosity and a high duty factor. Jefferson Lab at 12 GeV would be an ideal facility to study meson production in the current fragmentation region at moderate $Q^2$, allowing the onset of scaling to be tracked in the pre-asymptotic regime. On the other hand, the higher center of mass energy available at an electron-hadron collider, such as EPIC, would, despite a lower luminosity, enable measurement of semi-inclusive cross sections to larger values of $Q^2$ where perturbative QCD is more readily applicable, and factorization of the current and target fragmentation regions less problematic. Furthermore, unlike fixed-target facilities, a collider mode would allow unique access to hadrons produced in the target fragmentation region. An understanding of duality for target fragments would be the next challenge for electron scattering experiments.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank F.E. Close, R. Ent, N. Isgur, S. Jeschonnek, C. Keppel and J.W. Van Orden for many informative and stimulating discussions about duality. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, and U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.
M.B. Voloshin and M.A. Shifman, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**47**]{}, 511 (1988); N. Isgur, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 40**]{}, 101 (1989); [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 448**]{}, 111 (1999); M. Shifman, hep-ph/0009131.
E.D. Bloom and F.J. Gilman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**16**]{}, 1140 (1970); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 4**]{}, 2901 (1971).
I. Niculescu, et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 1182, 1186 (2000).
R. Dolen, D. Horn and C. Schmid, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**19**]{}, 402 (1967); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**166**]{}, 1768 (1968).
G. Veneziano, [*Nuov. Cim.*]{} [**57 A**]{}, 190 (1968).
H. Harari, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**20**]{}, 1395 (1969).
A. de Rújula, H. Georgi and H.D. Politzer, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**103**]{}, 315 (1975).
X. Ji and P. Unrau, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 52**]{}, 72 (1995).
N. Isgur, talk presented at [*Workshop on Physics Opportunities with 12 GeV Electrons*]{}, Jefferson Lab, January 2000.
S. Jeschonnek, N. Isgur, W. Melnitchouk and J.W. Van Orden, to be submitted to Phys. Rev.
N. Isgur, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 59**]{}, 034013 (1999); W. Melnitchouk and A.W. Thomas, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 377**]{}, 11 (1996); I.R. Afnan, et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B**]{} (in press), nucl-th/0006003.
C.E. Carlson and N.C. Mukhopadhyay, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 58**]{}, 094029 (1998); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 41**]{}, 2343 (1989); C.E. Carlson, hep-ph/0005169.
X. Ji and W. Melnitchouk, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 56**]{}, 1 (1997).
[^1]: Talk presented at the Second Workshop on Physics with an Electron Polarized Light-Ion Collider (EPIC), MIT, Sep.14-16, 2000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions provides a unique tool complementary to the Deep-Inelastic Scattering for probing the partonic substructures in hadrons. We review key concepts, approximations, and progress for QCD factorization of the Drell-Yan process in terms of collinear or transverse momentum dependent (TMD) parton distribution functions. We present experimental results from recent fixed-target Drell-Yan as well as $W$ and $Z$ boson production at colliders, focussing on the topics of flavor structure of the nucleon sea as well as the extraction of novel Sivers and Boer-Mulders functions via single transverse spin asymmetries and azimuthal lepton angular distribution of the Drell-Yan process. Prospects for future Drell-Yan experiments are also presented.'
author:
- |
Jen-Chieh Peng$^{1}$ and Jian-Wei Qiu$^{2,3}$\
\
$^1$Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\
Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA\
$^2$Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory\
Upton, NY 11973, USA\
$^3$C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics\
and Department of Physics and Astronomy\
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
title: ' Novel Phenomenology of Parton Distributions from the Drell-Yan Process'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The first direct evidence for point-like constituents in the nucleons came from the discovery of scaling phenomenon in lepton-nucleon inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) experiments at SLAC [@Bloom:1969kc], which led to the introduction of the fundamental theory of strong interaction known as Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD) [@Fritzsch:1973pi]. According to QCD, nucleons are composed of quarks and gluons (known as partons), bound together by color force through the exchange of gluons. However, no quarks and gluons have ever been observed directly in the DIS or any other scattering experiments, a phenomenon that is believed to be a consequence of QCD color confinement. The structure as well as the dynamics of quarks and gluons inside the nucleons, their confined motion and spatial distribution, is one of the most intriguing aspects of QCD.
Much of the predictive power of QCD is contained in factorization theorems [@Collins:1989gx]. It is the QCD factorization that enables us to connect the quarks and gluons, the basic degrees of freedom of QCD, and their distributions inside hadrons to physically measured high energy scattering cross sections with identified hadrons and leptons. QCD factorization separates long- from short-distance effects in hadronic collisions, provides systematic prescriptions and tools to calculate the short-distance dynamics perturbatively, and identifies the leading nonperturbative long-distance effects with universal hadron matrix elements of quark and gluon field operators and supplies them with physical content, which allows them to be extracted from experimental measurements or by numerical calculations in Lattice QCD (LQCD). Hadron parton distribution functions (PDFs), $\phi_f(x,\mu)$, probability distributions to find a parton of flavor $f$ (a quark or a gluon) to carry $x$ fraction of the momentum of a fast moving hadron, probed at a hard scale $\mu$, are Fourier transforms of such universal hadron matrix elements. They are the most prominent nonperturbative quantities describing the relation between a hadron and the quarks and gluons within it. PDFs are universal and independent of the details of scattering processes, from which they are extracted. They are fundamental and carry every secrets of QCD dynamics from the “less-unknown” QCD confinement to the “well-known” QCD asymptotic freedom. Enormous experimental and theoretical efforts have been devoted to the extraction of the PDFs. On the experimental side, vast amount of data sensitive to the PDFs have been accumulated from low energy fixed-target experiments to the measurements performed at the LHC - the highest energy hadron collider in the world. On the theoretical side, many sets of PDFs have been extracted from QCD global analysis of all existing data [@CTEQ6.6; @CT10; @MSTW08; @NNPDF2.0; @NNPDF2.1; @gluck08; @Alekhin:2013nda]. Our knowledge of PDFs has been much improved by many surprises and discoveries from experimental measurements throughout the years. The excellent agreement between the theory and data on the scaling-violation behavior of the PDFs has provided one of the most stringent tests for QCD as the theory of strong interaction.
[R]{}[0.4]{}
{width="30.00000%"}
During the past two decades, many important new developments related to the study of quark-gluon structure of the nucleons have taken place, which enable the systematic investigation of hadronic structure beyond the PDFs, the one-dimensional (1D) parton momentum distributions inside a fast moving hadron. Theoretically, remarkable advances in QCD factorization were achieved, allowing the dynamical mapping in both 3D confined motion and transverse spatial distribution of quarks and gluons inside a fast moving hadron. The distributions of quarks and gluons in space are encoded in the Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs) [@gpds; @dvcs]. QCD collinear factorization for exclusive diffractive scatterings allows for systematic extractions of GPDs from these exclusive processes [@gpds-fac; @dvcs-fac]. On the other hand, the information on the 3D confined motion of quarks and gluons is matched to novel Transverse Momentum Dependent PDFs (TMDs) [@brodsky02; @collins02; @tmds-gauge; @tmds-boer-etal]. QCD transverse momentum dependent factorization formalisms [@collins-book; @Ji:2004wu; @Ji:2004xq; @GarciaEchevarria:2011rb] allow for systematic extraction of TMDs from semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS) - the DIS experiments with the detection of additional hadron(s) produced in coincidence with the scattered lepton [@Airapetian:2004tw; @Alekseev:2008aa; @Qian:2011py]. Complementary to SIDIS, the massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions, which is known as the Drell-Yan process [@Drell:1970wh], is another ideal process to probe the TMDs when the transverse momentum of the lepton-pair is much smaller than the invariant mass of the pair. Electroweak processes, such as DIS and the Drell-Yan processes, bring to bear the unmatched precision of electroweak interaction as a probe to test QCD dynamics and to extract information on hadron structure. In addition, the advent of the LQCD in calculating moments of various PDFs, GPDs, and TMDs (even the $x$-distributions themselves according to the latest proposal [@Ji:2013dva]) allows direct comparison between such first-principle LQCD calculations and those extracted from the experimental data.
Pioneering measurements of exclusive Deep Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) and J/$\psi$ photo-production at HERA provided the first glimpse of spatial distributions of sea quarks and gluons, respectively. Recently, extensive inclusive and semi-inclusive DIS measurements using polarized lepton beams at HERMES of DESY [@Airapetian:2004tw], COMPASS of CERN [@Alekseev:2008aa], and several experiments at Jefferson Lab [@Qian:2011py] have allowed the first observation and extraction of novel TMDs, such as the Sivers functions of nucleons, which provide direct quantum correlations between nucleon spin and the spatial preference of partons’ confined transverse motion inside the nucleon [@sivers90]. More recently, the prospect of using polarized hadronic beam colliding with possibly polarized beam/target has attracted much attention. Measurements of the Drell-Yan process and other observables could be pursued in existing facilities such as the polarized $p-p$ collider at RHIC, COMPASS at CERN, as well as other hadron machines around the world. The novel TMDs obtained in hadron collisions are expected to provide unique and critical tests of TMD factorization in QCD, such as the sign change of the Sivers and Boer-Mulders functions measured in SIDIS and Drell-Yan.
Understanding the characteristics and physics content of the extracted PDFs, such as the shape and the flavor dependence of the distributions, is the first necessary step in searching for answers to the ultimate question of QCD on how quarks and gluons are confined into hadrons. Furthermore, going beyond the PDFs by extracting information on the parton’s confined transverse motion (its transverse momentum $k_T$-distribution) and its spatial $b_T$ distribution of a fast moving hadron, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:pdf-5d\], necessarily yields a complementary picture of the hadron in both momentum and coordinate space, and pushes our investigation of hadron structure to a new frontier.
In this review article, we focus on the recent progress and future prospect on using hadronic beams to explore the novel parton distributions in the nucleons, while the tremendous and complementary potential to explore hadron structure by using a lepton-hadron collider can be found in the newly released White Paper on future prospects of an Electron-Ion Collider [@Accardi:2012hwp]. We examine, in particular, the unique features of the massive lepton-pair production (the Drell-Yan process) in hadronic collision in extracting the spin and flavor dependences of PDFs and TMDs. With the measurement of both invariant mass of the lepton pair $Q$ and its transverse momentum $q_T$, Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions is an excellent laboratory for theoretical and experimental investigations of strong interaction dynamics, and has been a valuable and constant pursuit since 1970s. With a large invariant mass $Q$ to localize the probe to “see” a parton (a quark or a gluon), the natural small transverse momentum of the most lepton-pairs produced, $q_T \ll Q$, is an ideal scale to be sensitive to the parton’s confined motion inside the hadron. The Drell-Yan process in this kinematic regime is ideal for extracting the TMDs. On the other hand, for events with $q_T\sim Q$, or with $q_T$ integrated, the cross section of Drell-Yan lepton-pair production has effectively one hard scale, and is the most suited for extracting PDFs. Since QCD factorization for both of these regimes are proved to be valid, the Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production is a unique and clean observable to extract both TMDs and PDFs, and the transition between them by varying the transverse momentum of the lepton pair, $q_T$. The same idea has been applied to production of any kind of lepton pair from decay of an electroweak gauge boson ($\gamma, W, Z$), as well as to production of Higgs boson and any color-neutral heavy bosons beyond the Standard Model. In addition, by measuring angular distribution of the lepton in the rest frame of the lepton pair, the Drell-Yan process is a unique one to study quantum interference between two scattering amplitudes with the intermediate vector boson in different spin states. The measurement of Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production not only was performed in almost all high-energy hadronic facilities ever existed, but also is taking place now in an on-going fixed-target experiment (E906) at Fermilab and all major experiments at the LHC. Several future Drell-Yan experiments are also being planned at facilities around the world.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the role of inclusive Drell-Yan measurements in probing PDFs and hadron’s partonic structure, and QCD factorization for Drell-Yan process, which is necessary for connecting the measured massive lepton pair to the dynamics of quarks and gluons inside the colliding hadrons. To illustrate the complementary nature of the Drell-Yan and DIS in probing nucleon’s parton structures, we focus on the flavor structure of the parton distributions in the nucleons and nuclei. The striking observation of the large up and down sea quark flavor asymmetry in the proton from the Drell-Yan and semi-inclusive DIS experiments continues to motivate new theoretical interpretations, and further experimental studies for testing the various theoretical models are currently underway or being planned. The Drell-Yan process could also probe the flavor dependence of parton distributions in nuclei, and provide a sensitive test for theoretical models explaining the famous EMC effect. We then discuss the strange quark and gluon contents in the nucleons, as they could provide new insight on the flavor structure of the nucleon sea. We examine the $x$-dependence of the strange quark relative to those of the lighter up and down quarks, as well as the possible difference between the $s(x)$ and $\bar s(x)$ distributions. While $\bar u(x) (\bar d(x))$ in the proton is very different from $\bar d(x) (\bar u(x))$ in the neutron, we present the experimental evidence that the gluons distributions in the proton and neutron are very similar.
In Sec. 3, we review the recent development in probing TMDs by Drell-Yan process when $Q\gg q_T$. We focus on physics of two novel TMDs: Sivers function [@sivers90] and Boer-Mulders function [@boer98], and the prospects for extracting them. We review the theory developments of TMD factorization for Drell-Yan process, and the physics leading to the ultimate QCD prediction of the sign change of Sivers and and Boer-Mulders functions, when measured in SIDIS in comparison with that measured in the Drell-Yan process. We discuss the role of the Sivers functions in generating the novel single transverse-spin asymmetry of Drell-Yan massive lepton pair production, and the physics behind the intriguing phenomena of single transverse-spin asymmetries. We summarize the current world effort in planning for experiments to measure Drell-Yan single transverse-spin asymmetry in order to extract the Sivers functions and to test the sign change of Sivers functions when they are measured in Drell-Yan versus SIDIS. We then focus on the angular distributions of the lepton in the rest frame of the observed lepton pairs in unpolarized hadronic collisions, to which the Boer-Mulders functions contribute. We discuss the progress in resolving a long-standing puzzle of the violation of the Lam-Tung relation observed in pion-induced Drell-Yan experiments, and the prospect for extracting the Boer-Mulders functions from the angular distributions of unpolarized Drell-Yan process. In Sec. 4, we briefly review the role of generalized Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production via the heavy vector boson, $W/Z$, in measuring the polarized sea distributions of proton. The distinct quark-flavor dependences of the $W, Z, \gamma^*$ couplings to quark-antiquark pairs offer a unique possibility for disentangling the flavor structure of the parton distributions. We conclude with the summary and outlook in Sec. 5.
Hadronic production of massive lepton pairs {#section2}
===========================================
Throughout the years, hadronic production of massive lepton pairs has served not only as a channel for discovery of quarkonium states and intermediate vector bosons, as well as Higgs boson, but also as a clean, precise and controllable probe for short-distance dynamics and partonic structure of hadrons. In this section, we review briefly key developments for hadronic production of massive lepton pairs, as well as puzzles that are still driving us to search for a complete understanding of the physics behind the massive lepton-pair production, more than forty years after the very first measurement of massive muon pairs produced at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) [@Christenson:1970um].
Drell-Yan mechanism {#subsec:dy}
-------------------
Hadronic production of massive lepton pairs was first studied at BNL by Christenson [*et al.*]{} [@Christenson:1970um; @Christenson:1973mf] by measuring massive muon pairs in collisions of a proton beam on a Uranium target, $p+U \to \mu^+\mu^-(q)+X$, with muon pair mass $Q=\sqrt{q^2}=1-6.7$ GeV. The steep falling of the cross section with $Q$ and an apparent slow-down or a shoulder-like structure near $Q\sim 3$ GeV were two very important features in the data. The shoulder-like structure was naturally explained following the discovery of heavy quarkonium J/$\psi$ a few years later [@Aubert:1974js; @Augustin:1974xw]. It was the quick fall-off of the cross section with $Q$ that led Sidney Drell and Tung-Mow Yan [@Drell:1970wh] to propose a new production mechanism for massive lepton-pair production in high energy collisions of hadron $A$ of momentum $P_A$ on hadron $B$ of momentum $P_B$, now known as the Drell-Yan mechanism/process, $$A(P_A)+B(P_B) \to \gamma^{*}(q)[\to l\overline{l}(q)]+X,
\label{eq:drell-yan0}$$ to explain the data observed at BNL. In Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan0\]), the virtual photon, $\gamma^{*}$, which decays into the lepton pair, is produced by the annihilation of a parton and an antiparton from the two colliding hadrons, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:drell-yan\], where the diagram on the left represents the production amplitude, while the diagram on the right is in cut diagram notation, in which the amplitude and its complex conjugate are combined into a forward scattering diagram in which the final state is identified by a vertical line. The predictive power of the Drell-Yan process is that the magnitude and the shape of the cross section are uniquely determined by the parton and antiparton distribution functions measured in DIS [@Drell:1970wh; @Drell:1970yt], $$\frac{d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l}+X}}{dQ^2 dy}
= \frac{4\pi\alpha_{em}^2}{3Q^4} \sum_{p,\bar{p}}\,
x_A \phi_{p/A}(x_A) \, x_B \phi_{\bar{p}/B}(x_B) \, ,
\label{eq:drell-yan-pm}$$ where $y=\frac{1}{2}\ln(x_A/x_B)$ is the rapidity of the lepton pair, and the parton and antiparton momentum fractions are given by $$x_A = \frac{Q}{\sqrt{S}}\, e^{y} \ \ \mbox{and} \ \
x_B = \frac{Q}{\sqrt{S}}\, e^{-y}
\label{eq:kinematics-pm}$$ with total center of mass collision energy squared ${S} = (P_A+P_B)^2$. The variables $x_A$ and $x_B$ in Eq. (\[eq:kinematics-pm\]) are also referred in the literature as $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively. The $\phi_{p/A}(x_A)$ and $\phi_{\bar{p}/B}(x_B)$ are parton and antiparton distributions, respectively, which are probability distributions to find a parton (antiparton) in a fast moving hadron carrying its momentum fraction $x_A$ ($x_B$).
0.12![Sketch for scattering amplitude of Drell-Yan process (left) and scattering amplitude square in the cut diagram notation where the final-state is identified by a vertical line (right). []{data-label="fig:drell-yan"}](./fig/drell-yan-lo-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"} 0.14![Sketch for scattering amplitude of Drell-Yan process (left) and scattering amplitude square in the cut diagram notation where the final-state is identified by a vertical line (right). []{data-label="fig:drell-yan"}](./fig/dy-lo-sq-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.4in"}
The original formalism of Drell-Yan cross section in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]) contains no free parameter, allowing an absolute prediction once the PDFs are extracted from DIS measurements. The formalism was consistent with many features of early data on massive lepton-pair production. The success of the Drell-Yan mechanism clearly demonstrated that, like the lepton-hadron DIS cross section observed at SLAC [@Bloom:1969kc], the massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions is also determined by the point-like partonic cross sections and the rest of hadrons are effectively frozen during the hard collisions. The idea to apply the parton model [@Feynman:1969ej] outside lepton-hadron DIS was revolutionary since one or more partonic interactions could take place between two “partonic beams” of the two colliding hadrons.
The Drell-Yan process predated the discovery of QCD. Recognizing the parton and antiparton as quark and antiquark in QCD, the $\sum_{p,\bar{p}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]) is replaced by $\sum_{q,\bar{q}}$ over all quark and antiquark flavors, weighted by their fractional charge squared, plus an overall color factor $1/N_c$ with $N_c=3$ for SU($N_c$) color of QCD. The Drell-Yan formalism in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]), after taking into account the sum of various quark flavors, their fractional charges and the color factor, can describe many features of massive lepton-pair production data. However, a somewhat large $K_{\rm factor}=\sigma_{\rm Exp}/\sigma_{\rm Thy}\sim 2$ is found, which indicates that the normalization of the predicted cross section is off by roughly a factor of 2.
QCD improved Drell-Yan mechanism {#sec:dy-inclusive}
--------------------------------
The triumph of Drell-Yan mechanism and the formalism in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]) for the hadronic massive lepton-pair production is the [*factorization*]{} of short-distance production of the massive lepton pair from the complicated internal dynamics of colliding hadrons. It is this factorization and the process independence of the PDFs that give the parameter-free predictive power of Drell-Yan mechanism.
However, the clean and simple factorization of Drell-Yan mechanism could be easily broken in QCD by its rich quark-gluon interaction. In the parton model calculation of the Drell-Yan process, from which Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]) was derived, the parton and antiparton that annihilate into the observed lepton pair are assumed to be real and on their mass-shell. But, in QCD, the quark and antiquark from colliding hadrons that annihilate into a massive lepton pair are always off their mass shell, whose virtuality needs to be integrated over. In addition to quarks and antiquarks, there are gluons in QCD. Every quarks and gluons from colliding hadrons could participate in the collisions to produce the observed massive lepton pair. That is, other than the simplest quark-antiquark annihilation subprocess, massive lepton pairs could be produced by the same annihilation process dressed up by any number of gluonic interactions, as shown in Fig. \[fig:qcd-dy\]. For example, introducing complicated quark-gluon correlations inside the colliding hadron into the production of the lepton pair, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:qcd-dy\] (left), could go beyond the quark-antiquark (or parton-antiparton) annihilation and lead to potential process dependence of the PDFs. In addition, as sketched in the diagram on the right of Fig. \[fig:qcd-dy\], the gluon interactions between spectators of two colliding hadrons could alter PDFs of one hadron by the presence of another hadron, which would break the universality of PDFs and the predictive power of the formalism. Actually, the inclusive cross section for producing a massive lepton pair in a hadronic collision, as defined in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan0\]), $d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l}+X}/dQ^2dy$ is [*not*]{} calculable in QCD perturbation theory. Uncanceled infrared (IR) divergences were identified by explicit calculations of QCD contribution to Drell-Yan cross section [@Doria:1980ak; @Di'Lieto:1980dt; @Brandt:1988xt].
0.2![Sample QCD modification to the scattering amplitudes of Drell-Yan mechanism: gluon radiation and interaction (left) and gluon interaction between spectators (right). []{data-label="fig:qcd-dy"}](./fig/drell-yan-2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"} 0.14![Sample QCD modification to the scattering amplitudes of Drell-Yan mechanism: gluon radiation and interaction (left) and gluon interaction between spectators (right). []{data-label="fig:qcd-dy"}](./fig/drell-yan-3-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
When the mass of lepton pair, $Q$, the minimum momentum transfer of the collision, is much larger than the typical momentum scale of the dynamics inside the colliding hadrons, $Q\gg 1/{\rm fm}\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the hard collision is localized to a very small size $\sim 1/Q \ll$ 1 fm. Pulling an extra quark or gluon from incoming hadron to participate in the localized hard collision, like the process in Fig. \[fig:qcd-dy\] (left), could be suppressed by the power of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. Different number of active partons from colliding hadrons to produce the lepton pair corresponds to the contributions to the cross section at different power in $1/Q$ [@Qiu:1990xy]. That is, all QCD contributions to the cross section of massive lepton-pair production could be naturally reorganized in terms of an $1/Q$ power expansion, $$\frac{d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l} +X}}{dQ^2 dy}
=\sum_{n=0} \frac{d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l} +X}^{(n)}}{dQ^2 dy}
\left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{Q}\right)^n.
\label{eq:power-exp}$$ Although there is no QCD factorization for full cross section of hadronic massive lepton-pair production, it was proved [@Collins:1989gx] to all orders in powers of $\alpha_s$ in QCD perturbation theory that the leading power (LP) contribution to Drell-Yan cross section, $d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l} +X}^{\rm (0)}/dQ^2 dy$ in Eq. (\[eq:power-exp\]), can be systematically factorized into a formalism that is effectively the same as the original Drell-Yan formalism in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]), $$\frac{d\sigma^{\rm (LP)}_{A+B\to l\bar{l}+X}}{dQ^2 dy}
=\sum_{ab}\int_0^1 dx_a\int_0^1 dx_b \, \phi_{a/A}(x_a,\mu) \, \phi_{b/B}(x_b,\mu) \,
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}(x_a,x_b,Q,\mu,\alpha_s)}{dQ^2 dy}\, ,
\label{eq:qcd-dy-lp}$$ where the superscript “(LP)” indicates the leading power contribution to the full cross section in its $1/Q$ expansion, $\sum_{a,b}$ runs over all parton flavors including quark and antiquark, as well as gluon, $\mu\sim Q$ is the factorization scale, $\phi$’s are universal PDFs extracted from QCD global analyses [@CTEQ6.6; @CT10; @MSTW08; @NNPDF2.0; @NNPDF2.1]. In Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]), $\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}$ is the short-distance part of QCD partonic cross section for two incoming partons of flavor $a$ and $b$, respectively, to produce a massive lepton pair. Since the $\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}$ is insensitive to the long-distance details of colliding hadrons, the factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) should be also valid for the collision between two asymptotic partons of various flavors. In this case, both the partonic scattering cross section on the left and the PDFs of colliding partons on the right can be expressed in terms of Feynman diagrams order-by-order in QCD perturbation theory. As required by the factorization, all collinear divergences of the partonic cross sections on the left should be cancelled by the corresponding collinear divergence of the PDFs on the right, order-by-order in powers of $\alpha_s$, to leave the short-distance hard parts, $\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}$, infrared safe to all powers of $\alpha_s$.
The predictive power of QCD improved Drell-Yan formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) for the production of massive lepton pairs relies on the approximation to neglect all power corrections suppressed by $(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)^n$, the universality of PDFs and our ability to calculate the short-distance partonic cross sections, which have been calculated to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in powers of $\alpha_s$ [@dy-nnlo]. With the QCD improved Drell-Yan formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]), and the universal PDFs extracted from QCD global analysis [@CTEQ6.6; @CT10; @MSTW08; @NNPDF2.0; @NNPDF2.1], the $K_{\rm factor} \sim 1$ for all existing data of Drell-Yan type processes including massive vector boson $W/Z$ production at collider energies.
The proof of the QCD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) for the inclusive production of Drell-Yan massive lepton pairs is highly nontrivial involving decades of effort of many people, and is best summarized in Refs. [@Collins:1989gx; @collins-book]. A less technical and intuitive summary of the key steps of the proof is given in Appendix \[sec:appendixa\]. The proof is rigorous in the sense that all identified sources of leading power contributions are either factorizable or canceled in perturbative calculations to all orders in powers of $\alpha_s$. For example, the contribution involving the quark-gluon correlation of one hadron, as shown in Fig. \[fig:qcd-dy\] (left) is either suppressed by power of $1/Q^2$ or included into the definition of PDF to make it gauge invariant, while the gluon interaction between spectators are effectively canceled [@Collins:1989gx; @collins-book].
In addition to the leading power contribution, it was demonstrated [@Qiu:1990xy; @Qiu:1990xxa] that the first subleading power corrections, at $1/Q^2$ (or $1/Q$) for unpolarized and longitudinally polarized (or single transversely polarized) Drell-Yan cross section, can also be factorized into a sum of convolutions of a perturbatively calculable short-distance partonic hard part, a PDF from one colliding hadron, and a universal twist-4 four-parton (or twist-3 three-parton) correlation function of the other colliding hadron.
On the other hand, several explicit calculations demonstrated that QCD contributions to Drell-Yan cross section beyond the first subleading power corrections [*cannot*]{} be systematically factorized into convolutions of perturbative hard parts and universal long-distance parton correlation functions [@Doria:1980ak; @Di'Lieto:1980dt; @Brandt:1988xt; @Basu:1984ba]. The break of factorization is caused by the non-factorizable power suppressed contribution to the Drell-Yan cross section from the interactions of physically polarized soft gluons between two colliding hadrons at the power of $1/Q^4$ (or $1/Q^2$) and higher for unpolarized and longitudinally polarized (or single transversely polarized) hadronic collisions [@Qiu:1990xy; @Qiu:1990xxa].
The QCD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) is also valid for Drell-Yan differential cross section, $d\sigma/d^4q d\Omega$, when $q_T\sim Q$, where $\Omega$ is the solid angle of lepton in the pair’s rest frame [@collins-book]. Because of the nature of electromagnetic or weak interaction between the observed lepton pair and how the pair was produced, inclusive Drell-Yan cross section is a hard and clean probe for PDFs and partonic structure of nucleons and nuclei, as well as pions. It is especially sensitive to the sea quarks of colliding hadron because of its leading quark-antiquark annihilation subprocess, and complementary to DIS which is more sensitive to the sum of parton flavors. In addition, when $q_T > Q/2$, inclusive Drell-Yan cross section is dominated by the quark-gluon “Compton” subprocess, and it becomes an excellent probe of glue inside a colliding hadron [@Berger:1998ev; @Berger:1999as].
Even when $Q\gg q_T$ (or $q_T\gg Q$), so long as both of them $Q, q_T \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) is still valid. However, perturbatively calculated short-distance hard part, $\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}$, will receive $\alpha_s\ln^2(Q^2/q_T^2)$ (or $\alpha_s\ln(q_T^2/Q^2)$) type large logarithms for each additional power of $\alpha_s$ [@DDTdoublelog; @PPbspace; @Collins:1984kg; @berger2001]. Such large logarithmic contributions would ruin the convergence of perturbative expansion in powers of $\alpha_s$, and need to be resummed. Technique and formalism to resum these large logarithmic contributions have been developed and successfully applied, and will be discussed in the next section. In the rest of this section, we review the role of inclusive Drell-Yan process in probing PDFs and hadron’s parton structure. Comprehensive reviews of earlier results on the Drell-Yan process can be found in several review articles [@kenyon82; @schochet86; @freudenreich90; @stirling93; @pat99; @reimer07; @dutta13], we focus on the more recent results obtained at the Fermilab fixed-target experiments and LHC.
Up and down sea quark flavor asymmetry {#sec:udasym}
--------------------------------------
Soon after the discovery of the point-like constituents in the nucleons in DIS experiments, evidence for the existence of nucleon sea was revealed from the observation that the structure functions continue to rise as $x \to 0$. The important role of the quark-antiquark pairs in hadronic systems is in sharp contrast to the situation for atoms, where particle-antiparticle pairs play a relatively minor role. As a result of the large coupling strength $\alpha_s$, quark-antiquark pairs are readily produced in strong interactions, and they form an integral part of nucleon’s structure.
The earliest parton models assumed that the proton sea was SU(3) flavor symmetric, even though the valence quark distributions are clearly not flavor symmetric. The flavor symmetry assumption was not based on any known physics. Indeed, neutrino-induced charm production experiments [@conrad98] already showed that the strange-quark content of the nucleon was only about one half of the up or down sea quarks. This asymmetry was attributed to the heavier strange-quark mass compared to the up and down quarks. The comparable masses for the up and down quarks suggest that the nucleon sea should be nearly up-down flavor symmetric.
### Experimental evidence for $\bar u / \bar d$ flavor asymmetry
![Left (a): The Drell-Yan cross section ratios of $p+d$ over $2(p+p)$ versus $x_2$ (momentum fraction of the target partons) from FNAL E866. The curves are the calculated next-to-leading-order cross section ratios for the Drell-Yan using various PDFs including MRS [@MRS], GRV98 [@GRV98], MRST [@MRST], CTEQ4M [@CTEQ4M] and CTEQ5M [@CTEQ5M]. Right (b): $\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)$ versus $x$ extracted from FNAL E866. Parametrizations from various PDFs and the data point from NA51 are also shown (from [@e866; @e866-1; @e866-2]).[]{data-label="fig3.1"}](./fig/towell_8-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): The Drell-Yan cross section ratios of $p+d$ over $2(p+p)$ versus $x_2$ (momentum fraction of the target partons) from FNAL E866. The curves are the calculated next-to-leading-order cross section ratios for the Drell-Yan using various PDFs including MRS [@MRS], GRV98 [@GRV98], MRST [@MRST], CTEQ4M [@CTEQ4M] and CTEQ5M [@CTEQ5M]. Right (b): $\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)$ versus $x$ extracted from FNAL E866. Parametrizations from various PDFs and the data point from NA51 are also shown (from [@e866; @e866-1; @e866-2]).[]{data-label="fig3.1"}](./fig/towell_9-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
The issue of the equality of $\bar u$ and $\bar d$ was first encountered in measurements of the Gottfried integral [@gott], given as $$I_G = \int_0^1 \left[F^p_2 (x) - F^n_2 (x)\right]/x~ dx =
{1\over 3}+{2\over 3}\int_0^1 \left[\bar u_p(x)-\bar d_p(x)\right]dx,
\label{eq3.1}$$ where $F^p_2$ and $F^n_2$ are the proton and neutron structure functions measured in DIS experiments. Eq. (\[eq3.1\]) is derived assuming charge symmetry (CS) at the partonic level, namely, $u_p(x)=d_n(x),~ \bar
u_p(x) = \bar d_n(x),~d_p(x)= u_n(x),$ and $ \bar d_p(x) = \bar u_n(x)$. For a $\bar u$, $\bar d$ flavor-symmetric sea in the proton, the Gottfried Sum Rule (GSR) [@gott], $I_G
= 1/3$, is obtained. The New Muon Collaboration (NMC) [@nmc91] determined the Gottfried integral to be $ 0.235\pm 0.026$, significantly below 1/3, strongly suggesting that $\bar d(x) \ne \bar u(x)$ (the subscript $p$ is dropped for simplicity). This surprising result has generated much interest. Since the violation of the GSR could also be caused by unusual behavior of the parton distributions at unmeasured small $x$ region, as well as by violation of the charge symmetry at the partonic level, an independent experimental test of the assumption $\bar u(x) = \bar d(x)$ was required.
![ Left (a): $\bar d - \bar u$ as a function of $x$. The E866 results [@e866-2], scaled to fixed $Q^2 = 54$ GeV$^2$, are shown as the circles. Results from HERMES ($\langle Q^2\rangle = 2.3$ GeV$^2$) are shown as squares [@hermes98]. Right (b): Comparison of the measured ${\bar d}(x)-{\bar u}(x)$ at $Q^2$ = 54 [GeV$^2$]{} to predictions of several models of the nucleon sea [@e866-2]. The curves correspond to pion-cloud model by Peng et al. [@e866-1] and Nikolaev et al. [@nikolaev], chiral-quark model by Szczurek et al. [@szczurek96], chiral-quark soliton model by Pobylitsa et al. [@pobylitsa], and instanton model by Dorokhov and Kochelev [@dorokhov].[]{data-label="fig3.2"}](./fig/towell_10-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} 0.5cm ![ Left (a): $\bar d - \bar u$ as a function of $x$. The E866 results [@e866-2], scaled to fixed $Q^2 = 54$ GeV$^2$, are shown as the circles. Results from HERMES ($\langle Q^2\rangle = 2.3$ GeV$^2$) are shown as squares [@hermes98]. Right (b): Comparison of the measured ${\bar d}(x)-{\bar u}(x)$ at $Q^2$ = 54 [GeV$^2$]{} to predictions of several models of the nucleon sea [@e866-2]. The curves correspond to pion-cloud model by Peng et al. [@e866-1] and Nikolaev et al. [@nikolaev], chiral-quark model by Szczurek et al. [@szczurek96], chiral-quark soliton model by Pobylitsa et al. [@pobylitsa], and instanton model by Dorokhov and Kochelev [@dorokhov].[]{data-label="fig3.2"}](./fig/towell_15-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
The $\sigma_{DY}(p+d)/\sigma_{DY}(p+p)$ cross section ratios for the proton-induced Drell-Yan process provide an independent means to probe the flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea [@es]. At forward rapidity region the Drell-Yan cross section is dominated by the annihilation of the $u$ quark in the proton beam with the $\bar u$ antiquark in the target nucleon. Assuming CS, one obtains $$\sigma_{DY}(p+d)/2\sigma_{DY}(p+p) \simeq
\left[1+\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)\right]/2,
\label{eq:3.2}$$ where $x$ refers to the momentum fraction of antiquarks. Eq. (\[eq:3.2\]) shows that an important advantage of the Drell-Yan process is that the $x$ dependence of $\bar d / \bar u$ can be determined. Using a 450 GeV proton beam, the NA51 collaboration [@na51] obtained $\bar u(x)/\bar d(x) = 0.51 \pm 0.04 (stat) \pm 0.05 (syst)$ at $x = 0.18$ and $\langle M_{\mu\mu}\rangle = 5.22$ GeV. The Fermilab E866/NuSea [@e866; @e866-1; @e866-2] Collaboration measured the Drell-Yan cross section ratios over a broad range of $x$ using 800 GeV proton beams. As shown in Fig. \[fig3.1\](a), these ratios were found to be significantly different from those expected for $\bar d = \bar u$ sea (dashed curve), indicating an asymmetric $\bar d$, $\bar u$ sea over an appreciable range in $x$. The values of $\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)$ extracted from NLO calculations of the $\sigma^{p+d}/2\sigma^{p+p}$ Drell-Yan cross section ratios are shown in Fig. \[fig3.1\](b). Results from the NA51 and E866 experiments are consistent, showing that the $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ ratio increases linearly from unity at $x \to 0$ up to $x \sim 0.15$, reaching a maximal value of $\sim 1.75$, and then drops off at higher $x$.
The Drell-Yan cross section ratios from E866 were analysed to obtain $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ over the region $0.02 < x < 0.345$ as shown in Fig. \[fig3.2\](a). The HERMES Collaboration has reported a SIDIS measurement of charged pions from hydrogen and deuterium targets [@hermes98]. Based on the differences between charged-pion yields from the two targets, $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ is determined in the kinematic range, $0.02 < x < 0.3$ and 1 GeV$^2 < Q^2 <$ 10 GeV$^2$. It is worth noting that the HERMES results are consistent with the E866 results obtained at much higher $Q^2$. In Table \[tab:1\] we list the values of the integral $\int_0^1 [\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)] dx$ determined from the NMC, HERMES, and FNAL E866 experiments. The agreement among these results, obtained using different techniques including DIS, semi-inclusive DIS, and Drell-Yan, is quite good.
[lll]{} Experiment & $\langle Q^2 \rangle$ (GeV$^2$/c$^2$) & $\int_0^1 [\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)] dx$\
NMC/DIS & 4.0 & $0.147 \pm 0.039$\
HERMES/SIDIS & 2.3 & $0.16 \pm 0.03$\
FNAL E866/DY & 54.0 & $0.118 \pm 0.012$\
### Theoretical interpetation of the $\bar d / \bar u$ flavor asymmetry
The Drell-Yan data on $(p+d)/(p+p)$ have been included in all recent global fits to determine nucleon parton distribution functions. Most of these global fits are performed at next-to-leading order (NLO), while several higher order (NNLO) global fits are also becoming available. Some examples of the recent NLO PDFs include the fits performed by the CTEQ/CT group (CTEQ6.6 [@CTEQ6.6] and CT10 [@CT10]), the MSTW group (MSTW08 [@MSTW08]), and the NNPDF collaboration (NNPDF2.0 [@NNPDF2.0] and NNPDF2.1 [@NNPDF2.1]). At the initial $Q_0^2$ scale, the $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry together with the valence quark, light quark sea and gluon distributions, are usually parametrized with some functional forms (with the exception of the NNPDF, which adopts neural network methodology). The fact that $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry is already present at the initial $Q_0^2$ scale reflects the non-perturbative nature of this asymmetry. It is conceivable that other non-perturbative features of the nucleon sea, such as the valence-like intrinsic sea and the $s(x)-\bar s(x)$ asymmetry (to be discussed later), will also be included for future PDF parametrizations.
To illustrate the unique role of proton-induced Drell-Yan for constraining the sea quark PDFs, Fig. \[fig3.3\] (a) shows the analysis of the NNPDF collaboration on how various experimental data constrain the $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ at $Q=2$ GeV [@perez12]. The yellow band corresponds to result obtained from fits to DIS data. The inclusion of the Drell-Yan fixed-target $p+p$ and $p+d$ data dramatically improves the accuracy (red band). Further inclusion of the Tevatron data only reduce the uncertainty slightly, as shown by the blue band in Fig. \[fig3.3\] (a). Figure \[fig3.3\] (b) illustrates how the fixed-target DY data significantly reduce the uncertainty of $\bar d(x)$ in the region of $0.05 < x < 0.3$. Future experiments are anticipated to further constrain $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ at larger $x$, as discussed later.
![Left (a): The asymmetry of the light sea $x \Delta_s(x) = x(\bar{d}(x) - \bar{u}(x))$ and its one standard deviation uncertainty at $Q = 2$ GeV as obtained from the NNPDF analysis, when only DIS data are included in the fit (yellow band), when Drell-Yan data are included in addition (red band), and from the reference NNPDF2.1 fit (blue band). Right (b): One standard deviation uncertainties on $\bar{d}(x)$ at $Q = 100$ GeV, as obtained from the NNPDF2.1 global fit (filled area), and from the same fit but applied to a subset of experimental data. From [@perez12].[]{data-label="fig3.3"}](./fig/perez_25a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): The asymmetry of the light sea $x \Delta_s(x) = x(\bar{d}(x) - \bar{u}(x))$ and its one standard deviation uncertainty at $Q = 2$ GeV as obtained from the NNPDF analysis, when only DIS data are included in the fit (yellow band), when Drell-Yan data are included in addition (red band), and from the reference NNPDF2.1 fit (blue band). Right (b): One standard deviation uncertainties on $\bar{d}(x)$ at $Q = 100$ GeV, as obtained from the NNPDF2.1 global fit (filled area), and from the same fit but applied to a subset of experimental data. From [@perez12].[]{data-label="fig3.3"}](./fig/perez_26b-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Many theoretical models, including meson-cloud model [@thomas83], chiral-quark model [@eichten], Pauli-blocking model [@field], instanton model [@dorokhov], chiral-quark soliton model [@wakamatsu], and statistical model [@bourrely], have been proposed to explain the $\bar d/ \bar u$ flavor asymmetry. Details of these models can be found in several review articles [@kumano98; @speth98; @vogt00; @garvey02]. Most of these models emphasize the important contribution of meson cloud to nucleon’s sea quark content. This was first pointed out by Sullivan [@sullivan] in the context of DIS, and later considered by Thomas [@thomas83] to predict the $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry. It is remarkable that meson cloud, usually considered to be important only at low $Q^2$, can lead to such striking effect even at very large $Q^2$ scale probed by the DY experiments ($\langle Q^2 \rangle \sim
54$ GeV$^2$ for FNAL E866). Fig. \[fig3.2\] (b) shows that $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ can be reasonably well described by many different theoretical models. To shed new lights on the origin of the $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ asymmetry and to further test these models, it is important to measure other sea-quark observables, such as the polarized $\Delta \bar u(x)$ and $\Delta \bar d(x)$, as well as $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ [@garvey02]. These will be discussed in later sections.
The $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ data have been utilized recently to extract the intrinsic light-quark sea content of the nucleons [@chang11; @chang11-1; @chang11-2]. The possible existence of the so-called “intrinsic charm" in the nucleon via the $u u d c \bar c$ five-quark Fock state was proposed some time ago by Brodsky, Hoyer, Peterson, and Sakai (BHPS) [@brodsky80; @brodsky80-1]. The “intrinsic charm" is to be distinguished from the conventional “extrinsic charm" produced in the splitting of gluons into $c \bar c$ pairs. While the extrinsic charm is expected to be localized at the small $x$ region, the intrinsic charm is predicted to be valence-like with a distribution peaking at larger $x$ and could account for certain forward charm production data [@vogt95]. The CTEQ collaboration [@pumplin06] performed a global fit to existing data allowing an intrinsic charm component, and concluded that the data neither confirm nor rule out the existence of intrinsic charm. The probability for the $|u u d Q \bar Q\rangle$ Fock state is expected to be approximately proportional to $1/m_Q^2$, where $m_Q$ is the mass of the quark $Q$ [@brodsky80; @brodsky80-1]. Therefore, the light five-quark states $|u u d u \bar u\rangle$, $|u u d d \bar
d\rangle$ and $|u u d s \bar s\rangle$ are likely to have significantly larger probabilities than the $|u u d c \bar c\rangle$ state, and could be more readily observed experimentally. The challenge is to separate the intrinsic from the extrinsic seas. It is essential to consider experimental observables which have little or no contributions from the extrinsic sea. The $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ is an example of such observables, since the perturbative $g \to Q \bar Q$ processes will generate $u \bar u$ and $d \bar d$ extrinsic sea with equal probabilities. A comparison between the calculations using the BHPS model for the intrinsic sea with the $\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)$ data show good agreement. By including also the $s(x)+\bar s(x)$ and $\bar u(x) + \bar d(x) - s(x) - \bar s(x)$ data the probabilities for the $|uudu\bar{u}\rangle$, $|uudd\bar{d}\rangle$, and $|uuds\bar{s}\rangle$ five-quark Fock states in the proton are extracted [@chang11; @chang11-1; @chang11-2]. Results from this analysis support the concept of intrinsic sea in the nucleons.
### $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ at large $x$
While various theoretical models can describe the general trend of the $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ asymmetry, they all have difficulties explaining the $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ E866 Drell-Yan data at large $x$ ($x>0.2$), where this ratio appears to fall below unity, i.e. $\bar d (x)< \bar u$(x). If confirmed by more precise measurements, this intriguing $x$ dependence of the $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ asymmetry could shed important new light on the nature of the nucleon sea. Thus, it would be very important to have new measurements sensitive to the $\bar d(x) /
\bar u(x)$ ratios at large $x$ ($x>0.2$). For given values of $x_1$ and $x_2$ the Drell-Yan cross section is proportional to $1/S$, where $S$ is the center-of-mass energy squared. Hence the Drell-Yan measurements at lower beam energies could more effectively probe the large $x$ region. The Fermilab E906/SeaQuest [@e906] experiment will utilize 120 GeV proton beam, and the expected statistical accuracy for $\sigma (p+d)/ 2 \sigma (p+p)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_e906\]. A definitive measurement of the $\bar d(x)/ \bar u(x)$ over the region $0.25 < x < 0.5$ is expected in the near future.
The new 50 GeV proton accelerator, J-PARC, presents another opportunity for extending the $\bar d(x)/ \bar u(x)$ measurement to even larger $x$ ($0.25 < x < 0.7$) [@peng00]. Since only 30 GeV proton beam is available at the initial phase of J-PARC, the first measurements would focus on $J/\Psi$ production at 30 GeV. An important feature of $J/\Psi$ production using 30 GeV proton beam is the dominance of the quark-antiquark annihilation subprocess. This is in striking contrast to $J/\Psi$ production at 800 GeV, where the dominant process is the gluon-gluon fusion. This suggests that $J/\Psi$ production at J-PARC can be used as an alternative method to probe antiquark distribution, including $\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)$ at large $x$ [@peng00].
[R]{}[0.4]{}
{width="40.00000%"}
Flavor dependence of the EMC effect {#sec:flavor-emc}
-----------------------------------
The first definitive evidence for the modification of parton distributions in nuclei was observed in muon DIS experiment [@emc1]. This surprising finding, called the EMC effect, was confirmed later by other DIS experiments with electron, muon, and neutrino beams [@slac; @muons; @neutrinos]. Many theoretical models [@geesaman_review; @norton_review] have been proposed to explain the EMC effect. While these models are capable of describing some features of the EMC effect, they span a broad range of physics ideas. The true physics origin of the EMC effect remains to be better understood.
An effective test of the various theoretical models can be obtained from the quark flavor dependences of the EMC effect. This was nicely demonstrated by the measurement [@drell_yan] of the nuclear dependence of the proton-induced Drell-Yan process, which is primarily sensitive to the EMC effect of $\bar u$ distributions. The absence of the nuclear enhancement of $\bar u$ distributions in these measurements has provided strong constraints on many EMC models [@drell_yan].
To further understand the origin of the EMC effect, it is important to examine other quark flavor dependences. The possibility for a flavor-dependent modification of quark distributions was suggested recently by Cloët, Bentz, and Thomas (CBT) [@ianemc; @ian], who pointed out that the isoscalar and isovector mean fields in a nucleus will modify the quark distributions in the bound nucleons according to the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. An interesting consequence of the presence of the isovector vector meson ($\rho^0$) mean field in an $N \ne Z$ nucleus is that the $u$ and $d$ quarks in the bound nucleons are modified differently, leading to flavor dependences of nuclear quark distributions.
Figure \[dutta\] (a) shows some CBT results for nuclear PDFs. The solid curve is for the usual EMC effect in symmetric nuclear matter, where $F^A_2$ and $F_2^D$ are the per-nucleon structure functions of the nucleus and the deuteron, respectively. Inclusive DIS experiments measure the weighted sum of $u$ and $d$ quark distributions, making it difficult to extract the quark-flavor dependence of the EMC effect. Several new measurements sensitive to the flavor-dependent EMC effects have been considered. They include the parity-violating DIS asymmetry proposed at the JLab 12 GeV facility [@pr12007; @ian12], the semi-inclusive DIS on nuclear target first considered by Lu and Ma [@ma2006] and recently proposed at JLab [@pr12004].
![Left (a): Ratios of quark distributions and structure functions in nuclear matter versus the deuteron plotted as a function of Bjorken-$x$, at $Q^2 = 10\,$GeV$^2$. Filled circles are data for $N=Z$ nuclear matter from Ref. [@day-sick]. Curves are results from the CBT model [@ianemc; @ian] where the solid line is the calculation of $F_2^A/F_2^D$ for $N=Z$ nuclear matter, and dashed and dot-dashed curves are the ratios of $u$ and $d$ quark distributions in a gold nucleus over those in a deuteron. Right (b): Comparison between NA3 and NA10 data with calculations from the CBT model [@dutta2011]. The solid line is the full flavor-dependent result and the dashed line is obtained by setting the $\rho^0$ mean field to zero.[]{data-label="dutta"}](./fig/dutta_1-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): Ratios of quark distributions and structure functions in nuclear matter versus the deuteron plotted as a function of Bjorken-$x$, at $Q^2 = 10\,$GeV$^2$. Filled circles are data for $N=Z$ nuclear matter from Ref. [@day-sick]. Curves are results from the CBT model [@ianemc; @ian] where the solid line is the calculation of $F_2^A/F_2^D$ for $N=Z$ nuclear matter, and dashed and dot-dashed curves are the ratios of $u$ and $d$ quark distributions in a gold nucleus over those in a deuteron. Right (b): Comparison between NA3 and NA10 data with calculations from the CBT model [@dutta2011]. The solid line is the full flavor-dependent result and the dashed line is obtained by setting the $\rho^0$ mean field to zero.[]{data-label="dutta"}](./fig/dutta_2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Pion-induced Drell-Yan processes provide another experimental tool that is sensitive to flavor-dependent effects in the nuclear quark distributions [@dutta2011]. Keeping only the dominant terms in Drell-Yan cross section, one obtains $$R^{-}_{A/D} = \frac{\sigma^{DY}(\pi^- + A)}{\sigma^{DY}(\pi^- + D)}
\approx \frac{u_{A}(x)}{u_{D}(x)};~~~~~~
R^{-}_{A/H} = \frac{\sigma^{DY}(\pi^- + A)}{\sigma^{DY}(\pi^- + H)}
\approx \frac{u_{A}(x)}{u_p(x)},$$ The target PDFs have a subscript $A$, and the up quark distribution in the deuteron and the proton are labeled $u_D$ and $u_p$, respectively.
In Fig. \[dutta\] (b) the calculation of the pion-induced Drell-Yan cross section ratios are compared with the existing NA3 [@badier81] and NA10 [@bordalo87] data. The solid curves in Fig. \[dutta\] (b) are calculations using the flavor-dependent $u_A(x)$ and $d_A(x)$ from the CBT model. The dashed curves in Fig. \[dutta\] (b) are obtained using PDFs from the CBT model with no flavor-dependent nuclear effects, that is, with the $\rho^0$ mean field set to 0. The NA10 data exhibit a preference for the flavor-independent nuclear PDFs. In contrast, the NA3 data favor the calculation using flavor-dependent CBT nuclear PDFs.
The existing Drell-Yan data are not sufficiently accurate to draw any firm conclusions. Precise future pion-induced Drell-Yan experiments, such as the proposed measurement by the COMPASS collaboration with 160-GeV pion beams, offer an opportunity for a precise test [@dutta2011] of flavor dependence of the EMC effect. A recent paper also explored the feasibility of using $W$ production in proton-nucleus collision at LHC to probe the flavor-dependent EMC effect [@chang_w].
Gluon distribution in proton versus neutron
-------------------------------------------
As discussed earlier, the measurement of the $(p+d)/(p+p)$ Drell-Yan cross section ratios has led to the conclusion that $\bar u(x)$ and $\bar d(x)$ distributions in the proton are different. Strictly speaking, this measurement is probing directly the ratio of the $\bar u(x)$ distribution of the neutron over that of the proton. The Drell-Yan process, dominated by the $u - \bar u$ annihilation subprocess, leads to the relation $\sigma (p + d)_{DY}/2 \sigma (p+p)_{DY} \approx \frac {1}{2}
(1 + \bar u_n(x_2)/\bar u_p (x_2))$, where $\bar u_{p,n}$ refers to the $\bar u$ distribution in the proton and neutron, respectively. An interesting question is whether the gluon distribuions are identical for proton and neutron. While it is generally assumed that the gluon distributions in the proton and neutron are identical, this assumption should be tested experimentally. Charge symmetry violation at the parton level could lead to a difference for the gluon distributions in the proton and neutron [@piller]. Since quarkonium production at high energies is dominated by the gluon-gluon fusion subprocess [@peng95; @vogt99], it can probe the gluon distributions in the colliding hadrons. In particular, the $\sigma(p+d \to J/\Psi (\Upsilon)X)
/2 \sigma(p+p \to J/\Psi (\Upsilon))$ ratio for $J/\Psi$ or $\Upsilon$ production can probe the gluon content in the neutron relative to that in the proton [@piller].
![The E866 $\sigma(p + d) /2 \sigma(p + p)$ cross section ratios for $\Upsilon$ resonances as a function of $x_2$ [@zhu_ups]. The ratios for the E866 Drell-Yan cross sections [@e866; @e866-1; @e866-2] are also shown.[]{data-label="crosfig5"}](./fig/upsfig5-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
The Fermilab E866 measured the $\sigma (p+d)/2\sigma(p+p)$ ratios for $\Upsilon (1S+2S+3S)$ production [@zhu_ups]. As shown in Fig. \[crosfig5\], these ratios are consistent with 1 over the range of $0.09 < x_2 < 0.25$. The dominance of the gluon-gluon fusion subprocess implies that $\sigma (p+d \to \Upsilon)/ 2 \sigma(p+p \to \Upsilon)\approx \frac
{1}{2} (1+g_n(x_2)/g_p(x_2))$. Figure \[crosfig5\] shows that the gluon distributions in the proton ($g_p$) and neutron ($g_n$) are very similar, consistent with no charge symmetry breaking for nucleon’s gluon distributions. Similar results were also obtained by the NA51 collaboration for the measurement of $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^\prime$ on hydrogen and deuterium targets using 450 GeV proton beam [@abreu98].
The upcoming Fermilab E906 experiment offers the opportunity to extend the measurement to $J/\Psi$ production. A high statistics measurement of $\sigma (p+d \to J/\Psi)/ 2 \sigma(p+p \to J/\Psi)$ at 120 GeV proton energy could be obtained in E906. A fixed-target experiment at LHC using 7 TeV proton beam extracted by a bent crystal has also been considered [@brodsky13]. A large number of $J/\Psi (\sim 10^9)$ and $\Upsilon (\sim 10^6)$ would be detected in $p+p$ and $p+d$ collisions. Both the E906 and the LHC fixed-target experiments could lead to further sensitive test for charge symmetry breaking in nucleon’s gluon distributions.
Strange quark distributions in the proton
-----------------------------------------
The question regarding the strange quark contents of the nucleon continues to attract much attention. Motivated by earlier indication that nucleon’s mass has a significant contribution from the $s \bar s$ component, several parity-violating electron-nucleon elastic scattering experiments have been performed in order to determine the strangeness electric and magnetic form factors. As discussed in a recent review article [@armstrong], the strange quark form factors were found to be small, in good agreement with lattice QCD and some other model calculations.
In the large $Q^2$ domain, the strange quark distributions in the nucleon can be probed by various hard processes. Unlike the up and down quarks, there is no net strangeness, or equivalently, no net valence strange quarks, in the nucleon. Therefore, a comparison between the strange quark sea and the up and down quark seas could shed some light on how the flavor structure of the nucleon sea depends on the flavors of the valence quarks. It is also interesting to investigate how the SU(2) flavor asymmetry of the $\bar d / \bar u$ sea is extended to SU(3) flavor asymmetry with the inclusion of the $s$ and $\bar s$ sea.
In this section, we discuss two aspects of the strange quark distributions in the nucleon. First, we examine the $x$-integrated as well as the $x$-dependent strange quark distributions relative to those of the up and down sea quarks. Second, we compare the $s(x)$ versus the $\bar s(x)$ distributions in the proton.
### Asymmetry between strange and up/down seas
Assuming SU(3) flavor symmetry and neglecting effects of the valence $u$ and $d$ quarks on the sea quark flavor structure, a symmetric $u, d, s$ nucleon sea would be expected. However, this expectation is not realistic, as the SU(3) flavor symmetry is broken by the larger mass of the strange quark. Moreover, the large $\bar d(x)/\bar u(x)$ asymmetry suggests that the valence quarks can affect the flavor structure of the nucleon sea.
![Left (a): Ratio $r_s = (s+\bar s)/2\bar d$ at $Q^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$ and $x = 0.023$ from ATLAS (bands) and various PDFs [@atlas_s]. Right (b): The strange parton distribution $x(s(x)+\bar s(x)$ from HERMES semi-inclusive kaon production measurement [@hermes08]. The dot-dash curve is $x (\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ from CTEQ6L [@CTEQ6.6].[]{data-label="atlas_hermes"}](./fig/atlas_s-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): Ratio $r_s = (s+\bar s)/2\bar d$ at $Q^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$ and $x = 0.023$ from ATLAS (bands) and various PDFs [@atlas_s]. Right (b): The strange parton distribution $x(s(x)+\bar s(x)$ from HERMES semi-inclusive kaon production measurement [@hermes08]. The dot-dash curve is $x (\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ from CTEQ6L [@CTEQ6.6].[]{data-label="atlas_hermes"}](./fig/hermes_s-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Information on the strange quark contents was primarily extracted from neutrino DIS experiments. These experiments allowed the determination of the ratio, $\kappa$, of nucleon momentum carried by strange versus lighter non-strange sea quarks: $$\kappa = \left[\int^1_0 x(s(x)+\bar s(x))~dx\right] /\left[\int^1_0 x(\bar u(x)+\bar d(x))~dx\right].$$ A value of $\sim 0.5$ was found for $\kappa$, indicating that strange quark sea is suppressed by roughly a factor of two relative to the lighter quark sea, presumably due to its heavier mass. The extraction of $\kappa$ typically assumes identical shape ($x$-dependence) for $u, d$ and$s$ quark seas. However, the neutrino DIS data only cover a relatively narrow range in $x$, and can not test this assumption. As discussed earlier, the ratio $\bar d(x)/ \bar u(x)$ is strongly dependent on $x$, and it is conceivable that similar situation also occurs for the $(s(x) + \bar s(x))/(\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ ratio.
The assumption of identical shapes for up, down, and strange quark seas is not in agreement with some recent experiments. From $W$ and $Z$ boson production in $pp$ collisions at 7 TeV, the ATLAS collaboration at LHC determined [@atlas_s] the $r_s=(s + \bar s)/2\bar d$ ratio to be $1.0 +0.25 -0.28$ at $x=0.023$ and $Q^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$, suggesting a symmetric light quark sea at small $x$, see Fig. \[atlas\_hermes\] (a). Since the neutrino DIS data showed a suppression of strange relative to up and down quark seas by a factor of $\sim 2$ at larger $x$, the $(s + \bar s) / (\bar u + \bar d)$ ratio clearly has a strong $x$ dependence. It should be cautioned that the ATLAS result on $r_s$ has a large uncertainty and is higher than the values of recent PDFs, as shown in Fig. \[atlas\_hermes\] (a). Much improved statistics for LHC W,Z data is anticipated. Moreover, W production events in coincidence with charm jet, which is expected to be a sensitive probe for $s$ and $\bar s$ distributions, are becoming available [@cms_charm; @stirling13].
Another important recent development is that the HERMES collaboration has extracted the $x (s(x) + \bar s(x))$ distribution at $Q^2 = 2.4$ GeV$^2$ from semi-inclusive DIS kaon production on deuteron, shown in Fig. \[atlas\_hermes\] (b) [@hermes08]. The dot-dash curve in Fig. \[atlas\_hermes\] (b) is the $x (\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ distribution from the CTEQ6L [@CTEQ6.6] global fit. While $\bar u(x) + \bar d(x)$ is significantly greater than $\bar s(x)$ at large $x$ region ($x > 0.1$), Fig. \[atlas\_hermes\] (b) shows that the nucleon sea becomes largely SU(3) flavor symmetric at $x<0.05$, consistent with the recent ATLAS result.
Some insight on the $x$-dependence of the $(s(x) +\bar s(x)) / (\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ ratio was recently presented by Liu et al. [@kfliu12]. According to path-integral formalism, there are two distinct gauge invariant diagrams for the nucleon sea, shown in Fig. \[fig\_liu\_pdf\] (a). Antiquarks in the nucleons originate from the connected sea (CS) and the disconnected sea (DS), shown as the first and second diagram, respectively. These two difference sources of sea quarks have distinct quark-flavor and $x$ dependences [@kfliu12]. While $\bar u$ and $\bar d$ have both CS and DS contributions, $\bar s$ (and $\bar c$) can only come from DS. The absence of the CS component for the strange quarks implies that any difference between the $s(x) + \bar s(x)$ and $\bar u(x) + \bar d(x)$ distributions must originate primarily from the CS diagram. The CS and DS are also expected to have different $x$ distributions. At small $x$, the CS has a distribution of $\bar q(x)^{cs} \propto x^{-1/2}$ due to reggeon exchange, while the DS has $\bar q(x)^{ds} \propto x^{-1}$ as a result of pomeron exchange. Therefore, the DS component is expected to dominate at small $x$. Recent lattice QCD calculation [@doi08] shows that DS is nearly flavor independent, and the ratio $R$ for the momentum fraction carried by $\bar s$ versus $\bar u$ (or $\bar d)$ is $0.857 \pm 0.040$, consistent with the results from ATLAS and HERMES. At larger $x$, the $\bar u $ and $\bar d$ sea has the additional contribution from CS, resulting in smaller $(s(x) + \bar s(x))/(\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ ratios. This expectation is in qualitative agreement with the recent HERMES result.
Figure \[fig\_liu\_pdf\] (b) shows the ratio $(s(x) + \bar s(x))/(\bar u(x) +\bar d(x))$ at $Q^2 = 5$ GeV$^2$ from a selection of recent PDF sets. The uncertainty band for MRST2001 is rather narrow, presumably due to the assumption of identical $x$-dependence for $s + \bar s$ and $\bar u + \bar d$, namely, $s(x) + \bar s(x) = \kappa_s (\bar u(x) + \bar d(x))$ at the initial $Q_0$ scale. This constraint was relaxed for both CTEQ6.6 and MSTW2008, although CTEQ6.6 introduces more freedom in the functional form for $s(x) + \bar s(x)$ than MSTW2008. While the error bands for CTEQ6.6 and MSTW2008 are quite broad, they exhibit the same trend that the ratio $(s(x) + \bar s(x))/(\bar u(x) +\bar d(x))$ is strongly $x$-dependent, being nearly constant at $x<0.01$ and falls with increasing $x$ in the region $0.01<x< 0.3$. Both PDFs have not included the ATLAS $W, Z$ production and the HERMES data. It is anticipated that these data as well as new $W,Z$ production data from LHC will significantly improve our knowledge on the flavor structure of the $u, d, s$ quark sea.
![Left (a): Two gauge invariant and topologically distinct diagrams for connected sea and disconnected sea [@kfliu12]. Right (b): Ratio of $s + \bar s$ over $\bar u + \bar d$ versus $x$ at $Q^2 = 5$ GeV$^2$ from various recent PDFs [@MSTW08].[]{data-label="fig_liu_pdf"}](./fig/kfliu_1a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Left (a): Two gauge invariant and topologically distinct diagrams for connected sea and disconnected sea [@kfliu12]. Right (b): Ratio of $s + \bar s$ over $\bar u + \bar d$ versus $x$ at $Q^2 = 5$ GeV$^2$ from various recent PDFs [@MSTW08].[]{data-label="fig_liu_pdf"}](./fig/kfliu_1b-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Left (a): Two gauge invariant and topologically distinct diagrams for connected sea and disconnected sea [@kfliu12]. Right (b): Ratio of $s + \bar s$ over $\bar u + \bar d$ versus $x$ at $Q^2 = 5$ GeV$^2$ from various recent PDFs [@MSTW08].[]{data-label="fig_liu_pdf"}](./fig/perez_28a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
### Asymmetry between $s$ and $\bar s$ seas
The absence of net valence strange quarks in the nucleon implies $\int_0^1(s(x)-\bar s(x)) dx = 0$. However, no known physics requires $s(x) = \bar s(x)$. Indeed, both perturbative and nonperturbative processes can lead to asymmetric $s(x)$, $\bar s(x)$ distributions in the nucleon. For the nonperturbative contribution, the role of meson cloud for generating $s(x) \ne \bar s(x)$ was first considered by Signal and Thomas [@signal87]. In particular, the $K\Lambda$ and $K\Sigma$ kaon-hyperon components naturally lead to an asymmetric $s(x)$ and $\bar s(x)$, since $\bar s$ residing in a kaon is expected to have a different momentum distribution compared with $s$ contained in a hyperon. This asymmetry is a consequence of the kaon cloud very much analogous to the $\bar d / \bar u$ asymmetry caused by the pion cloud discussed earlier. Burkardt and Warr [@burkardt92] later showed a sizeable $s(x)$, $\bar s(x)$ asymmetry resulting from calculation using the chiral Gross-Neveu model. Brodsky and Ma [@brodsky96] then described the kaon-hyperon fluctuation utilizing the light-cone two-body wave functions. The magnitude and shape of $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ depend sensitively on the choice of the kaon-hyperon splitting function as well as the $s$ and $\bar s$ distribution functions in the hyperons and kaon. In general, the meson-cloud model predicts $s(x) < \bar s(x)$ at the $x>0.2$ region [@holtmann96; @wally97; @christiansen98; @cao99], while the light-cone model predicts a softer $\bar s(x)$ distribution with $s(x) > \bar s(x)$ for $x>0.2$. The inclusion of the $K^* \Lambda$ channel was shown to affect the $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ distribution significantly [@cao03]. The $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ asymmetry is also predicted in the chiral quark model in which constituent quarks can couple to kaons [@szczurek96; @ding05], as well as in the chiral-quark soliton model [@wakamatsu05]. Both the chiral-quark and the soliton models predict $s(x) > \bar s(x)$ at $x>0.2$.
It was pointed out that perturbative QCD can also lead to an $s(x)/\bar s(x)$ asymmetry [@catani04]. Up to next-to-leading order (NLO) in $\alpha_s$, QCD evolution generates symmetric $s(x)$, $\bar s(x)$ sea. However, at the level of the NNLO evolution, the probability for $u \to s (d \to s)$ splitting is different from the $u \to \bar s (d \to \bar s)$ splittings. Therefore, an $s(x) / \bar s(x)$ asymmetry can result from NNLO evolution even with $s(x) = \bar s(x)$ at the initial scale $Q_0$ [@catani04]. This is analogous to the familiar case of $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry. While LO evolution preserves a flavor symmetric $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ sea, the NLO evolution generates $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry due to the difference in the $u \to \bar u$ and $d \to \bar d$ splitting [@ross79; @broadhurst04]. Using the 3-loop splitting functions derived by Moch et al. [@moch04], non-zero value of $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ has been obtained [@catani04; @feng12]. While the nonperturbative contributions to $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ dominates in the larger $x$ region, the perturbative contributions are more significant in the small $x$ ($0.02 < x < 0.03$) region [@feng12].
The possible role of $s(x) / \bar s(x)$ asymmetry in explaining, at least partially, the so-called “NuTeV anomaly" has attracted much interest. From a comparison of the neutral and charged current $\nu$ and $\bar \nu$ cross sections on an iron target, the NuTeV collaboration reported a $3\sigma$ deviation from the Standard Model value of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ [@zeller02]. It was later pointed out that this discrepancy could be reduced if $s$ quarks carry more momentum than the $\bar s$ quarks [@davidson02], namely, $$[S^-] = \int^1_0 x [s(x)-\bar s(x)]dx > 0.$$ In particular, Kretzer et al. [@kretzer04] estimated that a value of $[S^-] = 0.004$ at $Q^2=20$ GeV$^2$ would shift $\sin^2\theta_W$ by $\sim -0.005$ and completely remove the NuTeV anomaly. The exact value would clearly depend on the $x$-dependence of $s(x) - \bar s(x)$. It is worth noting that the $\bar d(x) / \bar u(x)$ flavor asymmetry corresponds to $\int^1_0 x[\bar d(x) - \bar u(x)]dx \approx 0.007$ at $Q^2 = 20$ GeV$^2$ [@garvey02]. Therefore, a value of $[S^-] = 0.004$ would represent a sizable asymmetry between $s(x)$ and $\bar s(x)$. Since most of the theoretical models predict $s(x) > \bar s(x)$ at $x>0.2$, resulting in $[S^-] > 0$, this could partially account for the NuTeV anomaly. Clearly, the $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ distribution and the value of $[S^-]$ must be determined from experiments.
The first indication of an $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ asymmetry came from a global analysis [@barone00] of charged lepton and $\nu(\bar \nu)$ DIS, and the Drell-Yan cross section data, suggesting a harder $s(x)$ distribution than $\bar s(x)$ with $[S^-] = 0.0020 \pm 0.0005$ at $Q^2 = 20$ GeV$^2$. However, when the CCFR-NuTeV $\nu (\bar \nu)$ DIS data [@yang01] were added to the global fit, $[S^-] = (1.8 \pm 3.8) \times 10^{-4}$ was obtained [@barone06], which is consistent with no $s(x) / \bar s(x)$ asymmetry.
The $s(x)$ and $\bar s(x)$ seas can be directly accessed through the measurement of dimuon events in neutrino and antineutrino DIS. For the $\nu_\mu N \to \mu^- \mu^+ X$ reaction, a significant contribution comes from the charged-current subprocess $\nu_\mu + s \to \mu^- + c$ followed by the semi-leptonic decay of the charmed hadron. These dimuon events provide a sensitive probe for the $s$-quark sea in the nucleon. Similarly, the $\bar \nu_\mu N \to \mu^+ \mu^- X$ events would measure the $\bar s$-quark sea via the $\bar \nu_\mu + \bar s \to \mu^+ + \bar c$ subprocess. The availability of high statistics NuTeV dimuon data [@mason07] prompted several global fits [@MSTW08; @mason07; @nnpdf1.2; @cteq6.5; @akp08; @pedro10] at NLO allowing for a non-zero $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ at the initial $Q_0$ scale. In Table \[tab:2\] are listed the values of $[S^-]$ obtained from these PDFs. While all PDFs give a positive central value for $[S^-]$, the rather large uncertainties prevent a definitive conclusion on the existence of $s(x) / \bar s(x)$ asymmetry from these global fits. As a result, some recent PDFs (CTEQ6.6 and CT10, for example) continue to assume $s(x) = \bar s(x)$ at the initial scale. In an assessment of recent status, Bentz et al. [@bentz10] also obtained a vlaue of $[S^-] = 0.0 \pm 0.002$, consistent with no strangeness asymmetry.
[lll]{} PDF & $Q^2$ (GeV$^2$) & $[S^-]$\
NuTeV [@mason07] & 16.0 & $0.00196^{+0.0016}_{-0.0013}$\
CTEQ6.5 [@cteq6.5] & 1.69 & $0.0018^{+0.0016}_{-0.0014}$\
AKP08 [@akp08] & 20.0 & $0.0013\pm 0.0009$\
GJR08 [@pedro10] & 20.0 & $0.0008 \pm 0.0005$\
MSTW08 [@MSTW08] & 10.0 & $0.0018^{+0.0018}_{-0.0012}$\
NNPDF1.2 [@nnpdf1.2] & 20.0 & $0.0005 \pm 0.0086$\
![Left (a): $x [s(x)-\bar s(x)]$ from three NNPDF sets [@NNPDF2.0]. NNPDF1.0 assumes $s(x)=\bar s(x)$, while NNPDF1.2 and NNPDF2.0 allow $s(x) \ne \bar s(x)$. The NNPDF2.0 analysis includes fixed-target Drell-Yan and Tevatron $W$ and $Z$ production data. Right (b): Weak mixing angle determined from the NuTeV data [@zeller02], plus correction using $[S^-]$ determined from NNPDF1.2 [@nnpdf1.2], or from NNPDF2.0 [@NNPDF2.0]. Only statistical uncertainty is included in the NNPDF2.0 result. The Weinberg angle from global electroweak fit is also shown. Figures are from [@NNPDF2.0].[]{data-label="fig_nnpdf_ssbar"}](./fig/xsm_nnpdf-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): $x [s(x)-\bar s(x)]$ from three NNPDF sets [@NNPDF2.0]. NNPDF1.0 assumes $s(x)=\bar s(x)$, while NNPDF1.2 and NNPDF2.0 allow $s(x) \ne \bar s(x)$. The NNPDF2.0 analysis includes fixed-target Drell-Yan and Tevatron $W$ and $Z$ production data. Right (b): Weak mixing angle determined from the NuTeV data [@zeller02], plus correction using $[S^-]$ determined from NNPDF1.2 [@nnpdf1.2], or from NNPDF2.0 [@NNPDF2.0]. Only statistical uncertainty is included in the NNPDF2.0 result. The Weinberg angle from global electroweak fit is also shown. Figures are from [@NNPDF2.0].[]{data-label="fig_nnpdf_ssbar"}](./fig/nutev-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
The NNPDF collaboration recently reported a more precise determination of $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ and the value of $[S^-]$ in the NNPDF2.1 PDF set [@NNPDF2.0]. After including the fixed-target Drell-Yan and the Tevatron $W$ and $Z$ production data in their global fits, they found that the uncertainty of $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ is much reduced, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_nnpdf\_ssbar\] (a). It is remarkable that the Drell-Yan data, which are not sensitive to $s$ and $\bar s$ distributions per se, can lead to tight constraints on the $s(x) - \bar s(x)$ distributions. This is attributed to the fact that $\bar d(x)$, $\bar u(x)$ are precisely determined by the Drell-Yan data, allowing a more accurate flavor decomposition of the nucleon sea. However, it is curious why similar results were not obtained by other PDFs listed in Table \[tab:2\], which also include Drell-Yan data in their global fits. Figure \[fig\_nnpdf\_ssbar\] (b) shows that the NuTeV anomaly practically disappears when the $[S^-]$ determined from NNPDF2.0 is adopted.
Future experiments such as semi-inclusive DIS with $K^+$ and $K^-$ production at the JLab 12 GeV upgrade and at the EIC, as well as kaon-induced Drell-Yan at COMPASS and J-PARC, could provide new information on the intriguing and yet unsettled issue of possible flavor asymmetry between the $s$ and $\bar s$ seas.
Drell-Yan process with $Q^2\gg q_T^2$ {#sec:two-scales}
=====================================
The Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production for $Q\gg q_T\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ has attracted tremendous attention from both experimental and theoretical sides in recent years. It might be one of the best processes to measure transverse motion of quarks inside a hadron because of its sensitivity to the quark’s confined motion at the scale of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 1/$fm. It is also the much needed process to test the predicted sign change of two most interested TMDs, known as Sivers function and Boer-Mulders function, when they are measured in SIDIS in comparison with that measured in the Drell-Yan process.
QCD TMD factorization for Drell-Yan process {#sec:tmd-fac}
-------------------------------------------
With the transverse momentum of the massive lepton pair, $q_T\ll Q$, Drell-Yan cross section has effectively two observed, but, very different momentum scales. The perturbatively calculated $\hat{\sigma}$ in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) will have $\alpha_s \ln^2(Q^2/q_T^2)$-type huge logarithmic contributions from every power of $\alpha_s$ in its perturbative expansion, which could clearly ruin the convergence of the perturbative expansion in powers of $\alpha_s$. Furthermore, when $q_T\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the approximation to neglect the transverse momentum of active partons in QCD collinear factorization approach, the approximation in Eq. (\[eq:collinear\]), is clearly not valid, and the transverse momentum of active partons could directly influence the $q_T$ of produced lepton pair. The QCD improved Drell-Yan formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) should not be valid for this kinematic regime of Drell-Yan process.
QCD TMD factorization generalizes the short-distance production of massive lepton pairs by the collision of two on-shell collinear partons in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) to the collision of two on-shell partons with both collinear as well as transverse momentum components, and the PDFs to transverse momentum dependent PDFs or TMDs [@collins-book; @collins-qiu-fac; @collins-metz-fac], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l}+X}(\vec{S}_a,\vec{S}_b)}
{dQ^2dy\, d^2{\bf q_T}}
&=&
\sum_{a,b} \int dx_a\, dx_b\, d^2{\bf p}_{a\perp}\, d^2{\bf p}_{b\perp}\,
\delta^2({\bf q}_T-{\bf p}_{a\perp}-{\bf p}_{b\perp})
\nonumber\\
&\ & \times
f^{\rm DY}_{a/A}(x_a,{\bf p}_{a\perp},\vec{S}_a,\mu)\,
f^{\rm DY}_{b/B}(x_b,{\bf p}_{b\perp},\vec{S}_b,\mu)\,
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}(x_a,x_b,Q,y,\mu)}{dQ^2dy}
\nonumber\\
&\ & + \ Y(q_T,Q,y) + {\cal O}\left((\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)^\alpha\right),
\label{eq:dy-tmd} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\vec S}_a$ (and ${\vec S}_b$) is the spin vector of colliding hadron $A$ (and $B$), $y$ is the rapidity of the observed lepton pair, and $Y(q_T,Q,y)$ is a perturbative contribution extending the TMD-factorization formalism to the region where $q_T\sim Q$ [@Collins:1984kg]. The partonic hard part $\hat{\sigma}_{a+b\to l\bar{l}}(x_a,x_b,Q,y,\mu)$ depends on the type of intermediate vector boson ($\gamma$, or $W$, or $Z$) [@Collins:1984kg]. In Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]), $f^{\rm DY}_{a/A}(x_a,{\bf p}_{a\perp},\vec{S}_a,\mu)$ and $f^{\rm DY}_{b/B}(x_b,{\bf p}_{b\perp},\vec{S}_b,\mu)$ are TMDs with factorization scale $\mu$ defined in Ref. [@collins-book], also in Appendix \[sec:appendixb\]. The TMD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]) was proved to the same rigor as the collinear factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) with corrections down by powers of $1/Q$ [@collins-book; @Ji:2004xq], and the technical details of the proof is well documented in Ref. [@collins-book]. Some simple and intuitive arguments for the validity of Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]) are given in Appendix \[sec:appendixb\]. The same TMD factorization formalism was also derived by using Soft-Collinear Effective Theory of QCD [@GarciaEchevarria:2011rb]. Although it seemingly used a different approach to what was introduced by Collins in Ref. [@collins-book], recently, Collins and Rogers showed [@Collins:2012uy] that these two approaches are effectively the same, apart from an apparent difference in their choices of normalization schemes.
With the dependence on parton transverse momentum, there are more TMDs than corresponding collinear PDFs [@Accardi:2012hwp; @tmd-duke]. For example, there are a total of eight leading power quark TMDs while there are only three leading power collinear quark PDFs. TMDs provide direct information not only on parton’s confined transverse motion inside a fast moving hadron, but also on quantum correlation between the preference of parton’s transverse motion and the spin direction of a transversely polarized hadron. TMDs extracted from experimental data could provide the picture of 3D motion of quarks and gluons inside a hadron. The validity of TMD factorization in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]) is necessary to bridge the confined partonic motion inside a hadron to the measurements of production cross section of massive lepton pairs and the pairs’ momentum distribution.
However, unlike PDFs, TMDs are not necessarily universal and could be process dependent. Such process dependence could ruin the predictive power of the TMD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]). Fortunately, due to the parity and time-reversal invariance of QCD, the process dependence of TMDs is only up to a sign change when they are measured in different physical processes. For example, as shown in Appendix \[sec:appendixb\], the parity and time-reversal invariance of QCD relates the TMD for finding an unpolarized quark inside a transversely polarized hadron measured in SIDIS and Drell-Yan process as follows [@collins02; @Kang:2009bp], $$f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm SIDIS}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
=
f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm DY}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})\, .
\label{eq:pt-inv}$$ The Sivers function is defined to be proportional to the difference, $[f_{q/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})-f_{q/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})]/2$. Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\]) effectively requires the Sivers function measured in SIDIS to have an opposite sign from that measured in Drell-Yan process [@collins02; @collins-metz-fac; @Kang:2009bp]. This sign change is the prediction of TMD factorization approach, and is one of the most important tests of QCD dynamics and factorization approaches to hadronic cross sections.
Experiments to test this sign change have been proposed to several hadron facilities around the world, including COMPASS [@COMPASSdy] at CERN, RHIC [@RHICspin] at BNL, PAX [@PAX] and PANDA [@PANDA] at GSI, NICA [@NICA-JINR] at JINR in Dubna, SPASCHARM [@SPASCHARM] at IHEP in Protvino (Russia), J-PARC [@J-PARC], and E1027 [@FNALspin] at Fermilab.
The Boer-Mulders function, $h_{1q}^\perp(x)$, is defined to be the sum, $[f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
+f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})]/2$, where $f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})$ is the TMD with a tensor spin projection, defined by replacing the vector spin projection $\gamma^+$ of the TMD, $f_{q/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})$ in Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\]) by a spin projection proportional to $\sigma^{+\perp}$. That is, the Boer-Mulders function, $h_{1q}^\perp(x)$, is proportional to the spin-averaged part of the TMD, $f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})$. Similar to Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\]), the parity and time-reversal invariance of QCD requires $$f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}^{\rm SIDIS}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
=
-f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}^{\rm DY}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})\, ,
\label{eq:pt-inv_tensor}$$ which effectively requires that the Boer-Mulders function measured in Drell-Yan process to have a sign opposite to that measured in SIDIS.
Like PDFs, TMDs also depend on the scale where they are probed. The scale dependence (or often referred to as scaling violation in QCD) is a prediction of QCD dynamics. The scale dependence of PDFs is determined by the DGLAP evolution equations [@Dokshitzer:1977sg; @Gribov:1972ri; @Altarelli:1977zs], which effectively resums leading logarithmic scale dependence and has been successfully tested [@CTEQ6.6; @CT10; @MSTW08; @NNPDF2.0]. The scale dependence of TMDs is systematically determined in QCD factorization framework by the often-called Collins-Soper equation [@collins-soper-b2bjets], which effectively resum the double logarithmic contributions from gluon shower of active colliding partons. When applied to unpolarized Drell-Yan process, the resummation of large $\alpha_s\ln^2(Q^2/q_T^2)$-type double logarithms are taken care of by the so-called CSS formalism, due to the work of Collins, Soper and Sterman (CSS) [@Collins:1984kg; @collins-soper-b2bjets; @collins-soper-pdfs]. Because of small parton transverse momentum, which is often a non-perturbative scale, the evolution of TMDs is best described in the impact parameter $b$-space, a Fourier transform of parton’s transverse momentum [@PPbspace; @Collins:1984kg; @APPdy]. The TMD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]) can be written in $b_T$-space as [@Collins:1984kg], $$\frac{d\sigma_{A+B\to l\bar{l}+X}}{dQ^2\, dy\, dq_T^2} =
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2b\, e^{i\vec{q}_T\cdot \vec{b}}\,
\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_A,x_B) + Y(q_T,Q,x_A,x_B)\, ,
\label{eq:css-gen}$$ where $x_A$ and $x_B$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:kinematics-pm\]), and $\widetilde{W}$ is proportional to the product of two TMDs in $b$-space when $b$ is small and $1/b$ is a perturbative scale [@Collins:1984kg], $$\widetilde{W}^{\rm pert}_{ij}(b,Q,x_A,x_B) =
{\rm e}^{-S(b,Q)}\,
f_{i/A}(x_A,\mu=\frac{c}{b})\, f_{j/B}(x_B,\mu=\frac{c}{b})\, ,
\label{eq:css-W-pert}$$ where $S(b,Q)$ is the Sudakov form factor resumming all leading and next-to-leading power of logarithmic contributions to the Drell-Yan cross section [@Collins:1984kg; @collins-soper-b2bjets], and the functions $f_{i/A}$ and $f_{j/B}$ in Eq. (\[eq:css-W-pert\]) are the modified PDFs [@Collins:1984kg], $$f_{i/A}(x_A,\mu) = \sum_a
\int_{x_A}^1\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\,
C_{i/a}(\frac{x_A}{\xi},\mu))\, \phi_{a/A}(\xi,\mu)
\label{eq:mod-pdf}$$ where $\sum_a$ runs over all parton flavors. In Eq. (\[eq:mod-pdf\]), $\phi_{a/A}(\xi,\mu)$ is the normal PDFs of flavor $a$ of hadron $A$, and $C_{i/a}=\sum_{n=0} C_{i/a}^{(n)} (\alpha_s/\pi)^n$ are perturbatively calculable coefficient functions for finding a parton of flavor $i$ from a parton of flavor $a$ [@Collins:1984kg].
The predictive power of this $b$-space TMD-factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:css-gen\]) is very sensitive to how we extrapolate the perturbatively calculated $\widetilde{W}^{\rm pert}_{ij}(b,Q,x_A,x_B)$ in Eq. (\[eq:css-W-pert\]), or in general, the $b$-space TMDs, which are valid at small $b$, into the large $b$ region so that we can perform the Fourier transform from $b$ to $q_T$ in Eq. (\[eq:css-gen\]) [@catani2000; @Qiu:2000hf]. With a proper prescription to extrapolate into the large $b$ non-perturbative region, the CSS formalism for the evolution of TMDs has been extremely successful in interpreting and predicting the unpolarized Drell-Yan and W/Z production [@Qiu:2000hf; @Landry:1999an; @Qiu:2000ga; @Landry:2002ix; @Kang:2012am], as well as $\Upsilon$ [@Berger:2004cc] production, at collider energies.
Recently, the CSS factorization formalism for TMDs was extended to processes that involve the Sivers functions [@Aybat:2011ge; @boer2001; @Idilbi:2004vb]. Since QCD evolution is insensitive to the details of long-distance hadron states, Collins-Soper evolution equations should be valid for TMDs of hadrons with and without polarization. Sivers function is defined to be the spin-dependent part of the TMD to find a unpolarized quark inside a transversely polarized hadron, so that it is the transverse momentum derivative of Sivers function that satisfies the same Collins-Soper evolution equations [@Ji:2004xq; @Aybat:2011ge; @boer2001; @Idilbi:2004vb].
Single transverse-spin asymmetry of the Drell-Yan process {#eq:ssa-dy}
---------------------------------------------------------
Single transverse-spin asymmetry (SSA) in hadronic collisions is defined to be the ratio of the difference and the sum of the cross sections when the transverse spin vector $\vec{S}_\perp$ of one of the hadrons is flipped, $$A_N \equiv \frac{\sigma(\vec{S}_\perp)-\sigma(-\vec{S}_\perp)}
{\sigma(\vec{S}_\perp)+\sigma(-\vec{S}_\perp)}\, .
\label{eq:an}$$ Large SSAs, as large as 30-40 percent, have been consistently observed in various experiments involving one polarized hadron at different collision energies [@ssa_review], and presented a challenge to the leading power collinear QCD factorization formalism [@Kane:1978nd].
Tremendous effort has been devoted to understanding the physics behind the measured large SSAs in both theory and experiment. Two widely discussed theoretical approaches have been proposed to evaluate the observed SSAs in QCD. For observables with a single large momentum scale, such as hadronic pion production at large $p_T$, one attributes the SSA to the quantum interference of scattering amplitudes with different numbers of active partons, which is a result of QCD collinear factorization extended to the first subleading power [@Efremov; @Qiu:1991pp; @Qiu:1991wg]. The size of the asymmetry is determined by new kind of three-parton correlation functions [@Kang:2008ey]. For observables with two very different momentum scales, such as Drell-Yan lepton-pair production when $q_T\ll Q$, one factorizes $\sigma(\vec{S}_\perp)$ in terms of the TMDs as in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]), and attributes the SSAs to the nonvanishing Sivers function [@sivers90]. There is one crucial difference between these two approaches besides the difference in kinematic regimes where they apply. The Sivers function in TMD factorization approach can be process dependent, while in the collinear factorization approach, all distribution functions are universal and the process dependence is taken care of by perturbatively calculated hard parts. As demonstrated in Sec. \[sec:tmd-fac\], the Sivers function extracted from SSAs of Drell-Yan process should have an opposite sign from that extracted from SIDIS [@collins02].
0.1
Collins [*et al.*]{} [@Collins:2005rq] made predictions for SSAs of Drell-Yan process at RHIC, based on their fit to the Sivers function from SIDIS. More recently, with better data on SSAs in SIDIS from HERMES [@hermes05; @hermes07; @hermes05-1] and COMPASS [@compass05; @compass08], a much improved set of Sivers functions was extracted by Anselmino [*et al.*]{} [@Anselmino:2008sga]. Using this new set of Sivers functions, Anselmino [*et al.*]{} updated the predictions by Collins [*et al.*]{}, and extend their predictions to SSAs of various Drell-Yan experiments proposed around the world [@Anselmino:2009st]. In Figs. \[fig:an\_dy\_compass\] and \[fig:an\_dy\_rhic\], we present the predictions of Drell-Yan SSAs by Anselmino [*et al.*]{} for COMPASS and RHIC kinematics, respectively. The asymmetry was predicted at a few percents. Measurements at COMPASS and RHIC should be able to tell the difference in the sign of the asymmetry, as well as the sign of the Sivers function.
0.1
The sign change of the Sivers function is an important test of the TMD factorization in QCD. If the test fails for a sufficiently large range of $Q$ and small $q_T$, it should force us to question the whole TMD factorization approach, which is very important for providing the theoretical framework to measure the confined motion of quarks and gluons inside a colliding hadron. With the ability to vary $q_T$ of Drell-Yan process experimentally, we can move from TMD factorization to the region relevant to collinear factorization, in which the sign changes are dynamical from perturbatively calculated hard parts, while all twist-3 correlation functions are process independent. Drell-Yan process is in a very unique position to critically test the dynamics of QCD beyond the very successful leading power collinear factorization formalism.
Lepton angular distribution of the Drell-Yan process
----------------------------------------------------
By measuring the angular distribution of the observed lepton in the lepton-pair’s rest frame, Drell-Yan process can directly measure quantum interference between scatterings with the virtual photon (or in general, an intermediate vector boson) in different polarization states [@tangerman95; @arnold09]. Despite the success of perturbative QCD in describing the Drell-Yan cross sections, it remains a challenge to understand the angular distributions of the Drell-Yan process.
With the lepton momenta in the pair’s rest frame defined as $$\begin{aligned}
l^\mu &=&
\frac{Q}{2} \left(
1, \sin\theta \cos\phi, \sin\theta \sin\phi, \cos\theta \right)
\nonumber\\
\bar{l}^\mu &=&
\frac{Q}{2} \left(
1, -\sin\theta \cos\phi, -\sin\theta \sin\phi, -\cos\theta
\right)\, ,
\label{leptonM} \end{aligned}$$ we can write the Drell-Yan cross section for a massive lepton pair production in terms of four independent “helicity” structure functions, assuming dominance of the single-photon process [@lam78], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d^4q d\Omega}
&=&
\frac{\alpha_{\rm em}^2}{2(2\pi)^4 S^2 Q^2}
\left[W_T (1+\cos^2\theta) + W_L (1-\cos^2\theta) \right.
\nonumber\\
&&
\left.
+ W_{\Delta} (\sin2\theta \cos\phi) + W_{\Delta\Delta} (\sin^2\theta\cos 2\phi)
\right]\, .
\label{x-sec-angular}\end{aligned}$$ These helicity structure functions $W_T$, $W_L$, $W_{\Delta}$, and $W_{\Delta \Delta}$ depend on $Q$, $q_\perp$, rapidity $y$, and on the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{S}$ of the production process. The angular-integrated cross section is then expressed in terms of two structure functions, $W_T$ and $W_L$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d^4q}
= \frac{\alpha_{\rm em}^2}{12 \pi^3 S^2 Q^2}
\left[2 W_T + W_L \right]
= \frac{\alpha_{\rm em}^2}{12 \pi^3 S^2 Q^2}
\left[-g^{\mu\nu}\, W_{\mu\nu}\right]
\ ,
\label{x-sec-integ}\end{aligned}$$ given in terms of the hadronic tensor of the Drell-Yan process, $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\mu\nu}
&=&
S \int d^4z\, {\rm e}^{i q\cdot z}\,
\langle P_A P_B | J_{\mu}^{\dagger}(0)\, J_{\nu}(z) |P_A P_B\rangle ,
\nonumber\\
&=&
- \left(g_{\mu\nu}-T_\mu T_\nu\right)
\left(W_T + W_{\Delta\Delta}\right)
- 2 X_\mu X_\nu W_{\Delta\Delta}
\nonumber\\
&\ &
+ Z_\mu Z_\nu \left( W_L - W_T - W_{\Delta\Delta} \right)
- \left( X_\mu Z_\nu + X_\nu Z_\mu \right) W_{\Delta}\, ,
\label{W-def}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_\mu$ is the electromagnetic current, $T_\mu = q_\mu/Q$, and $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are orthogonal unit vectors of the virtual photon’s rest frame, defined to have $X$ and $Z$ in the plan spanned by $P_A$, $P_B$, and $q$ with $X^2=Y^2=Z^2=-1$ and $q_\mu X^\mu = q_\mu Y^\mu = q_\mu Z^\mu = 0$. The angular-integrated Drell-Yan cross section corresponds to a sum of contributions from production of a transversely polarized virtual photon plus that of a longitudinally polarized virtual photon.
Let $\epsilon_\lambda^\mu(q)$ be the virtual photon’s polarization vector in the photon’s rest frame, and $\epsilon_\pm^\mu = (\mp X^\mu - i Y^\mu)/\sqrt{2}$, $\epsilon_0^\mu = Z^\nu$ for three polarization states, $\lambda=\pm 1, 0$ [@lam78]. In terms of these polarization vectors, the four helicity structure functions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
W_T
&=&
W_{\mu\nu}\, \epsilon_1^{\mu*}\epsilon_1^\nu\, ,
\nonumber\\
W_L
&=&
W_{\mu\nu}\, \epsilon_0^{\mu*}\epsilon_0^\nu\, ,
\nonumber\\
W_{\Delta}
&=&
W_{\mu\nu}
\left( \epsilon_1^{\mu*}\epsilon_0^\nu
+ \epsilon_0^{\mu*}\epsilon_1^\nu \right)/\sqrt{2}\, ,
\nonumber\\
W_{\Delta\Delta}
&=&
W_{\mu\nu}\, \epsilon_1^{\mu*}\epsilon_{-1}^\nu\, ,
\label{helicity-f-def}\end{aligned}$$ These structure functions, $W_T$, $W_L$, $W_{\Delta}$, and $W_{\Delta \Delta}$ correspond, respectively, to the transverse spin, longitudinal spin, single spin-flip, and double spin-flip contributions to the Drell-Yan cross section.
From Eqs. (\[x-sec-angular\]) and (\[x-sec-integ\]), we can define the normalized Drell-Yan angular distribution as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN}{d\Omega}
&\equiv &
\left( \frac{d\sigma}{d^4q} \right)^{-1}
\frac{d\sigma}{d^4q d\Omega}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{3}{4\pi}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda +3}\right)
\bigg[ 1 + \lambda \cos^2\theta
+ \mu \sin 2\theta \cos\phi
+\frac{\nu}{2}\sin^2\theta\cos 2\phi \bigg]
\label{eq:eq1}\end{aligned}$$ with the coefficients of the angular dependence given by helicity structure functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda
&=& \frac{W_T-W_L}{W_T+W_L}\, ,
\nonumber \\
\mu
&=& \frac{W_{\Delta}}{W_T+W_L}\, ,
\nonumber \\
\nu
&=& \frac{2W_{\Delta\Delta}}{W_T+W_L}.
\label{angularpar}\end{aligned}$$ In the “naive" Drell-Yan model, where the transverse momentum of the quark is ignored and no gluon emission is considered, $\lambda =1$ and $\mu = \nu =0$ are obtained. QCD effects [@chiappetta86] and non-zero intrinsic transverse momentum of the quarks [@cleymans81] can both lead to $\lambda \ne 1$ and $\mu, \nu \ne 0$. However, $\lambda$ and $\nu$ should still satisfy the relation $1-\lambda = 2 \nu$ [@lam78]. This so-called Lam-Tung relation, obtained as a consequence of the spin-1/2 nature of the quarks, is analogous to the Callan-Gross relation [@callan69] in DIS. While QCD effects can significantly modify the Callan-Gross relation, the Lam-Tung relation is predicted to be largely unaffected by QCD corrections [@lam80].
![Left (a): Parameter $\nu$ vs. $p_T$ in the Collins-Soper frame for several Drell-Yan measurements [@falciano86; @zhu07; @zhu09]. Fits to the data using an empirical formula [@boer99] are also shown. Right (b): Parameters $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ and $2\nu - (1-\lambda)$ vs. $p_T$ in the Collins-Soper frame. Solid circles are for E866 $p+d$ at 800 GeV/c [@zhu07], crosses are for NA10 $\pi^- + W$ at 194 GeV/c [@falciano86], and diamonds are E615 $\pi^- + W$ at 252 GeV/c [@conway89].[]{data-label="fig3.5"}](./fig/zhu_1-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="55.00000%"} ![Left (a): Parameter $\nu$ vs. $p_T$ in the Collins-Soper frame for several Drell-Yan measurements [@falciano86; @zhu07; @zhu09]. Fits to the data using an empirical formula [@boer99] are also shown. Right (b): Parameters $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ and $2\nu - (1-\lambda)$ vs. $p_T$ in the Collins-Soper frame. Solid circles are for E866 $p+d$ at 800 GeV/c [@zhu07], crosses are for NA10 $\pi^- + W$ at 194 GeV/c [@falciano86], and diamonds are E615 $\pi^- + W$ at 252 GeV/c [@conway89].[]{data-label="fig3.5"}](./fig/zhu_2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
The Drell-Yan angular distribution was measured by the NA10 Collaboration for $\pi^- + W$ at 140, 194, and 286 GeV/c [@falciano86]. The $\cos 2 \phi$ angular modulation shows sizable values of $\nu$, increasing with dimuon transverse momentum ($p_T$, which is the same as $q_T$) and reaching a value of $\approx 0.3$ at $p_T = 2.5$ GeV/c (see Fig. \[fig3.5\] (a)). This could not be explained by perturbative QCD, which predicts much smaller values of $\nu$ [@chiappetta86]. The Fermilab E615 Collaboration subsequently measured $\pi^- + W$ Drell-Yan angular distribution at 252 GeV/c with a broad coverage in the decay angle $\theta$ [@conway89]. The E615 results showed that $\lambda$ deviates from 1 at large values of $x_1$ with both $\mu$ and $\nu$ having large non-zero values. The Lam-Tung relation, $2\nu = 1 - \lambda$, is clearly violated for the E615 data (see Fig. \[fig3.5\] (b)).
The results on the Drell-Yan angular distributions strongly suggest new effects beyond perturbative QCD. Brandenburg, Nachtmann and Mirke considered a factorization-breaking QCD vacuum, which can lead to a correlation between the transverse spin of the quark in the nucleon and that of the antiquark in the pion [@brandenburg93]. This would generate a non-zero $\cos 2\phi$ angular dependence. Boer [*et al.*]{} noted that a possible source for a factorization-breaking QCD vacuum is helicity flip in the instanton model [@boer05]. Higher-twist effects from quark-antiquark binding in pions [@brandenburg94; @eskola94], motivated by earlier work of Berger and Brodsky [@berger79], have also been considered. While they predict behavior of $\mu$ and $\nu$ in qualitative agreement with the data, they are applicable only in the $x_1 \to 1$ region.
![Parameter $\nu$ versus $p_T$ in the Collins-Soper frame for the $p+p$ and $p+d$ E866 Drell-Yan data [@zhu07; @zhu09]. The solid and dotted curves are calculations [@zhang08] for $p+p$ and $p+d$, respectively, using parametrizations based on a fit to the $p+d$ data. The dot-dashed curve is the contribution from the QCD process [@boer06; @berger07].[]{data-label="ppfig2"}](./fig/pp_new_fig2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Boer pointed out [@boer99] that the $\cos 2 \phi$ angular dependences could be due to the TMD Boer-Mulders function, which characterizes the correlation between a quark’s transverse momentum, $k_T$, and its transverse spin in an unpolarized hadron. This correlation, when combined with the transverse spin correlation in quark-antiquark annihilation, would lead to a preferred transverse momentum direction resulting in a $\cos 2 \phi$ dependence. The Boer-Mulders function is a time-reversal odd object and is the analog of the Collins fragmentation function [@collins93]. Model calculations [@gamberg03; @boer03; @bacchetta04; @lu05] for the nucleon (pion) Boer-Mulders functions in the framework of quark-diquark (quark-spectator-antiquark) model can describe the $\cos 2 \phi$ behavior observed in NA10 [@lu05].
The first measurement of the azimuthal angular dependence of the proton-induced Drell-Yan process was reported for $p+p$ and $p+d$ interactions at 800 GeV/c [@zhu07; @zhu09]. In contrast to pion-induced Drell-Yan, significantly smaller cos$2\phi$ azimuthal angular modulation was observed (see Fig. \[fig3.5\] (a)). While pion-induced Drell-Yan process is dominated by annihilation between a valence antiquark in the pion and a valence quark in the nucleon, the proton-induced Drell-Yan process involves a valence quark annihilating with a sea antiquark in the nucleon. Therefore, the $p+p$ and $p+d$ results show [@zhang08; @zhu07; @zhu09] that the Boer-Mulders functions for sea quarks are significantly smaller than those for valence quarks. While the Lam-Tung relation is clearly violated in the pion-induced Drell-Yan data, Fig. \[fig3.5\] (b) shows that the proton Drell-Yan data are consistent with the Lam-Tung relation. This lends further support to the interpretation that violation of the Lam-Tung relation in pion-induced Drell-Yan is due to the sizable valence quark Boer-Mulders functions in pions and nucleons.
Figure \[ppfig2\] shows $\nu$ versus $p_T$ for the $p+p$ and $p+d$ Drell-Yan data [@zhu07; @zhu09]. The solid and dotted curves are calculations [@zhang08] for $p+p$ and $p+d$ using parametrizations of the Boer-Mulders functions deduced from a fit to the $p+d$ Drell-Yan data. The prediction for larger values of $\nu$ for $p+p$ versus $p+d$ in the region of $p_T \sim 1.5$ GeV/c are not observed. Furthermore, the shape of the predicted $p_T$ dependence differs from that of the data. This suggests that there could be other mechanisms contributing to the $\cos 2\phi$ angular dependence at large $p_T$.
Recently, two groups looked into the Drell-Yan angular distributions from the point of view of QCD resummation, which is important for the region $q_T \ll Q$ [@boer06; @berger07; @berger07-1]. In Ref. [@boer06], Boer and Vogelsang carefully investigate the logarithmic behavior of the order $\alpha_s$ perturbative contributions to the helicity structure functions. At order $\alpha_s$, they find that, like $W_T$, both $W_L$ and $W_{\Delta\Delta}$ have a $\ln(Q^2/q_T^2)$ logarithmic divergence, but not the $1/q_T^2$ power divergence seen in $W_T$, and that $W_\Delta$ has no logarithmic divergence at this order in the Collins-Soper frame. They notice that the logarithmic contribution to $W_L$ and $W_{\Delta\Delta}$ from quark-gluon (or gluon-quark) subprocess is different from that for $W_T$ and does not fit the pattern expected for the perturbative expansion of the CSS resummation formalism to order $\alpha_s$ [@Collins:1984kg].
Since only $W_T$ shows the leading $\alpha_s\ln^2(Q^2/q_T^2)/q_T^2$-type divergence as $q_T\to 0$, previous resummation calculations were carried out only for $W_T$ in the same way as for the angular-integrated cross section. As shown in Refs. [@chiappetta86; @bqy-wz; @Ellis:1997sc], resummation removes the perturbative power divergence in $W_T$ and creates a large change in the relative size of $W_T$ versus the rest of the helicity structure functions for which no resummation is performed. This result is not quite consistent with general expectations about the relative size of helicity structure functions in the Collins-Soper frame, as $q_T^2/Q^2 \to 0$. For example, one expects $W_{\Delta\Delta}/W_T
\rightarrow q_T^2$ as $q_T^2\to 0$ [@cs-frame].
Different from all previous resummation calculations, Berger [*et al.*]{} [@berger07; @berger07-1] observe that the four helicity structure functions cannot be independent as $q_T\to 0$ since there are only two independent structure functions at $q_T=0$. Guided by electromagnetic current conservation of the hadronic tensor, they find that the leading logarithmic behavior of the different helicity structure functions, $W_T$, $W_L$, and $W_{\Delta\Delta}$, has a common origin. That is, current conservation uniquely ties the perturbative divergences as $q_T/Q\to 0$ of the otherwise independent helicity structure functions $W_T, W_L,$ and $W_{\Delta\Delta}$ to the divergence of the angular-integrated cross section [@berger07; @berger07-1], $$\begin{aligned}
W_T^{\rm Resum}
&=&
\left(1-\frac{1}{2} \frac{q_T^2/Q^2}{1+q_T^2/Q^2} \right)
\frac{W^{\rm Resum}}{2} \, ,
\nonumber \\
W_L^{\rm Resum}
&=&
\frac{q_T^2/Q^2}{1+q_T^2/Q^2}\,
\frac{W^{\rm Resum}}{2}\, ,
\nonumber \\
W_{\Delta\Delta}^{\rm Resum}
&=&
\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{q_T^2/Q^2}{1+q_T^2/Q^2}\,
\frac{W^{\rm Resum}}{2} \,
\label{st-resum-cs}\end{aligned}$$ where $W^{\rm Resum}$ is given by the resummed angular-integrated Drell-Yan cross section [@Collins:1984kg], $$\frac{\alpha_{\rm em}^2}{12\pi^3 S^2 Q^2}\,W^{\rm Resum}
=
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2b\, e^{i\vec{Q}_\perp \cdot \vec{b}}\,
\widetilde{W}(b,Q,x_A,x_B) ,
\label{w-reum-b}$$ which is a result of comparing Eq. (\[eq:css-gen\]) with Eq. (\[x-sec-integ\]). From Eq. (\[angularpar\]), one obtains asymptotically when $q_T^2\ll Q^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda
&=& \frac{W_T-W_L}{W_T+W_L}
\approx \frac{W_T^{\rm Resum}-W_L^{\rm Resum}}
{W_T^{\rm Resum}+W_L^{\rm Resum}}
= \frac{1-\frac{1}{2} q_T^2/Q^2}
{1+\frac{3}{2} q_T^2/Q^2}\, ,
\nonumber \\
\nu
&=& \frac{2W_{\Delta\Delta}}{W_T+W_L}
\approx \frac{2W_{\Delta\Delta}^{\rm Resum}}
{W_T^{\rm Resum}+W_L^{\rm Resum}}
= \frac{q_T^2/Q^2}
{1+\frac{3}{2}q_T^2/Q^2}\, ,
\label{angularpar-resum}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy the Lam-Tung relation: $1-\lambda - 2\nu=0$. That is, the approximate Lam-Tung relation is an all-orders consequence of current conservation for the leading perturbatively divergent terms. This conclusion should not be too surprising. Lam-Tung relation is a result of helicity conservation. The leading resummed contribution from the collinear and infrared region should not violate the helicity conservation.
From Eq. (\[angularpar-resum\]), the predicted QCD contribution, the same for $p+p$ and $p+d$ due to the identical kinematic coverage for the two reactions, is shown as the dot-dashed curve in Fig. \[ppfig2\]. From Fig. \[ppfig2\] it is evident that the QCD contribution is expected to become more important at high $q_T (p_T)$ while the Boer-Mulders functions contribute primarily at lower $q_T$. An analysis combining both effects is required in order to extract reliably the Boer-Mulders functions from the $p+p$ and $p+d$ data. It is remarkable that a non-perturbative correlation between the quark spin and its transverse motion, described by the Boer-Mulders function, could be probed in unpolarized SIDIS and Drell-Yan reactions.
Unlike the Sivers functions which have only been extracted from the SIDIS data so far, some information on the Boer-Mulders functions has already been obtained from both the SIDIS and the Drell-Yan experiments. It is natural to raise the question whether these data could already test the prediction that the Boer-Mulders function changes sign from SIDIS to Drell-Yan (see Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\_tensor\])). Several theoretical models predict that the valence quark Boer-Mulders functions should be negative [@yuan03; @pasquini05; @burkardt08; @gamberg08]. This expectation is consistent with the analysis of the existing SIDIS data on the $\cos 2\phi$ angular dependence by Barone et al. [@barone10], showing that both $h^\perp_{1u}$ and $h^\perp_{1d}$ in SIDIS are negative. However, SIDIS data do not allow the extraction of sea-quark Boer-Mulders functions, the effects of which are overshadowed by those of the valence quarks. On the other hand, the $\cos 2\phi$ dependence in $p+p$ and $p+d$ Drell-Yan is proportional to the product of the valence and the sea Boer-Mulders functions, namely, $\nu \sim h^\perp_{1q} (x_1) h^\perp_{1\bar q} (x_2)$, allowing the extraction of sea-quark Boer-Mulders function in the Drell-Yan experiment. Assuming $u$-quark dominance, the positive values of $\nu$ shown in Fig. \[ppfig2\] already suggest that the Boer-Mulders functions for $u$ and $\bar u$ have the same sign in Drell-Yan. The Boer-Mulders function for $u$ quark, determined in SIDIS to have negative sign, is expected to become positive in Drell-Yan according to Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\_tensor\]). It follows that both the $u$ and $\bar u$ Boer-Mulders functions in Drell-Yan have positive signs. This is in agreement with the results obtained by Lu and Schmidt [@lu10] and by Barone et al. [@barone10a]. In order to test the sign-change prediction of Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\_tensor\]), an important yet unknown input is the sign of the sea-quark Boer-Mulders functions in SIDIS. Future SIDIS experiments at the 12 GeV JLab and EIC could provide such information. At this moment, one can only conclude that all existing data are not in disagreement with the predicted sing-change of the Boer-Mulders functions predicted in Eq. (\[eq:pt-inv\_tensor\]).
![Coefficients $A_0$ and $A_2$ for $e^+ e^-$ pairs ($66 < M_{ee} < 116$ GeV) from CDF [@han11; @cdf11]. Predictions from various calculations are also shown.[]{data-label="fig:cdf"}](./fig/cdf_a0-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Coefficients $A_0$ and $A_2$ for $e^+ e^-$ pairs ($66 < M_{ee} < 116$ GeV) from CDF [@han11; @cdf11]. Predictions from various calculations are also shown.[]{data-label="fig:cdf"}](./fig/cdf_a2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
The CDF collaboration recently reported the measurement of the decay angular distribution of Drell-Yan $e^+e^-$ pairs in the $Z$ mass region from $p \bar p$ collisions at $\sqrt s = 1.96$ TeV [@han11; @cdf11]. The following expressions [@mirkes94] for the polar and azimuthal angular distributions were adopted: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos \theta} &\propto& (1+\cos^2\theta)
+ \frac{1}{2} A_0 (1-3\cos^2\theta) + A_4 \cos\theta;
\nonumber\\
\frac{d\sigma}{d\phi} &\propto& 1 + \beta_3 \cos \phi
+ \beta_2 \cos 2\phi + \beta_7 \sin \phi +
\beta_5 \sin 2\phi,
\label{cdf_dy}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\cos 2\phi$ coefficient is $\beta_2 \equiv A_2/4$. Comparing with Eq. (\[eq:eq1\]), some additional terms in Eq. (\[cdf\_dy\]) are due to the parity-violating contributions from $Z$ boson in the $p \bar p \to (\gamma^*/Z) X \to e^+ e^- X$. It is straightforward to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \frac{2-3A_0}{2+A_0};~~~~\nu = \frac{2A_2}{2+A_0}.
\label{cdf_lam_tung}\end{aligned}$$ The Lam-Tung relation, $1 - \lambda = 2 \nu$, becomes $A_0 = A_2$. Figure \[fig:cdf\] shows that $A_0$ and $A_2$ for $66<M_{ee}<116$ GeV are nonzero and increase with the transverse momentum ($p_T$) of the $e^+e^-$ pair. However, the Lam-Tung relation, $A_0 - A_2 = 0$, is well satisfied with $\langle A_0 - A_2 \rangle = 0.02 \pm 0.02$ [@cdf11]. Since the Boer-Mulders mechanism is important only at low $p_T$, the Lam-Tung relation is expected to be valid at the very large $p_T$ region covered by the CDF data, which is consistent with the conclusion of pQCD resummation approach as described right below Eq. (\[angularpar-resum\]). The ability to extract the azimuthal angular distribution information at collider energies, as demonstrated by the CDF result, bodes well for further measurements at LHC [@lu11].
Generalized Drell-Yan process {#sec:wz}
=============================
In this section, we briefly review the role of generalized Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production via the heavy vector boson, $W/Z$, in measuring the PDFs, and parton helicity distributions of proton. The distinct quark-flavor dependences of the $W, Z, \gamma^*$ couplings to quark-antiquark pairs offer a unique possibility for disentangling the flavor structure of the parton distributions.
$\bar d / \bar u$ from $W$ production
-------------------------------------
At the $p+p$ colliders at RHIC and LHC, the $\bar d/ \bar u$ asymmetry can be measured via the ratio of $W^+$ over $W^-$ production [@peng95; @doncheski94; @bourrely94]. This method has some important advantages. First, it does not require the assumption of the validity of charge symmetry. The existing measurements of $\bar d/ \bar u$ asymmetry all depend on the comparison of DIS or Drell-Yan cross sections off hydrogen versus deuterium targets. Charge symmetry was assumed in order to relate the parton distributions in neutron to those in proton. The possible violation of charge symmetry at the parton level has been discussed by several authors [@ma1; @ma2; @sather; @rodionov; @benesh1; @londergan2], and was recently reviewed in [@londergan11]. Ma and collaborators [@ma1; @ma2] pointed out that Drell-Yan experiments, such as NA51 and E866, are subject to both flavor asymmetry and charge symmetry violation effects. In fact, a larger flavor asymmetry is required to compensate for the charge symmetry violation effect [@steffens96]. An analysis combining $W$ production in $p+p$ collision with the NA51 and E866 Drell-Yan experiments could separate the flavor asymmetry from the charge symmetry violation effects.
![Left (a): Prediction of the ratio $R(y)$ for $p+p$ collision at $\sqrt s$ of 500 GeV using various parton distribution functions [@yang09]. The projected sensitivities for a run with recorded luminosity of 300 pb$^{-1}$ for the PHENIX detector are also shown. Right (b): $W$ cross section ratio from STAR for two pseudorapidity bins [@star12]. Calculations at NLO using the MSTW08 and CTEQ 6.6 PDF sets are shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig3.4"}](./fig/dbar_fig2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left (a): Prediction of the ratio $R(y)$ for $p+p$ collision at $\sqrt s$ of 500 GeV using various parton distribution functions [@yang09]. The projected sensitivities for a run with recorded luminosity of 300 pb$^{-1}$ for the PHENIX detector are also shown. Right (b): $W$ cross section ratio from STAR for two pseudorapidity bins [@star12]. Calculations at NLO using the MSTW08 and CTEQ 6.6 PDF sets are shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig3.4"}](./fig/xSecRatio-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Another important advantage of $W$ production in $p+p$ collision is the absence of nuclear effects. As noted by several authors [@wally93; @braun94; @sawicki93; @schmidt01; @alekhin05], the nuclear modification of parton distributions should be taken into account for DIS and Drell-Yan process involving deuterium targets. The nuclear shadowing effect for deuteron could lead to a 4% to 10% decrease in the evaluation of the Gottfried integral by the NMC [@wally93; @schmidt01]. Finally, the $W$ production is sensitive to $\bar d/ \bar u$ flavor asymmetry at a large $Q^2$ scale of $\sim$ 6500 GeV$^2/$c$^2$. This provides the opportunity to study the QCD evolution of the $\bar d / \bar u$ flavor asymmetry.
Figure \[fig3.4\] (a) shows the prediction of $R(y)$, defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
R(y)
&=& { d\sigma/dy (p+p \to W^+ x \to l^+ \nu x)
\over d\sigma/dy (p+p \to W^- x \to l^- \bar \nu x)},\end{aligned}$$
where $y$ is the rapidity of the charged lepton from the $W$ decay. The MRS S0$^\prime$ corresponds to the $\bar
d/\bar u$ symmetric parton distributions, while the other three parton distribution functions are from global fits with asymmetric $\bar d/\bar u$ sea-quark distributions. Figure \[fig3.4\] (a) clearly shows that $W$ asymmetry measurements at RHIC could provide an independent determination of $\bar d / \bar u$ [@yang09].
The STAR collaboration recently reported the measurement of $W^+/W^-$ cross section ratio, $R_W$, in $p+p$ collision at $\sqrt{s}$ = 500 GeV, as shown in Fig. \[fig3.4\] (b). Also displayed in Fig. \[fig3.4\] (b) are theoretical calculations of $R_W$ at NLO. The data are consistent with predictions using $\bar d / \bar u$ flavor asymmetric PDFs (MSTW08 and CTEQ6.6). The large uncertainty in the measured $R_W$ is dominated by the statistical precision of the $W^-$ yield. Future high statistics measurement of the $W$ cross section ratio at RHIC will provide a sensitive new determination of the $\bar d / \bar u$ flavor asymmetry.
Probe nuclear antishadowing at the LHC
--------------------------------------
With its large mass, $M_Z$, high transverse momentum reach at the LHC, and the reliability of QCD factorized production formalism, production of $Z^0$ bosons in hadronic collisions is a clean and precise probe for short-distance strong interaction physics at a scale as small as attometer. On the other hand, when the transverse momentum of $Z^0$-boson is much smaller than its mass, $p_T\ll M_Z$, the production becomes extremely sensitive to the gluon shower of the colliding partons in high energy collisions. The physics of gluon shower is very interesting and extremely important for understanding the production of large number of particles, and various event shapes in high energy collisions, but, it is not easily accessible by probes with a single large momentum transfer. With the dial of transverse momentum, the $Z^0$ production is an ideal probe for QCD dynamics at various scales, and has become one of many successful examples in perturbative QCD toolkit.
![$Z^0$ boson production in both p+p and p+Pb collision at center of mass energy $\sqrt{S}=5$ TeV and rapidity $y=0$ [@Kang:2012am]. The left panel is generated using EPS09 nPDFs [@Eskola:2009uj], while the right panel is by nDS [@deFlorian:2003qf]. For both panels, the upper plots are the $Z^0$ cross sections per nucleon as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$. The black dashed curve is the p+p baseline, and the red solid curve is for the minimum bias p+Pb collision. Lower panel is for the nuclear modification factor, $R_{pA}$. []{data-label="fig:RpA-z-lhc"}](./fig/z0_lhc_pa_eps-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} 0.3in ![$Z^0$ boson production in both p+p and p+Pb collision at center of mass energy $\sqrt{S}=5$ TeV and rapidity $y=0$ [@Kang:2012am]. The left panel is generated using EPS09 nPDFs [@Eskola:2009uj], while the right panel is by nDS [@deFlorian:2003qf]. For both panels, the upper plots are the $Z^0$ cross sections per nucleon as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$. The black dashed curve is the p+p baseline, and the red solid curve is for the minimum bias p+Pb collision. Lower panel is for the nuclear modification factor, $R_{pA}$. []{data-label="fig:RpA-z-lhc"}](./fig/z0_lhc_pa_nds-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
![ \[fig:nPDFs\] Ratio of nuclear PDFs over the proton PDFs at scale $Q=M_Z$: $R_{i}^A = f_{i/A}(x, Q^2)/f_{i/p}(x, Q^2)$. Left panel is for EPS09 nPDFs [@Eskola:2009uj] and right panel is for nDS nPDFs [@deFlorian:2003qf].](./fig/eps09-ratio-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} 0.3in ![ \[fig:nPDFs\] Ratio of nuclear PDFs over the proton PDFs at scale $Q=M_Z$: $R_{i}^A = f_{i/A}(x, Q^2)/f_{i/p}(x, Q^2)$. Left panel is for EPS09 nPDFs [@Eskola:2009uj] and right panel is for nDS nPDFs [@deFlorian:2003qf].](./fig/nds-ratio-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
The study of nuclear modification of $Z^0$ production has finally become available at the LHC [@Chatrchyan:2011wt; @Chatrchyan:2011ua; @Aad:2011gj; @Aad:2012ew; @Aad:2010aa; @delaCruz:2012ru]. Nuclear modification of the inclusive $Z^0$ production and its implication on nuclear PDFs was studied in Ref. [@Paukkunen:2010qg]. Taking an advantage of the excellent predictive power of CSS resummation formalism for calculating transverse momentum spectrum of heavy bosons [@Kang:2012am], recently, Kang and Qiu pointed out that nuclear modification of $Z^0$ production as a function of $q_T$ in proton-nucleus collisions at the LHC is directly tied to the nuclear modification of PDFs, in particular, nuclear gluon distribution in the antishadowing region. In Fig. \[fig:RpA-z-lhc\], the differential cross section of $Z^0$ production in proton-nucleus collision, as well as the nuclear modification factor, $R_{pA}$, are predicted as a function of $p_T$ by using two commonly used nuclear PDFs: EPS09 [@Eskola:2009uj] and nDS [@deFlorian:2003qf]. Although both parametrizations are based on the global fitting of existing experimental data, there is a major difference between these two sets of nuclear PDFs, as shown in Fig. \[fig:nPDFs\], EPS09 has a strong anti-shadowing region for gluon distribution inside a large nucleus, while nDS does not have antishadowing. This difference manifests itself in the nuclear modification factor, $R_{pA}$ in Fig. \[fig:RpA-z-lhc\]. It was pointed out [@Kang:2012am] that the production cross section of $Z^0$ boson at this energy, calculated by using the CSS resummation formalism, is dominated by gluon initiated subprocess when $p_T > 20$ GeV. The clear enhancement of $R_{pA}$ in large $p_T$ region in Fig. \[fig:RpA-z-lhc\] (left) is caused by the large anti-shadowing region of nuclear gluon distribution of EPS09. On the other hand, the enhancement of $R_{pA}$ in the large $p_T$ disappears, as clearly seen in the lower panel in Fig. \[fig:RpA-z-lhc\] (right), due to the absence of (or much smaller) gluon anti-shadowing in the nDS parametrization of nPDFs. It was pointed out that the $Z^0$ production is a direct measurement of nuclear gluon distribution, and the measurement of nuclear modification factor $R_{pA}$ of $Z^0$ production in p+Pb collisions at the LHC provides a clean and unique test of the nuclear gluon anti-shadowing proposed in EPS09 parametrization.
Flavor separation of polarized sea
----------------------------------
Polarized Drell-Yan and $W^\pm$ production in polarized $p+p$ collision were proposed some time ago at RHIC [@bunce92] and they can provide qualitatively new information on antiquark polarization. At the large $x_F$ region ($x_F > 0.2$), the longitudinal spin asymmetry $A_{LL}$ in the $p+p$ Drell-Yan process is given as $$\begin{aligned}
A^{DY}_{LL}(x_1,x_2) \approx g_1(x_1)/F_1(x_1) \times {\Delta \bar u(x_2)
\over \bar u(x_2)},
\label{eq:pol_dy}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_1(x)$ is the proton polarized structure function and $\Delta \bar u(x)$ is the polarized $\bar u$ distribution function. Equation (\[eq:pol\_dy\]) shows that $\bar u$ polarization can be determined using polarized Drell-Yan at RHIC. Additional information on the sea-quark polarization can be obtained via $W^\pm$ production [@bs93]. Parity violation in $W$ production implies that only singly polarized $p-p$ collision is required. At negative $x_F$ (opposite to the direction of the polarized beam), we have[@bs93], $$\begin{aligned}
A_L^{W^+}\approx {\Delta \bar d(x) \over \bar d(x)},\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \
A_L^{W^-}\approx {\Delta \bar u(x) \over \bar u(x)}, \label{eq:pol_w}\end{aligned}$$ where $A^W_L$ is the single-spin asymmetry for $W$ production. Equation (\[eq:pol\_w\]) shows that the flavor dependence of the sea-quark polarization can be determined via $W^\pm$ production at RHIC. A remarkable prediction of the chiral quark soliton model is that the flavor asymmetry of polarized sea-quark, $\Delta \bar u(x) -
\Delta \bar d(x)$, is large and positive [@dres99a]. This is in contrast to the prediction of very small values for $\Delta \bar u(x) - \Delta \bar d(x)$ in the meson cloud model [@fries98; @boreskov99].
Significant progress in measuring the single-spin asymmetry in $W$ production has been made at RHIC. Preliminary results [@rhic_spin] of $A_L$ measured by the STAR collaboration at $\sqrt s = 510$ GeV during the 2012 Run have already made an important impact on determining the $\Delta \bar u$ and $\Delta \bar d$ distributions. In particular, the data show a strong preference for $\Delta \bar u > \Delta \bar d$ in the range $x>0.05$, consistent with the prediction of the chiral quark soliton model. With additional data expected in the near future, the RHIC $W$ production program would greatly improve our understanding of the helicity distribution of the light quark sea.
![\[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] Predictions of SSAs for $W^\pm$ production at RHIC as a function of $W$-boson rapidity (top two); and massive lepton pair production as a function of rapidity (lower left) and invariant mass of lepton pair (lower right) [@Kang:2009bp]. ](./fig/an_y_w--eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} 0.1![\[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] Predictions of SSAs for $W^\pm$ production at RHIC as a function of $W$-boson rapidity (top two); and massive lepton pair production as a function of rapidity (lower left) and invariant mass of lepton pair (lower right) [@Kang:2009bp]. ](./fig/an_y_w+-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}\
![\[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] Predictions of SSAs for $W^\pm$ production at RHIC as a function of $W$-boson rapidity (top two); and massive lepton pair production as a function of rapidity (lower left) and invariant mass of lepton pair (lower right) [@Kang:2009bp]. ](./fig/an_q_y0-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} 0.1![\[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] Predictions of SSAs for $W^\pm$ production at RHIC as a function of $W$-boson rapidity (top two); and massive lepton pair production as a function of rapidity (lower left) and invariant mass of lepton pair (lower right) [@Kang:2009bp]. ](./fig/an_y_highq-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
Sivers function at $W/Z$ mass
-----------------------------
With the high energy polarized proton beam, RHIC can also produce $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$ with relatively low transverse momentum $q_T$. SSAs of $W$ production provide excellent tests on QCD evolution of TMD distributions because of the large difference in the invariant mass of the lepton pair. SSAs of $W^\pm$-boson production at RHIC was calculated at $\sqrt{S}=500$ GeV, and numerical predictions for the asymmetries, using the Sivers functions extracted by Anselmino [*et al.*]{} [@Anselmino:2008sga], are presented in the top two plots in Fig. \[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] [@Kang:2009bp]. Because of the uncertainty to reconstruct the $W$ due to the missing neutrino from $W$ decay, SSAs of inclusive lepton from $W$ decay were also studied [@Kang:2009bp]. Although the inclusive lepton SSAs inherited all key features of the $W$ asymmetry in Fig. \[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\], they are diluted in size due to the $W$ decay, but, still sizable and could be measurable at RHIC for a good range of rapidity. The difference in rapidity dependence in Fig. \[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] could provide the excellent information on the Sivers functions and their flavor separation.
In Fig. \[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\], SSAs of massive lepton pair production near the $Z^0$-pole was also plotted [@Kang:2009sm]. The figure clearly demonstrates a “sign change" – the transition from the negative $A_N$ at a low invariant mass $Q$ to the positive $A_N$ when $Q$ is near $Z^0$ pole. This is an immediate consequence of the difference in relative strength on how a up and a down quark couples to a virtual photon or a $Z^0$-boson [@Kang:2009sm], which could be an important test on how SSAs are generated by Sivers functions of various flavors.
The SSAs in Fig. \[fig:an\_dy\_w\_z\] could be smaller due to the strong scale dependence of the Sivers function noticed recently [@Aybat:2011ge; @Aybat:2011ta]. On the other hand, Sun [*et al.*]{} argue that the decrease of Sivers function as the scale increases may not be as strong as what was claimed in Ref. [@Aybat:2011ge; @Aybat:2011ta]. In any case, it is very important to measure the asymmetries experimentally, and test the evolution of the SSAs (or TMDs) at different scales, which should be another very important test of the QCD TMD-factorization.
Summary and outlook {#sec:summary}
===================
The massive lepton-pair production (Drell-Yan process) in hadron-hadron collisions continues to be a powerful tool for probing the partonic structure of hadrons and for understanding the dynamics of QCD in perturbative and nonperturbative regimes. We demonstrated that the Drell-Yan process is complementary to the Deep-Inelastic Scattering in many aspects, and together, they provide interesting and often surprising information on the flavor structure of the quark and antiquark contents of the nucleons. With the tremendous success of QCD global analysis of all existing high energy scattering data from fixed-target experiments to the collider experiments at the LHC, the highest energy collider available, we are now capable of extracting the universal PDFs to the precision that is sufficient for us to question and to explore the hadron’s sophisticated and rich details of partonic structure, such as the asymmetries in the sea.
We emphasized that QCD factorization is necessary for extracting partonic dynamics and structure from measured hadronic cross sections. Recent theoretical progress in TMD factorization for Drell-Yan process and SIDIS provided us with new and much more powerful tools (or “femtoscopes”) to probe (or to “see”) three-dimensional motion of quarks and gluons inside a fast moving hadron, which are quantified in terms of TMDs. It is the transverse motion of quarks and gluons that carry more direct information on how these partons are confined inside a hadron. With the transverse momentum dependence, TMDs carry more detailed information on hadron’s partonic structure, and much more than what we have learned from and puzzled by PDFs. TMDs provide new and extremely valuable information on QCD quantum correlation between the spin and the motion preference of quarks and gluons inside a bound hadron, while PDFs, which integrate over parton’s transverse motion, suppress such quantum correlations due to their inclusiveness. With the novel TMDs, we push the investigation of hadron’s partonic structure to a new frontier.
With our capability to measure $q_T$ of Drell-Yan production of massive lepton pairs, and the fact that the most events have $q_T \ll Q$, Drell-Yan process is an ideal observable to probe TMDs with the large $Q$ to localize the quarks and/or gluons of a colliding hadron and the small $q_T$ to explore their transverse motion. Like extracting PDFs, Drell-Yan process is complementary to SIDIS in extracting TMDs. In addition, it is also necessary to have both Drell-Yan process and SIDIS to study TMDs, because of the non-universality of TMDs, and the expected sign change. In this respect, Sivers functions and Boer-Mulders functions are the most interesting TMDs to measure and to explore. Drell-Yan production of massive lepton pairs with polarized beam and/or target provide the immediate access to these two TMDs. The challenge of the Drell-Yan experiment is the relatively small cross sections. The great potential of the Drell-Yan process in studying TMDs is just beginning to be explored. As reviewed in this article, many ongoing and future experiments at existing or future hadron facilities will explore singly or doubly polarized Drell-Yan for the first time.
The advent of the polarized $pp$ collision at RHIC and the high-energy high-luminosity $pp$ collision at LHC has opened exciting new avenues for exploring various aspects of partonic structure inside a polarized and unpolarized hadron. The enormous range in $Q^2$ and $x$, the parton momentum fraction, spanned from fixed-target Drell-Yan to $W/Z$ production at collider energies will undoubtedly reveal exciting and unexpected new results. The continuous improvement of our knowledge of hadron’s partonic structure with better measurements in Drell-Yan, DIS, and other hadronic observables from current and future facilities will shed some lights on how quarks and gluons are bound into color singlet hadrons.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under the contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 and the U.S. National Science Foundation under the contract NSF-PHY-12-05671.
QCD collinear factorization for Drell-Yan process {#sec:appendixa}
=================================================
In this appendix, we summarize intuitively key arguments for proving QCD collinear factorization for Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions. The more rigorous and complete arguments for the proof of QCD collinear factorization for the leading-power contribution in $1/Q$ expansion of the inclusive Drell-Yan cross section can be found in a review article by Collins, Soper, and Sterman [@Collins:1989gx] and extended r eferences therein, as well as in a recent book by Collins [@collins-book]. In the same rigor, complete arguments of QCD collinear factorization for the next-to-leading power contribution to the Drell-Yan cross section can be found in Ref. [@Qiu:1990xy]. It was known from explicit calculations [@Doria:1980ak; @Di'Lieto:1980dt; @Brandt:1988xt] that there is no QCD factorization for contributions beyond the first leading power corrections [@Qiu:1990xy].
The key for achieving the factorization is to demonstrate the suppression of quantum interference between the short-distance dynamics for producing the massive lepton pair and the nonperturbative physics inside the colliding hadrons, or equivalently, to show that the perturbative and nonperturbative physics are linked by “long-lived" or approximately on-shell active partons, so that the cross section could be factorized into a product of probabilities: one for the short-distance production, and the other for the probability to find one active parton from each colliding hadron. However, in QCD, all partons (quarks and gluons) participating in the hadronic collision are off mass-shell, whose virtuality (or four-momentum) needs to be integrated over. The factorization is possible [*iff*]{} the dominant contribution to the cross section is from the region of phase space where all active partons (e.g. the quark and antiquark that annihilate into the massive lepton pair) are perturbatively pinched to their respective mass shell to behave as on-shell “classical” partons, who are “long-lived” compared to the time scale of short-distance hard collision to produce the massive lepton pair.
Such perturbative pinch of active partons naturally exists in QCD contribution to the cross section, which is proportional to the square of scattering amplitude. As shown in the lowest order QCD diagram for producing a massive lepton pair in Fig. \[fig:drell-yan\] (right), the phase space integration of the active quark, $d^4p_a$, gets a propagator from the scattering amplitude and another one from its complex conjugate, so that $$\int d^4p_a \,
\frac{1}{p_a^2 + i\varepsilon}\,
\frac{1}{p_a^2 - i\varepsilon}\,
\to \infty\, ,
\label{eq:pinch}$$ is perturbatively pinched at $p_a^2\to 0$ and divergent. The same is true for the phase space integration of the active antiquark, $d^4p_b$. That is, the phase space integration of the active quark and antiquark is dominated by the region of phase space where the virtuality of active quark and antiquark is of the order of nonperturbative hadronic scale $\sim 1/{\rm fm}\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, which is much smaller than the hard scale of the collision, $Q$, the invariant mass of lepton pair. If hadron $A$ and hadron $B$ move in $+z$ and $-z$ direction, respectively, the factorized Drell-Yan formula in Eq. (\[eq:drell-yan-pm\]) can be easily derived from the leading order QCD contribution, the diagram on the right in Fig. \[fig:drell-yan\], with the following approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{on-shell:} &\ \ & p_a^2, \ p_b^2\ \ll Q^2;
\label{eq:on-shell}\\
\mbox{collinear:} &\ \ & p_{aT}^2, \ p_{bT}^2\ \ll Q^2;
\label{eq:collinear}\\
\mbox{higher-power:}& \ \ & p_a^-\ \ll q^-;\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ p_b^+\ \ll q^+\, ,
\label{eq:power}\end{aligned}$$ where the notation of light-cone coordinate, $v^{\pm}=(v^0\pm v^3)/\sqrt{2}$, for a four-vector $v^\mu$ was used.
In addition to quarks and antiquarks, there are gluons in QCD. QCD factorization at the leading power means that there should be only one active parton (quark, antiquark, or gluon) from each identified hadron. The large momentum exchange of the collision, required by the large invariant mass of the lepton pair, $Q$, keeps the momenta of both active partons from two colliding hadrons to be of the order of $Q$. All relevant nonperturbative contributions to the Drell-Yan massive lepton pair production are either suppressed by the powers of $1/Q^2$ or factorized into long-distance PDFs, which are not calculable perturbatively. But, PDFs are universal or process independent. That is, PDFs of hadron $A$ should not be interfered and altered by the existence of hadron $B$ or vise versa [@collins-qiu-fac].
However, after taking out the active quark from one colliding hadron and an antiquark from another colliding hadron, the spectator “jets” of both hadrons carry color. Gluons from one hadron can interact with the active quark or antiquark of another hadron, as well as quarks and gluons inside the spectator jet of another hadron, which is the key difference between inclusive DIS and Drell-Yan process. In general, gluons can dress the basic Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production process in Fig. \[fig:drell-yan\] in many ways. The pole structure of the phase space integration of Feynman diagrams in QCD perturbation theory determines the leading pinch surface that gives the leading power contribution to the Drell-Yan massive lepton pair production, as shown by the diagram on the left in Fig. \[fig:dysurface\] [@Collins:1989gx]. The active quark and antiquark are always accompanied with collinear and longitudinally polarized gluons, and soft gluons can attach to both the beam spectator jets, as well as the hard part in which all particles are off-shell by the amount of hard scale $Q$. It is the gluon interaction between hadrons can potentially rotate the color of active parton(s) and alter the PDFs, and break the factorization.
![Sketch for the leading QCD pinch surface for Drell-Yan process (left), and QCD contribution to Drell-Yan process with eikonalized gluons. []{data-label="fig:dysurface"}](./fig/dy-pinch-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="38.00000%"} 0.05![Sketch for the leading QCD pinch surface for Drell-Yan process (left), and QCD contribution to Drell-Yan process with eikonalized gluons. []{data-label="fig:dysurface"}](./fig/dy-eikonal-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="38.00000%"}
For the leading pinch surface of Drell-Yan cross section, in Fig. \[fig:dysurface\] (left), the collinear gluons are easier to deal with. The collinear gluons have polarization vectors proportional to their respective momenta in a covariant gauge. The sum of total effect from the collinear gluons can be represented by the eikonal lines, as shown by the diagram on the right in Fig. \[fig:dysurface\]. The eikonal lines, the double lines attached to the active parton, are orthogonal to the direction of the active parton that it is attached to. In order to achieve the factorization, we need to get rid of the soft gluons interactions in the diagram in Fig. \[fig:dysurface\] (right). Soft gluon exchanged between a spectator quark of hadron $B$ and the spectator or the active quark of hadron $A$, as shown in the diagram in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\] (left), could rotate the quark’s color and keep it from annihilating with the antiquark of hadron $B$. The soft gluon approximations (with the eikonal lines) require the $\pm$ light-cone momentum components of all soft gluons not too small. But, the $k^{\pm}$ of the exchanged gluon of momentum $k$ between the two spectators, as shown in the diagram in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\] (left), could be trapped in a Òtoo smallÓ region, known as the “Glauber” region, due to the pinch from the spectator interaction, so that $k^\pm \sim M^2/Q \ll k_T \sim M$, where $M\ll Q$ is a hadronic scale of the spectator jet. Such leading power soft gluon interaction could break the universality of PDFs. Without the universality of PDFs, the “factorized" cross section in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) has no predictive power due to the non-perturbtive nature of the PDFs.
![Sample diagram responsible for pinched Glauber region (left), and sketch for the factorized Drell-Yan cross section in QCD at leading power in $1/Q^2$ (right). []{data-label="fig:dy-fac"}](./fig/drell-yan-Glauber-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="85.00000%"}
0.2in
![Sample diagram responsible for pinched Glauber region (left), and sketch for the factorized Drell-Yan cross section in QCD at leading power in $1/Q^2$ (right). []{data-label="fig:dy-fac"}](./fig/dy-fac-sq-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
[-0.3in]{}$\times$
![Sample diagram responsible for pinched Glauber region (left), and sketch for the factorized Drell-Yan cross section in QCD at leading power in $1/Q^2$ (right). []{data-label="fig:dy-fac"}](./fig/dy-soft-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="95.00000%"}
Removal of the trapped Glauber gluons might be the most technical part of the factorization proof [@Collins:1989gx]. It was achieved by three key steps: 1) all poles in one-half plane cancel after summing over all final-states (no more pinched poles), 2) all $k^\pm$-type integrations can be deformed out of the trapped soft region, 3) all leading power spectator interactions can be factorized and summed into an overall unitary soft factor of eikonal lines - gauge links, as shown in the diagram on the right in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\]. The soft factor is process independent and made of four gauge links, along the light-cone directions conjugated to the directions of two incoming hadrons in the scattering amplitude, and the two in the complex conjugate scattering amplitude, respectively. For the collinear factorization, the soft factor = 1 due to the unitarity. The factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) for the leading power QCD contribution to Drell-Yan cross section is proved in the sense that all identified sources of leading power contributions are either factorizable or canceled in perturbative calculations to all orders in powers of $\alpha_s$. The factorization could be broken if one discovers a new source of non-factorizable leading power contribution to Drell-Yan cross section, although it might be unlikely.
TMD parton distribution functions and the sign change {#sec:appendixb}
=====================================================
In this appendix, we briefly review the key arguments of TMD factorization of Drell-Yan process, and demonstrate the non-universality of TMD parton distribution functions, which led to the predicted sign change of Sivers and Boer-Mulders functions.
With the large invariant mass $Q$, the production of the lepton pair is localized and sensitive to the degree of freedom of quarks and gluons. We have the same QCD Feynman diagrams for Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production regardless the value of the pair’s transverse momentum $q_T$. The perturbative pinch singularities of these diagrams ensure that partonic contributions to Drell-Yan cross section come from the region of phase space where both active partons of momentum $p_a$ and $p_b$ in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\] are close to their respective mass shell and live much longer than $1/Q$ – the time scale of the hard collision to produce the lepton pair. Therefore, the on-shell approximation in Eq. (\[eq:on-shell\]) for calculating the partonic cross section is valid regardless the value of $q_T$. All key arguments for the factorization given in Appendix \[sec:appendixa\] (or formally in [@Collins:1989gx; @collins-book] and references therein) should carry through. Drell-Yan differential cross section with a finite $q_T$ could be factorized as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\] (right).
However, the collinear approximation in Eq. (\[eq:collinear\]) for calculating the partonic hard part should not be valid when the observed $q_T=\sqrt{{\bf q}_T^2}$, where ${\bf q}_T = {\bf p}_{aT} + {\bf p}_{bT} \ll Q$, is of the same size of the transverse momenta of the colliding active quark and anitquark. The convolution of active parton momentum $p_a$ (and $p_b$) should include both the longitudinal momentum fractions $x_a$ (and $x_b$) and transverse momentum ${\bf p}_{aT}$ (and ${\bf p}_{bT}$). Because of the transverse momentum flow between active partons, the soft factor in Fig. \[fig:dy-fac\] (right) is no longer equal to one, and depends on the transverse separation of the gauge links and the rapidity differences of active partons [@Collins:1984kg]. Since the soft factor is process independent, Collins [@collins-book] introduced a new definition of transverse momentum dependent PDFs to systematically absorb the soft factor into the TMDs, which leads to the TMD factorized Drell-Yan cross section in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]).
The quark-gluon field operators defining PDFs in QCD collinear factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:qcd-dy-lp\]) are localized to a short-distance of the hard collision, $\sim 1/xp^+$ for a parton of momentum $xp^+$. But, the operators defining TMDs are extended to an infinite distance along the light-cone. For example, the TMD for finding an unpolarized quark inside a transverse polarized hadron measured in Drell-Yan process is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm DY}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
&=&
\int \frac{dy^- d^2\mathbf{y}_\perp}{(2\pi)^3}\,
e^{ixp^+ y^- - i\,\mathbf{p}_\perp\cdot \mathbf{y}_\perp}
\langle p,\vec{S}|
\overline{\psi}(0^-,\mathbf{0}_\perp)
\Phi_n^\dagger(\{-\infty,0\},\mathbf{0}_\perp)
\nonumber\\
& \times &
\Phi_{\mathbf{n}_\perp}^\dagger
(-\infty,\{\mathbf{y}_\perp,\mathbf{0}_\perp\})
\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\,
\Phi_n(\{-\infty,y^-\},\mathbf{y}_\perp)
\psi(y^-,\mathbf{y}_\perp)
|p,\vec{S}\rangle
\label{qkt_dy}\end{aligned}$$ where the factorization scale and $y^+=0^+$ dependence is suppressed and the past pointing gauge links were caused by the initial-state interactions of Drell-Yan production [@collins02], and the gauge links are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_n(\{\infty,y^-\},\mathbf{y}_\perp)
&\equiv &
{\cal P}e^{-ig\int_{y^-}^{\infty} dy_1^-
n^\mu A_\mu(y_1^-,\,\mathbf{y}_\perp)}\, ,
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{\mathbf{n}_\perp}(\infty,\{\mathbf{y}_\perp,\mathbf{0}_\perp\})
&\equiv &
{\cal P}e^{-ig\int_{\mathbf{0}_\perp}^{\mathbf{y}_\perp}
d\mathbf{y}'_\perp
\mathbf{n}_\perp^\mu A_\mu(\infty,\,\mathbf{y}'_\perp)}\, ,
\label{g_link}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal P}$ indicates the path ordering and the direction $\mathbf{n}_\perp$ is pointed from $\mathbf{0}_\perp$ to $\mathbf{y}_\perp$. Here we define the light-cone vectors, $n^\mu=(n^+,n^-,\mathbf{n}_\perp)=(0,1,\mathbf{0}_\perp)$ and $\bar{n}^\mu=(1,0,\mathbf{0}_\perp)$, which project out the light-cone components of a four-vector $v^\mu$ as $v\cdot n=v^+$ and $v\cdot\bar{n}=v^-$.
Like PDFs, some of TMDs contribute to unpolarized and some of them contribute to polarized Drell-Yan massive lepton pair production [@sivers90; @boer99; @ralston79]. But, unlike the PDFs, TMDs are not necessarily universal, and could depend on the process from which they are extracted. For comparison, the TMD for finding an unpolarized quark inside a transversely polarized hadron measured in SIDIS is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm SIDIS}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
&=&
\int \frac{dy^- d^2\mathbf{y}_\perp}{(2\pi)^3}\,
e^{ixp^+ y^- - i\,\mathbf{p}_\perp\cdot \mathbf{y}_\perp}
\langle p,\vec{S}|
\overline{\psi}(0^-,\mathbf{0}_\perp)
\Phi_n^\dagger(\{\infty,0\},\mathbf{0}_\perp)
\nonumber\\
& \times &
\Phi_{\mathbf{n}_\perp}^\dagger
(\infty,\{\mathbf{y}_\perp,\mathbf{0}_\perp\})
\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\,
\Phi_n(\{\infty,y^-\},\mathbf{y}_\perp)
\psi(y^-,\mathbf{y}_\perp)
|p,\vec{S}\rangle ,
\label{qkt_dis}\end{aligned}$$ where the forward pointing gauge links were caused by the final-state interactions of SIDIS. The definitions of TMDs in Eqs. (\[qkt\_dy\]) and (\[qkt\_dis\]), measured in Drell-Yan and SIDIS, respectively, have different gauge links and are in principle different quantities in QCD. Without the universality of TMDs, the predictive power of QCD TMD factorization formalism in Eq. (\[eq:dy-tmd\]) could be in question. Fortunately, the process dependence of TMDs is limited to a possible sign change due to parity and time-reversal invariance of QCD [@collins02; @Kang:2009bp].
From the conservation of parity and time-reversal transformation in QCD, hadronic matrix elements of quark and gluon field operators have to satisfy [@Kang:2008ey; @Qiu:1998ia] $$\langle P,\vec{S}| {\cal O}(\psi,A_\mu) |P,\vec{S}\rangle
= \langle P,-\vec{S}| ({\cal PT}){\cal O}(\psi,A_\mu)^\dagger ({\cal PT})^{-1}
|P,-\vec{S}\rangle \, ,
\label{eq:pt}$$ where ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal T}$ are parity and time-reversal operator, respectively. Using the relation in Eq. (\[eq:pt\]), it is easy to show that [@collins02; @Kang:2009bp] $$f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm SIDIS}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
=
f_{q/h^\uparrow}^{\rm DY}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})\, ,
\label{eq:pt_inv}$$ and conclude that the TMD quark distributions could have processes dependence. From the identity in Eq. (\[eq:pt\_inv\]), one finds the quark Sivers functions, which are proportional to $[f_{q/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
-f_{q/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})]/2$, to change sign from SIDIS to Drell-Yan [@collins02; @collins-metz-fac; @Kang:2009bp].
Similarily, the conservation of parity and time-reversal transformation in QCD requires the quark TMDs with a tensor spin projection, $$f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}^{\rm SIDIS}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
=
-f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}^{\rm DY}
(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})\, ,
\label{eq:pt_inv_tensor}$$ which are defined by replacing the vector spin projection $\gamma^+$ in Eqs. (\[qkt\_dy\]) and (\[qkt\_dis\]) by a spin projection proportional to $\sigma^{+\perp}$. The identity in Eq. (\[eq:pt\_inv\_tensor\]) requires Boer-Mulders functions, $h_{1q}^\perp(x)$, which are proportional to $[f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,\vec{S})
+f_{h_{1q}/h^\uparrow}(x,\mathbf{p}_\perp,-\vec{S})]/2$, to change sign from SIDIS to Drell-Yan [@collins02; @collins-metz-fac; @Kang:2009bp].
The sign change of Sivers and Boer-Mulders functions is the prediction of TMD factorization approach, and is one of the most important tests of QCD dynamics and factorization approaches to hadronic cross sections.
[100]{}
E. D. Bloom [*et al.*]{}, 23, 930 (1969). H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, B47, 365 (1973). J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, 5, 1 (1988), arXiv:hep-ph/0409313. P. M. Nadolsky [*et al.*]{}, D78, 013004 (2008), arXiv:0802.0007. H.-L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, D82, 074024 (2010), arXiv:1007.2241. A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, C63, 189 (2009), arXiv:0901.0002. R. D. Ball [*et al.*]{}, B838, 136 (2010), arXiv:1002.4407. R. D. Ball [*et al.*]{}, B849, 296 (2011), arXiv:1101.1300. M. Gluck, P. Jimenez-Delgado, and E. Reya, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} C53, 355 (2008), arXiv:0709.0614.
S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein and S. Moch, arXiv:1310.3059 \[hep-ph\]. D. Mueller [*et al.*]{}, 42, 101 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9812448. A. V. Belitsky, D. Mueller, and A. Kirchner, B629, 323 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112108. J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, D56, 2982 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9611433. J. C. Collins and A. Freund, D59, 074009 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9801262. S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, and I. Schmidt, B530, 99 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0201296. J. C. Collins, B536, 43 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204004. A. V. Belitsky, X. Ji, and F. Yuan, B656, 165 (2003). D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, and F. Pijlman, B667, 201 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303034. J. C. Collins, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011).
X. -d. Ji, J. -p. Ma and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 034005 (2005) \[hep-ph/0404183\]. X. -d. Ji, J. -P. Ma and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**597**]{}, 299 (2004) \[hep-ph/0405085\]. M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi and I. Scimemi, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 002 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.4996 \[hep-ph\]\]. HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 012002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408013. COMPASS Collaboration, M. Alekseev [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B673**]{}, 127 (2009), arXiv:0802.2160. Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration, X. Qian [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 072003 (2011), arXiv:1106.0363. S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, 25, 316 (1970). X. Ji, 110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539. D. W. Sivers, D41, 83 (1990). A. Accardi [*et al.*]{}, (2012), arXiv:1212.1701. D. Boer and P. Mulders, D57, 5780 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711485. J. H. Christenson [*et al.*]{}, 25, 1523 (1970). J. H. Christenson [*et al.*]{}, D8, 2016 (1972). E598 Collaboration, J. J. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, 33, 1404 (1974). SLAC-SP-017 Collaboration, J. E. Augustin [*et al.*]{}, 33, 1406 (1974). S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, 66, 578 (1971). R. P. Feynman, 23, 1415 (1969). R. Doria, J. Frenkel, and J. C. Taylor, B168, 93 (1980). C. Di’Lieto, S. Gendron, I. G. Halliday, and C. T. Sachrajda, B183, 223 (1981). F. T. Brandt, J. Frenkel, and J. C. Taylor, B312, 589 (1989). J.-W. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, B353, 137 (1991). R. Hamberg, W. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura, B359, 343 (1991). J.-W. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, B353, 105 (1991). R. Basu, A. J. Ramalho, and G. F. Sterman, B244, 221 (1984). E. L. Berger, L. E. Gordon, and M. Klasen, D58, 074012 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803387. E. L. Berger and M. Klasen, (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/0001127. Y. L. Dokshitzer, D. Diakonov, and S. I. Troian, 58, 269 (1980). G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, B154, 427 (1979). J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, B250, 199 (1985). E. L. Berger, J.-W. Qiu, and X.-f. Zhang, D65, 034006 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107309. I. R. Kenyon, 45, 1261 (1982).
C. Grosso-Pilcher and M. J. Schochet, 36, 1 (1986).
K. Freudenreich, A5, 3643 (1990).
W. J. Stirling and M. R. Whalley, G19, D1 (1993).
P. L. McGaughey, J. M. Moss, and J. C. Peng, 49, 217 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9905409.
P. E. Reimer, G34, S107 (2007), arXiv:0704.3621.
W. C Chang and D. Dutta, E22, 1330020 (2013), arXiv:1306.3971.
J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, and T. Bolton, 70, 1341 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9707015. K. Gottfried, 18, 1174 (1967). New Muon Collaboration, P. Amaudruz [*et al.*]{}, 66, 2712 (1991). S. D. Ellis and W. J. Stirling, B256, 258 (1991). NA51 Collaboration, A. Baldit [*et al.*]{}, B332, 244 (1994). FNAL E866/NuSea Collaboration, E. Hawker [*et al.*]{}, 80, 3715 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9803011. E866/NuSea Collaboration, J. C. Peng [*et al.*]{}, D58, 092004 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804288. FNAL E866/NuSea Collaboration, R. Towell [*et al.*]{}, D64, 052002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0103030. HERMES Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, 81, 5519 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807013. A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, and W. J. Stirling, B387, 419 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9606345.
M. Gluck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, C5, 461 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806404.
A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, C4, 463 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803445.
H. L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, D55, 1280 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9606399.
H. L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, C12, 375 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9903282.
N. N. Nikolaev [*et al.*]{}, D60, 014004 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812266.
A. Szczurek, A. J. Buchmann, and A. Faessler, G22, 1741 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9609042. P. V. Pobylitsa [*et al,*]{}, D59, 034024 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9804436.
A. E. Dorokhov and N. I. Kochelev, B259, 335 (1991).
E. Perez and E. Rizvi, 76, 046201 (2013), arXiv:1208.1178. A. W. Thomas, B126, 97 (1983). E. J. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe and C. Quigg, D45, 2269 (1992).
R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, D15, 2590 (1979).
M. Wakamatsu and T. Kubota, D57, 5755 (1998).
C. Bourrely, F. Buccella and J. Soffer, C23, 487 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109160.
S. Kumano, 303, 183 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9702367. J. Speth and A. W. Thomas, 24, 83 (1997). R. Vogt, 45, 105 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0011298. G. T. Garvey and J.-C. Peng, 47, 203 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0109010. J. Sullivan, D5, 1732 (1972). W.-C. Chang and J.-C. Peng, 106, 252002 (2011), arXiv:1102.5631. W.-C. Chang and J.-C. Peng, B704, 197 (2011), arXiv:1105.2381. J.-C. Peng and W.-C. Chang, QNP2012, 012 (2012), arXiv:1207.2193. S. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, C. Peterson, and N. Sakai, B93, 451 (1980). S. J. Brodsky, C. Peterson, and N. Sakai, D23, 2745 (1981). R. Vogt and S. J. Brodsky, B438, 261 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9405236. J. Pumplin, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, D75, 054029 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701220. E906 Collaboration, D. F. Geesaman [*et al.*]{}, (1999).
J. Peng [*et al.*]{}, (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007341. Fermilab SeaQuest Collaboration, P. E. Reimer, 295, 012011 (2011). European Muon Collaboration, J. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, B123, 275 (1983). J. Gomez [*et al.*]{}, D49, 4348 (1994). BCDMS Collaboration, G. Bari [*et al.*]{}, B163, 282 (1985). WA25 Collaboration, WA59 Collaboration, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar [*et al.*]{}, B141, 133 (1984). D. F. Geesaman, K. Saito, and A. W. Thomas, 45, 337 (1995). P. Norton, 66, 1253 (2003). D. Alde [*et al.*]{}, 64, 2479 (1990). I. Cloet, W. Bentz, and A. W. Thomas, B642, 210 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0605061. I. Cloet, W. Bentz, and A. Thomas, 102, 252301 (2009), arXiv:0901.3559. P. Souder [*et al.*]{}, (2010).
I. Cloet, W. Bentz, and A. Thomas, 109, 182301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6401. B. Lu and B.-Q. Ma, C74, 055202 (2006), arXiv:0705.2064. D. Dutta [*et al.*]{}, (2009).
I. Sick and D. Day, B274, 16 (1992). D. Dutta, J. Peng, I. Cloet, and D. Gaskell, C83, 042201 (2011), arXiv:1007.3916. NA3 Collaboration, J. Badier [*et al.*]{}, B104, 335 (1981). NA10 Collaboration, P. Bordalo [*et al.*]{}, B193, 368 (1987). W.-C. Chang, I. Cloet, D. Dutta, and J.-C. Peng, B720, 188 (2013), arXiv:1109.3108. G. Piller and A. W. Thomas, C70, 661 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9508410. J. C. Peng and D. M. Jansen, B354, 460 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9508243. R. Vogt, 310, 197 (1999). FNAL E866/NuSea Collaboration, L. Zhu [*et al.*]{}, 100, 062301 (2008), arXiv:0710.2344. NA51 Collaboration, M. C. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, B438, 35 (1998).
S. Brodsky, F. Fleuret, C. Hadjidakis, and J. Lansberg, 522, 239 (2013), arXiv:1202.6585. D. Armstrong and R. McKeown, 62, 337 (2012), arXiv:1207.5238. ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, 109, 012001 (2012), arXiv:1203.4051. HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{}, B666, 446 (2008), arXiv:0803.2993. The CMS Collaboration, (2012).
W. Stirling and E. Vryonidou, 109, 082002 (2012), arXiv:1203.6781. K.-F. Liu, W.-C. Chang, H.-Y. Cheng, and J.-C. Peng, 109, 252002 (2012), arXiv:1206.4339. T. Doi [*et al.*]{}, , 163 (2008).
A. Signal and A. W. Thomas, B191, 205 (1987). M. Burkardt and B. Warr, D45, 958 (1992). S. J. Brodsky and B.-Q. Ma, B381, 317 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604393. H. Holtmann, A. Szczurek, and J. Speth, A596, 631 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601388. W. Melnitchouk and M. Malheiro, C55, 431 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610331. H. Christiansen and J. Magnin, B445, 8 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9801283. F.-G. Cao and A. Signal, D60, 074021 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9907297. F. Cao and A. Signal, B559, 229 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302206. Y. Ding, R.-G. Xu, and B.-Q. Ma, B607, 101 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0408292. M. Wakamatsu, D71, 057504 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411203. S. Catani, D. de Florian, G. Rodrigo, and W. Vogelsang, 93, 152003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404240. D. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, B149, 497 (1979). D. J. Broadhurst, A. L. Kotaev, and C. J. Maxwell, B590, 76 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403037.
S. Moch, J. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, B688, 101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403192. G.-Q. Feng, F.-G. Cao, X.-H. Guo, and A. Signal, C72, 2250 (2012), arXiv:1206.1688. NuTeV Collaboration, G. Zeller [*et al.*]{}, 88, 091802 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0110059. S. Davidson [*et al.*]{}, 0202, 037 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112302. S. Kretzer [*et al.*]{}, 93, 041802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312322. V. Barone, C. Pascaud, and F. Zomer, C12, 243 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907512. CCFR/NuTeV Collaboration, U.-K. Yang [*et al.*]{}, 86, 2742 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0009041. V. Barone, C. Pascaud, B. Portheault, and F. Zomer, 0601, 006 (2006). NuTeV Collaboration, D. Mason [*et al.*]{}, 99, 192001 (2007). NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball [*et al.*]{}, B823, 195 (2009), arXiv:0906.1958. H. L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, 0704, 089 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702268. S. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, B675, 433 (2009), arXiv:0812.4448. P. Jimenez-Delgado, B689, 177 (2010), arXiv:1002.2104.
W. Bentz, I. C. Cloet, J. T. Londergan, and A. W. Thomas, B693, 462 (2010), arXiv:0908.3198. J. Collins and J.-W. Qiu, D75, 114014 (2007), arXiv:0705.2141. J. C. Collins and A. Metz, 93, 252001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0408249. J. C. Collins and T. C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 3, 034018 (2013), arXiv:1210.2100. M. Anselmino [*et al.*]{}, A47, 35 (2011), arXiv:1101.4199. Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, 103, 172001 (2009), arXiv:0903.3629. The COMPASS Collaboration, (1996), CERN/SPLC 96-14, SPSC/P 297.
G. Bunce, N. Saito, J. Soffer, and W. Vogelsang, 50, 525 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007218. The PAX Collaboration, V. Barone [*et al.*]{}, (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0505054. The PANDA Collaboration, K. Brinkmann, A790, 75 (2007). The NICA Collaboration, G. V. Trubnikov [*et al.*]{}, , <http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e08/papers/wepp029.pdf>.
A. Vasiliev [*et al.*]{}, (2007), arXiv:0712.2691. D. Dutta [*et al.*]{}, , <http://psux1.kek.jp/jhf-np/LOIlist/LOIlist.html>.
W. Lorenzon [*et al.*]{}, (2012), <http://inspirehep.net/record/1216817/files>.
Y. L. Dokshitzer, 46, 641 (1977). V. Gribov and L. Lipatov, 15, 438 (1972). G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, B126, 298 (1977). J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, B193, 381 (1981). J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, B194, 445 (1982). G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, B76, 351 (1978). S. Catani [*et al.*]{}, (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005025. J.-W. Qiu and X.-f. Zhang, D63, 114011 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012348. F. Landry, R. Brock, G. Ladinsky, and C. P. Yuan, D63, 013004 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/9905391. J.-W. Qiu and X.-f. Zhang, 86, 2724 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012058. F. Landry, R. Brock, P. M. Nadolsky, and C. P. Yuan, D67, 073016 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212159. Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, B721, 277 (2013), arXiv:1212.6541. E. L. Berger, J.-W. Qiu, and Y.-l. Wang, D71, 034007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404158. S. M. Aybat, J. C. Collins, J.-W. Qiu, and T. C. Rogers, D85, 034043 (2012), arXiv:1110.6428. D. Boer, B603, 195 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102071. A. Idilbi, X.-d. Ji, J.-P. Ma, and F. Yuan, D70, 074021 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406302. U. D’Alesio and F. Murgia, 61, 394 (2008), arXiv:0712.4328. G. L. Kane, J. Pumplin, and W. Repko, 41, 1689 (1978). A. Efremov and O. Teryaev, 36, 140 (1982). J.-W. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, 67, 2264 (1991). J.-W. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, B378, 52 (1992). Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, D79, 016003 (2009), arXiv:0811.3101. M. Anselmino [*et al.*]{}, D79, 054010 (2009), arXiv:0901.3078. J. C. Collins [*et al.*]{}, D73, 094023 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511272. HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{}, 94, 012002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408013. HERMES Collaboration, M. Diefenthaler, p. 579 (2007), arXiv:0706.2242. HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{}, 103, 152002 (2009), arXiv:0906.3918. The COMPASS Collaboration, V. Y. Alexakhin [*et al.*]{}, 94, 202002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0503002. The COMPASS Collaboration, M. Alekseev [*et al.*]{}, B673, 127 (2009), arXiv:0802.2160. M. Anselmino [*et al.*]{}, A39, 89 (2009), arXiv:0805.2677. R. D. Tangerman and P. J. Mulders, D51, 3357 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9403227.
S. Arnold, A. Metz, and M. Schlegel, D79, 034005 (2009), arXiv:0809.2262.
C. Lam and W.-K. Tung, D18, 2447 (1978). P. Chiappetta and M. Le Bellac, C32, 521 (1986). J. Cleymans and M. Kuroda, B105, 68 (1981). J. Callan, Curtis G. and D. J. Gross, 22, 156 (1969). C. Lam and W.-K. Tung, D21, 2712 (1980). NA10 Collaboration, S. Falciano [*et al.*]{}, C31, 513 (1986). J. Conway [*et al.*]{}, D39, 92 (1989). A. Brandenburg, O. Nachtmann, and E. Mirkes, C60, 697 (1993). D. Boer, A. Brandenburg, O. Nachtmann, and A. Utermann, C40, 55 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411068. A. Brandenburg, S. Brodsky, V. V. Khoze, and D. Mueller, 73, 939 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403361. K. Eskola, P. Hoyer, M. Vanttinen, and R. Vogt, B333, 526 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9404322. E. L. Berger and S. J. Brodsky, 42, 940 (1979). D. Boer, D60, 014012 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902255. B. Zhang, Z. Lu, B.-Q. Ma, and I. Schmidt, D77, 054011 (2008), arXiv:0803.1692. J. C. Collins, B396, 161 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9208213. L. P. Gamberg, G. R. Goldstein, and K. A. Oganessyan, D67, 071504 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301018. D. Boer, S. J. Brodsky, and D. S. Hwang, D67, 054003 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211110. A. Bacchetta, A. Schaefer, and J.-J. Yang, B578, 109 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309246. Z. Lu and B.-Q. Ma, B615, 200 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504184. FNAL-E866/NuSea Collaboration, L. Zhu [*et al.*]{}, 99, 082301 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609005. FNAL E866/NuSea Collaboration, L. Zhu [*et al.*]{}, 102, 182001 (2009), arXiv:0811.4589. D. Boer and W. Vogelsang, D74, 014004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604177. E. L. Berger, J.-W. Qiu, and R. A. Rodriguez-Pedraza, D76, 074006 (2007), arXiv:0708.0578. E. L. Berger, J.-W. Qiu, and R. A. Rodriguez-Pedraza, B656, 74 (2007), arXiv:0707.3150. C. Balazs, J.-w. Qiu, and C. Yuan, B355, 548 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505203. R. K. Ellis, D. Ross, and S. Veseli, B503, 309 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704239. J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, D16, 2219 (1977). F. Yuan, B575, 45 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0308157. B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti, and S. Boffi, D72, 094029 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0510376. B. Hannafious and M. Burkardt, LC2008, 032 (2008), arXiv:0811.1206. L. P. Gamberg, G. R. Goldstein, and M. Schlegel, D77, 094016 (2008), arXiv:0708.0324. V. Barone, S. Melis, and A. Prokudin, D81, 114026 (2010), arXiv:0912.5194. Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, D81, 034023 (2010), arXiv:0912.2031. V. Barone, S. Melis, and A. Prokudin, D82, 114025 (2010), arXiv:1009.3423. CDF Collaboration, J. Han, (2011), arXiv:1110.0153. CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{}, 106, 241801 (2011), arXiv:1103.5699. E. Mirkes and J. Ohnemus, D50, 5692 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9406381. Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, D84, 094002 (2011), arXiv:1107.4693. M. A. Doncheski, F. Halzen, C. S. Kim, and M. L. Stong, D49, 3261 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306302. C. Bourrely and J. Soffer, B423, 329 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9405250. B.-Q. Ma, B274, 111 (1992). B.-Q. Ma, A. Schafer, and W. Greiner, D47, 51 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9211202. E. Sather, B274, 433 (1992). E. N. Rodionov, A. W. Thomas, and J. T. Londergan, A9, 1799 (1994). C. J. Benesh and J. T. Goldman, C55, 441 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9609024. J. T. Londergan and A. W. Thomas, 41, 49 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806510. J. T. Londergan, J. C. Peng, and A. W. Thomas, 82, 2009 (2010), arXiv:0907.2352. F. M. Steffens and A. W. Thomas, B389, 217 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9610303. W. Melnitchouk and A. W. Thomas, D47, 3783 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9301016. M. A. Braun and M. V. Tokarev, B320, 381 (1994). M. Sawicki and J. P. Vary, 71, 1320 (1993). I. Schmidt and J.-J. Yang, C20, 63 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0005054. A. I. Alekhin, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Kulagin, and M. V. Osipenko, A755, 345 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/00502107.
R. Yang, J.-C. Peng, and M. Grosse-Perdekamp, B680, 231 (2009), arXiv:0905.3783. STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{}, D85, 092010 (2012), arXiv:1112.2980. K. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. Salgado, 0904, 065 (2009), arXiv:0902.4154. D. de Florian and R. Sassot, D69, 074028 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311227. CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{}, D85, 032002 (2012), arXiv:1110.4973. CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{}, 106, 212301 (2011), arXiv:1102.5435. ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, B705, 415 (2011), arXiv:1107.2381. ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, 110, 022301 (2013), arXiv:1210.6486. Atlas Collaboration, G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, B697, 294 (2011), arXiv:1012.5419. CMS Collaboration, B. de la Cruz, (2012), arXiv:1208.4927. H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, 1103, 071 (2011), arXiv:1010.5392. D. Underwood [*et al.*]{}, 3, 1 (1992). C. Bourrely and J. Soffer, B314, 132 (1993). B. Dressler, K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and C. Weiss, C14, 147 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909541. R. Fries and A. Schafer, B443, 40 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805509. K. Boreskov and A. Kaidalov, C10, 143 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809398. E. Aschenauer [*et al.*]{}, (2013), arXiv:1304.0079. Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, D81, 054020 (2010), arXiv:0912.1319. S. M. Aybat, A. Prokudin, and T. C. Rogers, 108, 242003 (2012), arXiv:1112.4423. J. P. Ralston and D. E. Soper, B152, 109 (1979). J.-W. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, D59, 014004 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806356.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give multiplicity results for the problem of prescribing the scalar curvature on Cauchy-Riemann spheres under $\beta-$ flatness condition. To give a lower bound for the number of solutions, we use Bahri’s methods based on the theory of critical points at infinity and a Poincare’-Hopf type formula.'
author:
- 'Najoua Gamara, Boutheina Hafassa and Akrem Makni'
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
date:
-
-
title: |
The $\beta-$Flatness Condition in CR Spheres\
Multiplicity Results
---
*College of Science, Taibah University, KSA*\
*University Tunis El Manar, University Campus 2092, Tunisia*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
In an earlier paper we discussed existence results for the problem of prescribing the Webster scalar curvature on the $3$-Cauchy-Riemann sphere, under $\beta$- flatness condition, $2
\leq \beta < 4 $. The purpose of the present paper, is to study multiplicity results for this problem.
Let $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ be the unit sphere of $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ endowed with its standard contact form $\theta _{1},$ and $K:\mathbb{S}^{3}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a given $C^{2}$ positive function. The problem of finding a contact form $\theta$ on $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ conformal to $\theta _{1}$ admitting the function $K$ as Webster scalar curvature, is equivalent to the resolution of the following semi-linear equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
L_{\theta _{1}}u=K\;u^{3}\quad \text{ on }\mathbb{S}^{3} \\
\quad\;\, u>0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\theta_{1}}=\,4\Delta_{\theta _{1}} + R_{\theta _{1}}$, is the conformal laplacian of $\mathbb{S}^{3}$.
Using the CR equivalence $F$ induced by the Cayley Transform (see Definition 2.1 below) between $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ minus a point and the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}^{1}$, equation (\[1\]) is equivalent up to an influent constant to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
4\Delta_{{\mathbb{H}}^{1}}u=\tilde{K}\;u^{3}\quad
\text{ on }\;{\mathbb{H}}^{1}\,\,, \\
\qquad\qquad\quad u>0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\;\Delta_{\mathbb{ H}^{1}}$ is the sub laplacian of $\mathbb{ H}^{1}$ and $\tilde{K} = K\circ F^{-1}.$
In order to give our new multiplicity results for problem $\eqref{1},$ where the prescribed function $K$ satisfies a $\beta-$flatness condition near its critical points. We will use the same techniques displayed in [@Gamara; @Riahi; @multiplicity] which are based on an adaptation to the Cauchy-Riemann settings of Bahri’s work. These techniques were first introduced by Bahri and Coron in [@Bahri; @Coron]: we have to study the critical points at infinity of the associated variational problem, by computing their total Morse index. Then, we compare this total index to the Euler characteristic of the space of variation.\
To state our results, we set up the following conditions and notations.\
Let $G(a,)$ be a Green’s function for $L$ at $a\in\mathbb{S}^{3}$.\
We denote by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal K= \Big\{(\xi_i)_{(1\leq
i\leq r)},\;\text{such that}\; \nabla K(\xi_i)=0\Big\}\end{aligned}$$ the set of all critical points of $K.$ We say that $K$ satisfies the **$\beta-$flatness condition** if for all $\xi_i
\in \mathcal K,$ there exist\
$$\beta=\beta(\xi_i)\;\;\text{ and} \;\; b_{1}=b_{1}(\xi_i),\ b_{2}=b_{2}(\xi_i),\ b_{0}=b_{0}(\xi_i)\ \in\mathbb R^{\ast}$$ such that in some pseudo hermitian normal coordinates system centered at $\xi_i,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3'}
K(x)=K(0)+b_1|x_{1}|^{\beta}+b_{2}|x_{2}|^{\beta}+
b_{0}|t|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}+\mathcal{R}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Where ${\displaystyle}\sum_{k=1}^{2}b_{k}+\kappa b_{0}\neq 0,
{\displaystyle}\sum_{k=1}^{2}b_{k}+\kappa^{'} b_{0}\neq 0$ with $$\kappa=\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}|t|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}\frac{1-||z|^{2}-it|^{2}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{6}}\theta_{0}\wedge
d\theta_{0}}{{\displaystyle}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}|x_{1}|^{\beta}
\frac{1-||z|^{2}-it|^{2}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{6}}\theta_{0}\wedge
d\theta_{0}},\quad\quad\quad\quad\kappa^{'}=\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{|t|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{4}}\theta_{0}\wedge
d\theta_{0}}{{\displaystyle}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}} \frac{|x_{1}|^{\beta}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{4}}\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0}}$$\
The function $\overset{[\beta]}{\underset{p=0}{\sum}}\big|\nabla^{p}
\mathcal{R}( x ) \big|\; \|x\|_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}^{-\beta-r} = o(1)$ as $x$ approaches $\xi_{i}$, $\nabla^{r} $ denotes all possible partial derivatives of order $r$ and $[\beta]$ the integer part of $\beta.$\
\
In this work, we will focus on the case where a collection of the critical points of $K$ satisfy $ \beta=\beta(\xi_i)=2.$ This case was not covered in the results of [@Gamara; @Riahi; @impact; @Gamara; @Riahi; @interplay; @Gamara; @Riahi; @multiplicity]. So, here we suppose $2
\leq \beta=\beta(\xi_i) < 4.$ Let $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal K_{1} := \Big\{\xi_{i} \in\mathcal K\ \text{ such that}
\eqref{3'}\ \text{ is satisfied with}\; \beta=\beta(\xi_i)=2\ \
\text{and}\
\sum_{k=1}^{2} b_{k}+\kappa^{'} b_{0}< 0\Big\}\\\\
\mathcal K_{2} := \Big\{ \xi_{i} \in\mathcal K\ \text{ such that}\
\eqref{3'}\ \text{ is satisfied with}\; \beta=\beta(\xi_i)>2 \ \
\text{and}\; \sum_{k=1}^{2} b_{k}+\kappa^{'} b_{0}< 0 \Big\}.
\end{array}$$
The index of the function $K$ at $\xi_{i}\in \mathcal K,$ denoted by $m(\xi_i)$, is the number of strictly negative coefficients $b_k(\xi_i)$: $$m(\xi_i)=\#\Big\{b_{k}(\xi_i);b_{k}(\xi_i)<0\Big\}.$$ For each p-tuple $(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in (\mathcal K_1)^{p}$ ( $\xi_{i_{l}}\neq \xi_{i_{j}}$ if $l\neq j$), we associate the matrix $M(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})=(M_{st})_{1\leq s,t\leq p}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
\begin{array}{rcl}
M_{ss} &=& \displaystyle{- c \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{2} b_{k}+\kappa' b_{0}}{2K^{2}(\xi_s)}}\\
M_{st} &=& \displaystyle{- c'
\frac{G(\xi_s,\xi_t)}{[K(\xi_s)K(\xi_t)]^{\frac{1}{2}}},\quad {\rm
for}\; s\neq t}\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $c=
\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{|x_{1}|^{2}}{|1+|z|^{2}-it|^{4}}$ and $c'= 2\pi \omega_{3},$ $\omega_{3}$ is the volume of the unit Koranyi’s ball.
We say that $K$ satisfies condition $\mathbf{(C)}$ if: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5'}
\begin{array}{r}\hbox{{\rm for each p-tuple }} (\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in (\mathcal K_1)^p\; \hbox{{\rm the corresponding matrix}}\; (M_{st})
\;\hbox{{\rm is non degenerate}}.\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ In this case, we denote by $\varrho(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})$ the least eigenvalue of the matrix $M(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}}).$\
Next, we define the sets
$\bullet$ $\mathcal K_{1}^{+}:=\bigcup_{p}\left\{ (\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in( \mathcal K_{1})^{p},\
\varrho(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})>0\right\}$
and
$\bullet$ $l^{+}:=\max\left\{p\in\mathbb{N} \ \textrm{ s.t }\exists\ (\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+}\right\}.$
For $(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+},$ let $i(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}}):=4p-1- \sum_{j=1}^p
m(\xi_{i_{j}})$\
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L0}
L_{0}:=\max\left\{ \Big\{i(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}});\
(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+}\}\cup
\Big\{3-m(\xi);\ \xi\in \mathcal K_{2}\Big\}\right\}\end{aligned}$$
The main results of this paper are
\[existence\] Let $K$ be a $C^{2}$ positive function on $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ satisfying the **$\beta-$flatness condition** and condition $\mathbf{(C)},$ if there exists a positive integer $k$ such that:
1. $$\displaystyle\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\xi\in \mathcal K_{2}\\ m(\xi)\geq 4-k\end{array}}(-1)^{m(\xi)+1}+\;\;
\sum_{p=1}^{l^{+}}\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l}(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+}\\
\sum_{j=1}^p
m(\xi_{i_{j}})\geq 4p-k \end{array}}}
(-1)^{i(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})}\neq 1$$
2. $\forall (\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+}, \;
\sum_{j=1}^{p} m(\xi_{i_{j}})\neq 4p -(k+1)$ and $\forall
\xi_i\in\mathcal K_2,$ $3-m(\xi_i)\neq k.$
Then, there exists a solution $\omega$ to the problem $\eqref{1}$ such that $$m(\omega)\leq k,$$ where $m(\omega)$ is the Morse index of $\omega$, defined as the dimension of the space of negativity of the linearized operator $\mathcal{L}(\delta ) := L_{\theta}(\delta ) -3 \omega^{2}\delta. $\
Under the hypothesis of Theorem \[existence\], if we denote $\mathcal{S}_{k}$ the set of solutions of $\eqref{1}$ having their Morse indices less than or equal to $k$. We have
\[multiplicity\] $$\#\mathcal{S}_{k}\geq\left|1+\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\xi\in \mathcal K_{2}\\ m(\xi)\leq 4-k \end{array}}(-1)^{m(\xi)}-\;
\sum_{p=1}^{l^{+}}\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K_{1}^{+}\\
\sum_{j=1}^p m(\xi_{i_{j}})\geq 4p-k \end{array}} (-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^p
m(\xi_{i_{j}})}\right|$$
The proofs of Theorems $\ref{existence}$ and $\ref{multiplicity}$ will be obtained by a contradiction argument. Therefore, we assume that equation $\eqref{1}$ has no solution. Our approach involves a Morse lemma at infinity, it relies on the construction of a suitable pseudo gradient for the functional $J.$ The Palais-Smale condition is satisfied along the decreasing flow lines of this pseudo gradient, as long as these flow lines do not enter the neighborhood of a finite number of critical points of $K$ where the related matrix given in $(\ref{4})$ is positive definite.\
This paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we recall the local structure of the Heisenberg group, the extremals for the Yamabe functional on $\mathbb H^1$ and the Cayley transform. In section 3, we give the expansion of the new functional $J$ near its critical points at infinity. Section 4 is devoted to the construction of a Morse Lemma at infinity for the functional $J$. The Morse lemma is based on the construction of a pseudo gradient for $J$ near its critical points at infinity, using an appropriate change of variables. The proofs of our main results, Theorems \[existence\] and $\ref{multiplicity}$ will be the purpose of section 5. The last section is an appendix, where some technical estimates are given.
Preliminary Tools:
==================
The Heinserberg group $\mathbb{H}^{1}$ is the Lie group whose underlying manifold is ${\mathbb{C}}\times
{\mathbb{R}}$, with coordinates $g=(z,t)$ and group law given by: $g\cdot g^{\prime } = (z,t)\cdot
(z^{\prime },t^{\prime }) = (z+z^{\prime }, t + t^{\prime} + 2
Im\,z.\bar{z}^{\prime })$. We define a norm in $\mathbb{H}^{1}$ by $\| g \|_{\mathbb{H}^{1}} = \| (z,t) \|_{\mathbb{H}^{1}} = (\| z
\|^{4} + t^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}$, and dilations by $g =
(z,t)\rightarrow \lambda g = (\lambda z, \lambda^{2}t)$, $\lambda >
0$. The Cauchy Riemann structure on $\mathbb{H}^{1}$ is given by the left invariant vectors fields: $Z=\frac{\partial }{\partial z} +
i\bar{z}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}$, $\bar{Z} = \frac{\partial
}{\partial \bar{z}} - iz\frac{\partial }{\partial t}$, which are homogenous of degree $-1$ with respect to the dilations, the associated contact form is $\theta_{0} = dt + i(z d\bar{z} -
\bar{z} dz)$. We denote by $\Delta_{\theta _{0}}$ the sublaplacian operator, $\Delta_{\theta_{0}} = -\;\frac{1}{2}(Z\bar{Z} +
\bar{Z}Z)$ and since the Webster scalar curvature $R_{\theta _{0}}$ is zero, the conformal laplacian $L_{0}$ is a multiple of the sublaplacian operator, $L_{0}=(2+\frac{2}{n})\Delta_{\theta _{0}}$.\
In [@J-L1], Jerison and Lee showed that all solutions of $\eqref{2}$ are obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
w_{(0,1)}(z,t)=\frac{c_{0}}{|1+|z|^{2}-it|}\;,\;\;c_{0} > 0,\end{aligned}$$ by left translations and dilatations on $\mathbb{H}^{1}$. That is for $g_{0} = (z_{0},t_{0})$, $g = (z,t)$ in $\mathbb{H}^{1}$ and $\lambda > 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
w _{(g_{0},\lambda )}(z,t)= c_{0}\frac{\lambda}{|1+\lambda
^{2}|z-z_{0}|^{2}-i\lambda ^{2}(t-t_{0}-2Im\, z_{0}\overline{z})|}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we will introduce the Cayley transform. Let $B^{2 }= \big\{z
\in \mathbb{C}^{2}\;/\; |z| < 1 \big\}$ be the unit ball in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{2} = \big\{ (z,w) \in
\mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{C}\;/\; Im(w) > | z |^{2}\big\}$ be the Siegel domain. The boundary of the Siegel domain is: $\partial\mathcal{D}_{2} = \big\{ (z,w) \in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{C}\;/\; Im(w) = | z |^{2}\big\}$.\
[@D-T] The Cayley transform is the correspondence between the unit ball $B^{2}$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2 }$ and the Siegel domain $\mathcal{D}_{2},$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}(\zeta ) = \Big( \frac{\zeta_{1}}{ 1 +
\zeta_{2}}\,\,,\,\,\, i\,\,\frac{1 - \zeta_{2}}{ 1 +
\zeta_{2}}\Big)\,\,;\,\quad \zeta = (\zeta_{1}, \zeta_{2})\,\,,\quad
1 + \zeta_{2} \neq 0\end{aligned}$$
The Cayley transform gives a biholomorphism of the unit ball $B^{2}$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2 }$ onto the Siegel domain $\mathcal{D}_{2}$. Moreover, when restricted to the sphere minus a point, $\mathcal{C}$ gives a $CR$ diffeomorphism. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C }: \mathbb{S}^{3}\backslash {(0,-1)}\longrightarrow
\partial\mathcal{D}_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us recall the CR diffeomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccl}
f \,: & \mathbb{H}^{1} & \longrightarrow & \partial\mathcal{D}_{2} \\
& (z, t) & \longmapsto & f(z,t) = (z, t + i |z|^{2})\,
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ with the obvious inverse $f^{-1}(z,w) = (z, Re(w))$, $z\in
\mathbb{C}$, $ w \in \mathbb{C}$. We obtain the $CR$ equivalence via this mapping: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccl}
F\,: & \mathbb{S}^{3}\backslash {(0,-1)} & \longrightarrow & \mathbb{H}^{1} \\
& \zeta = (\zeta_{1}, \zeta_{2}) & \longmapsto & (z,t)
= \big(\frac{\zeta_{1}}{ 1 + \zeta_{2}},
i\,\,\frac{2 Im\zeta_{2}}{| 1 + \zeta_{2}|^{2}}\big)
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ with inverse $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccl}
F^{-1}\,: & \mathbb{H}^{1} & \longrightarrow & \mathbb{S}^{3}\backslash {(0,-1)} \\
& (z,t) & \longmapsto & \zeta = \big(\frac{2 z}{ 1 + |z|^{2} - it},\,i\,\frac{1 - |z|^{2} + it }{
1 + |z|^{2} - it }\big).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ With the following choice of contact form on $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ ( the standard one) $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{1} = i \overset{2}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\big( \zeta_{j}d
\overline{\zeta}_{j} - \overline{\zeta}_{j} d \zeta_{j} \big).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain $F^{*}(4 (c_{0}^{-1}w_{(0,1)})^{2}\theta_{0}) = \theta_{1}$.\
Let us differentiate and take into account that $w_{(0,1)}(F(\zeta))
= c_{0}|1 + \zeta_{2}|^{2}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
d\theta_{1} =\big(\frac{d\zeta_{2}}{ 1 + \zeta_{2}} +
\frac{d\bar{\zeta}_{2}}{ 1 + \bar{\zeta}_{2} } \big)\wedge
\theta_{1} + |1 + \zeta_{2}|^{2}F^{*}( d \theta_{0})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{1} \wedge d \theta_{1} = |1 +
\zeta_{2}|^{4}F^{*}(\theta_{0} \wedge d \theta_{0})\end{aligned}$$ We introduce the following function for each $(\zeta_{0}, \lambda)$ on $\mathbb{S}^{3}\times]0, + \infty[$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dela0}
\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}(\zeta )=|1+\zeta_{2}|^{-1}
w_{(F(\zeta_{0}),\lambda )} \circ F(\zeta )\end{aligned}$$ We have $L_{\theta_{1}}\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda
)}=\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}^{3},$ i.e $\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}$ is a solution of the Yamabe problem on $\mathbb{S}^{3}$.\
We also have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S-H-1}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}L_{\theta_{1}}\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}
\,\,\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}
\,\,\theta_{1}\wedge d\theta_{1} =
\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}L_{\theta_{0}}w_{(g_{0},\lambda )}\,\,
w_{(g_{0},\lambda )}\,\,\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0}\;\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S-H-2}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}|\delta_{(\zeta_{0},\lambda )}|^{ 4}\theta_{1}
\wedge d\theta_{1} = \int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}| w_{(g_{0},\lambda
)}|^{4} \;\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{0} = F(\zeta_{0})$,and $g = F(\zeta)$.\
As a consequence, the variational formulation for $\eqref{1}$ is equivalent to the one for $\eqref{2}$.\
Cauchy Riemann Functional
--------------------------
Problem $\eqref{1}$ has a nice variational structure, with associated Euler functional: $$J(u)={\displaystyle}\frac{\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}} L_{\theta_{1}}u\; u\; \theta_{1} \wedge d\theta_{1}}
{(\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}} K\;u^{4}\; \theta_{1} \wedge
d\theta_{1})^{\frac{1}{2}}}, \quad u\in S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})$$ where $S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})$ is the completion of $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{3})$ by means of the norm $\left\|u\right\|^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}
L_{\theta_{1}}u\,u\,\theta_{1}\wedge d\theta_{1}.$\
Let $\quad \Sigma =
\big\{u\in S_{1}^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{3}) / \left\| u\right\| = 1 \big\}$ and $\quad\Sigma^{+}=\big\{u\in \Sigma / \;u\geq 0 \big\}$.\
The functional $J$ fails to satisfy the Palais-Smale condition denoted by $(P.S)$ on $\Sigma^+$, that is: there exist noncompact sequences along which the functional $J$ is bounded and its gradient goes to zero. A complete description of sequences failing to satisfy (P.S) is given in [@Gamara; @Yacoub; @yamabe; @conjecture]. A solution $u$ of $\eqref{1}$ is a critical point of $J$ subject to the constraint $u\in \Sigma^+.$
Characterization of the sequences failing to satisfy the (P.S) condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case we study, we have the presence of multiple blow-up points. We begin by defining the sets of potential critical points at infinity of the functional $J.$\
For any $\varepsilon >0$ and $p\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$, let:
$$\begin{array}{rlc}\label{critinf}
V(p,\varepsilon )&=&\left\lbrace\begin{array}{l}u\in
\Sigma^{+};\;\exists \;(a_{1},\ldots,a_{p})\in \mathbb{S}^{3},\;
\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{p}>0
\;{\rm and}\; (\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{p})\in (\varepsilon ^{-1},\infty )^{p}\;{\rm such \;that}\\\\
\left\|u-\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{\alpha_i
\delta _{a_{i}, \lambda_{i}}}{K(a_{i})^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right\|_{S_{1}^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{3})} <
\varepsilon,\;
\varepsilon_{ij} < \varepsilon,\;| \displaystyle{\frac{\alpha_{i}^{2}K(a_{i})}{\alpha_{j}^{2}K(a_{j})}} - 1| < \varepsilon,
\;\;\forall\;1\leq i\neq j\leq p\\
\varepsilon_{ij} = \big( \displaystyle{\frac{\lambda_{i}}{\lambda_{j}}+ \frac{\lambda_{j}}{\lambda_{i} }} + \lambda_{i}\lambda_{j}
(d(a_{i}, a_{j})^{2} \big)^{-1}. \end{array}\right\rbrace
\end{array}$$
For $\omega$ a solution of $\eqref{1}$ we also define the set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{critinfinisol}
V(p,\varepsilon,\omega) =\Big\{u\in\Sigma^+;\exists\ \alpha_{0}>0\;
/\;\ u-\alpha_{0}\omega\in V(p,\varepsilon)\ \rm{and}\
|\alpha_{0}^{2}J(u)^{2}-1|<\varepsilon\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
We then proceed as in [@Gamara; @Yacoub; @yamabe; @conjecture] Proposition $8$ to characterize the sequences which violate the (P.S) condition as follows:
([@Gamara; @Yacoub; @yamabe; @conjecture]) Let $\{u_{k}\}$ be a sequence such that $\partial J(u_{k})\rightarrow 0$ and $J(u_{k})$ is bounded. There exist an integer $p\in
\mathbb{N}^{*}$, a sequence $\varepsilon_{k}\rightarrow
0\;\;(\varepsilon_{k}>0)$ and an extracted subsequence of $\{u_{k}\}$, again denoted by $\{u_{k}\}$, such that $u_{k}\in
V(p,\varepsilon_{k}).$
Then, we consider the following minimization problem for a function $u\in V(p,\varepsilon ),$ with $\varepsilon $ small $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minor1}
\min_{\alpha_i>0,\lambda_i>0,a_i\in
\mathbb{S}^{3}}\|u-\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}
\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}\|_{S_{1}^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{3})}\end{aligned}$$ We obtain as showed in [@Bahri; @invariant] and [@Gamara; @prescribed], the following parametrization of the set $V(p,
\varepsilon):$
([@Gamara; @prescribed]) For any $p\in {\Bbb N}^{*}$, there exists $\varepsilon_{p}>0$ such that, for any $0 < \varepsilon <
\varepsilon_{p}$, $u\in V(p,\varepsilon )$, the minimization problem $\eqref{minor1}$ has a unique solution $(\bar{\alpha}_{1},\ldots,\bar{\alpha}_{p},\bar{\lambda}_{1},\ldots,\bar{\lambda}_{p},\bar{a}_{1},\ldots,\bar{a}_{p})$ (up to permutation on the set of indices $\{1,\ldots,p\}$). In particular, we can write $u \in V(p, \varepsilon)$ as follows
$u = \overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\overline{\alpha}_{i}\delta _{\overline{a}_{i},\overline{\lambda}_{i}} + v$, where $v \in S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
(V_{0})\,\,\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\langle v,\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}\rangle _{S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})} & =0 \\
\langle v,\frac{\partial \delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}}{\partial
a_{i}}\rangle _{S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})} &
= 0\qquad\quad i=1,2,...,p. \\
\langle v,\frac{\partial \delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}}{\partial
\lambda_{i}}\rangle _{S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})} & = 0.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here $< , >$ denotes the $L$-scalar product defined on $S_{1}^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{3})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
<u,v>=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}L_{\theta_{1}}u v \;\theta_{1}\wedge
d\theta_{1}.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we will focus on the behavior of the functional $J$ with respect to the variable $v$. We will prove the existence of a unique $\bar{v}$ which minimizes $J(\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\delta
_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}+v)$ with respect to $v\in H_{\varepsilon
}^{p}(a,\lambda )$, where $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\varepsilon }^{p}(a,\lambda ) = H_{\varepsilon }^{p} (\delta
_{a_{1},\lambda_{1}},\ldots,\delta _{a_{p},\lambda_{p}}) =
\Big\{v\in S_{1}^{2}(M)\text{ \ }/v\text{ satisfies }(V_{0}) \text{
and }\|v\|<\frac{\varepsilon }{p}\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
[@Gamara; @prescribed] There exists a $C^{1}$-map which associates to each $u\in V(p,\varepsilon ),$ $\varepsilon$ small, $\bar{v}=\bar{v}(\alpha, a, \lambda )$ such that $\bar{v}$ is unique and minimizes $J(\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\delta _{a_{i},
\lambda_{i}} + v)$, with respect to $v\in H_{\varepsilon
}^{p}(a,\lambda ).$ We have the following estimate
$$\|\bar{v }\| \leq c_1\left(\displaystyle{
\underset{i\leq p}{\sum} (\frac{|\nabla K(a_i)|}{\lambda_i}+
\frac{1}{\lambda_i^2})+\underset{k\neq
r}{\sum}\varepsilon_{kr}\sqrt{{\rm Log}(\varepsilon_{kr}^{-1})}}
\right)$$$\Box$
For $\omega$ a solution of $\eqref{1}$, we obtain a parametrization of the set $V(p,\varepsilon,\omega)$ as follows
\[minimum\] There is $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that if $\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_0$ and $u\in V(p,\varepsilon,\omega),$ the problem $$\underset{\alpha_i>0,\;\lambda_i>0,\; a_i \in \mathbb{S}^{3},\; h\in T_{\omega}(W_u(\omega))}{\min}\|u-\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i}\delta _{a_{i},\lambda_i}- \alpha_0(\omega + h)\|$$ has a unique solution $(\overline \alpha, \overline
\lambda,\;\overline a,\;\overline h).$ Thus, we write $u$ as: $$u = \sum_{i=1}^p\overline\alpha_{i}\delta _{(\overline a_{i},\overline \lambda_i)}+ \overline\alpha_0(\omega +\overline h) + v,$$ where $v$ belongs to $S_1^2(\mathbb{S}^{3})\cap
T_{\omega}(W_s(\omega))$ and satisfies $(V_0),\;T_{\omega}(W_u(\omega))$ and $T_{\omega}(W_s(\omega))$ are respectively, the tangent spaces at $\omega$ to the unstable and stable manifolds of $\omega.$
[**Proof:**]{} The proof is similar to the one given in [@Bahri; @invariant].
Asymptotic Analysis of the Functional
=====================================
Domination Property: Hierarchy of the Critical point at infinity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We first introduce some definitions and notations due to Bahri [@Bahri; @Critical; @Bahri; @invariant]. Let $\partial J$ denotes the gradient of the functional $J.$
A critical point at infinity of $J$ on $\Sigma^+$ is a limit of a flow line $u(s)$ of the equation: $$\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u }{\partial s}} & =-\partial J(u)\vspace*{,1cm} \\\
u(0) & =u_{0}
\end{array}
\right.$$ such that $u(s)$ remains in $V(p,\varepsilon(s),\omega)$ for $s\geq s_0,$ $\omega$ is zero or a solution of (\[existence\]) and $\varepsilon(s)$ satisfies $\underset{s\longrightarrow\infty}{\lim}\varepsilon(s)= 0.$ One can write $u(s) =
\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i}(s)\delta _{(a_{i}(s), \lambda_i(s))}+
\alpha_{0}(s)(\omega + h(s)) + v(s).$ Let $a_i:=\underset{s\longrightarrow\infty}{\lim}a_i(s)$ and $\alpha_i:=
\underset{s\longrightarrow\infty}{\lim}\alpha_i(s),$ we denote such a critical point at infinity by $$\xi_{\infty}\;{\rm
or}\;(a_1,\ldots,a_p)_{\infty}\;{\rm or}\;
\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_i\delta _{(a_i,\infty)}\;{\rm or}\;
\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i}(s)\delta _{(a_{i}, \infty)}+ \alpha_{0}
\omega.$$
A critical point at infinity is called of $\omega-$type if $\omega\neq 0.$\
As for a usual critical point, to a critical point at infinity $\xi_{\infty}$ are associated stable and unstable manifolds which we denote by $W_{s}(\xi_{\infty})$ and $W_{u}(\xi_{\infty}).$ These manifolds allow to compare critical points at infinity by what we call a “domination property”, one can see [@Bahri; @invariant; @Gamara; @prescribed], where a detailed description of theses manifolds is given.
A critical point at infinity $\xi_{\infty}$ is said to be dominated by another critical point at infinity $\xi'_{\infty},$ if $$W_{s}(\xi_{\infty}) \cap W_{u}(\xi_{\infty}^{'})\neq \emptyset$$ and we write $\xi_{\infty^{'}} > \xi_{\infty}.$ $\Box$\
If we assume that the intersection $W_{s}(\xi_{\infty}) \cap
W_{u}(\xi_{\infty}^{'})$ is transverse, then we obtain
$\textrm{index} (\xi_{\infty}^{'})\geq \textrm{index} (\xi_{\infty})
+ 1.$
Asymptotic Analysis of the functional in the set $V(p,\varepsilon,\omega),$ $\omega\neq 0$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we expand the functional $J$ in $V(p,\varepsilon,\omega),$ for $\omega$ a non null solution of $\eqref{1}$ in the aim to detect the critical points or critical points at infinity of $J$ in this set and we prove that:\
for any $p \in \mathbb N^{\ast}$, there are no critical point or critical point at infinity of $J$ in the set $V (p, \varepsilon,\omega)$. More precisely, using Proposition \[minimum\], we will write $u
\in V (p, \varepsilon,\omega)$ as $u={\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta
_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}+\alpha_{0}(\omega+h)+v,$ one obtain the following expansion of $J:$
\[expansionJ(w)\] There exists $\varepsilon_0 >0$ such that for any $u=\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i} \delta _{(a_{i}, \lambda_i )}+ \alpha_0
(\omega + h ) + v \in V(p,\varepsilon,\omega),
\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
J(u)&=&\frac{S\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{2}+\alpha_{0}^{2}\|w\|^{2}}
{(S\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{4}K(a_{i})+\alpha_{0}^{4}\|w\|^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\Big[1-\frac{c_{2}\alpha_{0}}{\gamma_{1}}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\frac{w(a_{i})}{\lambda_{i}}
-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\sum_{i\neq j}\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}c_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij}+f_{1}(v)\\
&&+Q_{1}(v,v) +f_{2}(h)+\alpha_{0}^{2}Q_{2}(h,h) +o\left(\sum_{i\neq
j}\varepsilon_{ij}+\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}+\|v\|^{2}+\|h\|^{2}\right)\Big]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&f_{1}(v)=-\frac{1}{\eta_{1}}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}})^{3}v,\\
&&f_{2}(h)=\frac{\alpha_{0}}{\gamma_{1}}
\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}<\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}},h>_{L_{\theta}}-
\frac{\alpha_{0}}{\eta_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}+\alpha_{0}w)^{3}h,\\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&Q_{1}(v,v)=\frac{\|v\|^{2}}{\gamma_{1}}- \frac{3}{\eta_{1}}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}(\alpha_{i}\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}})^{2}+
(\alpha_{0}w)^{2}\right)v^{2},\\
&&Q_{2}(h,h)=\frac{\|h\|^{2}}{\gamma_{1}}- \frac{3}{\eta_{1}}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K(\alpha_{0}w)^{2}h^{2},\\
&&c_{2}=c_{0}^{3}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{1}{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it \Big|^{3}}\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0},\quad S=c_{0}^{4}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{1}{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it \Big|^{4}}\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0},\\
&&\eta_{1}=S\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{4}K(a_{i})+\alpha_{0}^{4}\|w\|^{2},\quad
\gamma_{1}=S\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{2}+\alpha_{0}^{2}\|w\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$
and $c_{ij}$ are bounded positive constants.
**Proof:** we need to estimate $$N=\|u\|^{2}\quad and\quad D^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}Ku^{4}\theta\wedge d\theta.$$ Expanding $N$, we get $$N:=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{2}\|\delta_{i}\|^{2}+\alpha_{i}\alpha_{0} <\delta_{i},w+h>_{L_{\theta}}+\alpha_{0}(\|h\|^{2}+\|w\|^{2})+\|v\|^{2}+\sum_{i\neq j}
\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}<\delta_{i},\delta_{j}>_{L_{\theta}}.$$ It follows from \[15\] and elementary computations that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delta_{i}\|^{2}&=&S,\\
<\delta_{i},\delta_{j}>_{L_{\theta}}&=&c_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij}(1+o(1)),\ \textrm{for}\ i\neq j\ and \\
<\delta_{i},w>_{L_{\theta}}&=&c_{2}\frac{w(a_{i})}{\lambda_{i}}+o(\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
N=\gamma_{1}+2\alpha_{0}c_{2}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\frac{w(a_{i})}{\lambda_{i}}
+\alpha_{i}<\delta_{i},h>_{L_{\theta}} +\sum_{i\neq
j}\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}+
\alpha_{0}^{2}\|h\|^{2}+\|v\|^{2}+o\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}+
\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the denominator $D$, we compute it as follows $$\begin{aligned}
D^{2}&=&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\right)^{4}\theta\wedge d\theta+\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K(\alpha_{0}w)^{4}\theta\wedge d\theta+4\alpha_{0}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\right)^{3}w\theta\wedge d\theta\\
&&+4\alpha_{0}^{3}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\right)w^{3}\theta\wedge
d\theta+4\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{3}(\alpha_{0}h+v)
\theta\wedge d\theta\\
&&+12\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{2}(\alpha_{0}^{2}h^{2}
+v^{2}+2hv)\theta\wedge d\theta
+O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}w^{2}\alpha_{i}^{2}\delta_{i}^{2}\right)\\
&&+O(\|v\|^{3}+\|h\|^{3}).\end{aligned}$$ Where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\right)^{4}\theta\wedge d\theta=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}^{4}K(a_{i})S+4\sum_{i\neq j}\alpha_{i}^{3}\alpha_{j}K(a_{i})c_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij}+O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{2}}\right),\\
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}Kw^{4}\theta\wedge d\theta=\|w\|^{2},\quad \int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}Kw^{3}\delta_{i}\theta\wedge d\theta=c_{2}\frac{w(a_{i})}{\lambda_{i}}+o(\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}),\\
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}(w^{2}\alpha_{i}^{2}\delta_{i}^{2}+w^{2}\alpha_{0}^{2}\delta_{i}^{2})\theta\wedge d\theta=o(\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}),\\
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{2}hv\theta\wedge
d\theta=
O\left(\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\delta_{i}^{2}+w^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\delta_{i}\Big)|h||v|\theta\wedge d\theta\right)\\
&&\hspace{5cm}=O\left(\|h\|^{3}+\|v\|^{3}+\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{3}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $v\in T_{w}(W_{s}(w))$ and $h$ in $T_{w}(W_{u}(w))$.\
Next, we focus on the linear form in $v\in T_{w}(W_{s}(w))$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{3}v\theta\wedge
d\theta&=&
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\right)^{3}v\theta\wedge
d\theta
+O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}(\alpha_{i}^{2}\alpha_{0}\delta_{i}^{2}w+
\alpha_{i}\alpha_{0}^{2}\delta_{i}w^{2})|v|\right)\\
&=&f_{1}(v)+O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{\|v\|}{\lambda_{i}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the partial quadratic forms in $v$ and $h,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{2}h^{2}\theta\wedge d\theta=\alpha_{0}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}Kw^{2}h^{2}\theta\wedge d\theta+o(\|h\|^{2})\\
&&\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\left(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}+\alpha_{0}w\right)^{2}v^{2}\theta\wedge
d\theta=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K(\alpha_{i}\delta_{i})^{2}v^{2}\theta\wedge
d\theta+ \alpha_{0}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}Kw^{2}v^{2}\theta\wedge
d\theta+o(\|v\|^{2})\end{aligned}$$ Combining these results and the fact that $\frac{\alpha_{i}^{2}K(a_{i})}{\alpha_{j}^{2}K(a_{j})}=1+o(1)$ the proposition follows. $\Box$\
Next, we state the following result
[@Bahri; @invariant]
- $Q_1(v,v)$ is a positive definite quadratic form on $$E_v =\left\{v\in S_1^2(M) \;{\hbox{\rm such that}}\; v\in T_{\omega}(W_s(\omega)) \;{\hbox{\rm and}}\;v \;{\hbox{\rm satisfies}}(V_0)\;\right\}.$$
- $Q_2(h,h)$ is a negative definite quadratic form on $T_{\omega}(W_u(\omega)).$
[**Proof:**]{} The proof of this lemma is similar to the one given in [@Bahri; @invariant], for more details one can see the appendix of [@Gamara; @prescribed], where necessary modifications are given.$\Box$\
Using the Lemma above one can perform the expansion of the functional $J$ given in Proposition \[expansionJ(w)\] after an adequate change of variables. More precisely, we obtain
Let $u = \sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i} \hat\delta _{(a_{i} , \lambda_i)}+
\alpha_0(\omega + h) + v \in V(p,\varepsilon,\omega).$ There is an optimal $(\overline v,\overline h)$ and a change of variables $v-\overline v\rightarrow V$ and $h-\overline h\rightarrow H$ such that $$J(u)= J\left(\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_{i} \hat\delta _{(a_{i} ,
\lambda_i)}+ \alpha_0\omega + \overline h+\overline v\right) +
\|V\|^2- \|H\|^2.$$ Furthermore, we have the following estimates: $$\|\overline h\|\leq c \sum_{i=1}^p\frac{1}{\lambda_i}\quad{\rm and }\quad\|\bar{v}\| \leq c \left(\displaystyle{
\sum_{i=1}^p (\frac{|\nabla K(a_i)|}{\lambda_i}+
\frac{1}{\lambda_i^2})+\underset{k\neq
r}{\sum}\varepsilon_{kr}\sqrt{{\rm
Log}(\varepsilon_{kr}^{-1})}}\right),$$$$\begin{array}{rcl}J(u)&=&\displaystyle{\frac{S\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_i^2+\alpha_0^2\|\omega\|^2}{\sqrt{S\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_i^4K(a_i)+
\alpha_0^4\|\omega\|^2}}
\left[1-\frac{c_2\alpha_0}{\gamma_1}\sum_{i=1}^p\alpha_i\frac{\omega(a_i)}{\lambda_i}\right.}\\\\&&\displaystyle{\left.
-\frac{1}{\gamma_1}\sum_{i\neq
j}\alpha_i\alpha_jc_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij} + o\left(\sum_{i\neq
j}\varepsilon_{ij}+\sum_{i=1}^p\frac{1}{\lambda_i}\right)\right]+
\|V\|^2-\|H\|^2}
\end{array}$$
[**Proof:**]{} As done in [@Gamara; @prescribed] the proof is based on performing the expansion of the functional $J$ in the set $V(p,\varepsilon,\omega),$ to obtain self interactions and interactions between the bubbles, a linear form $f_{1}$ in $v$ (respectively $f_{2}$ in $h$ ) and a positive definite quadratic form $Q_{1}$ in $v$ (respectively a negative definite quadratic form $Q_{2}$ in $h$) as leading terms. Hence there is a a unique minimum $\overline{v}$ in the space of $v's$;(respectively a unique maximum $\overline{h}$ in the space of $h's$. Furthermore, we derive $\|\overline{h}\|\leq c \|f_2\|$ and $\|\overline{v}\|\leq c\|
f_1\|$. The estimate of $\overline{v}$ follows from Proposition \[minimum\] while the estimate of $\overline{h}$ is derived from the equivalence of the norms $\|\|_{\infty}$ and $\|\|$ in $T_{\omega}(W_u(\omega)),$ since it is a space of finite dimension. We also derive that $\|f_2\| = O(\sum\frac{1}{\lambda_i}),$ hence the result follows.$\Box$\
For the sake of completeness of the proof one can see [@Bahri; @invariant] and [@Gamara; @prescribed].\
A direct consequence of the above proposition is:
Let $K$ be a $C^2$ positive function and let $\omega$ be a non degenerate critical point of $J$ in $\Sigma^+$. Then, for each $p\in\mathbb N^{\star}$, there is no critical points or critical points at infinity in the set $V (p,\varepsilon,\omega)$, that means we can construct a pseudo gradient of $J$ so that the Palais-Smale condition is satisfied along its decreasing flow lines.
The proof follows immediately from Proposition \[expansionJ(w)\] and the fact that $\omega $ is a solution of $(1.1),$ hence strictly positive on $M.$
Morse Lemma at infinity
=======================
The Morse lemma at infinity establishes near the set of critical points at infinity of the functional $J$ a change of variables in the space $(a_{i}, \alpha_{i}, \lambda_{i}, v),$ $ 1\leq i\leq p$ to $(\widetilde{a}_{i}, \widetilde\alpha_{i}, \widetilde\lambda_{i},
V),$ $(\widetilde\alpha_{i}=\alpha_{i})$, where $V$ is a variable completely independent of $\widetilde{a}_{i}$ and $\widetilde\lambda_{i}$ such that $ J(\sum \alpha_{i}
\delta_{{a}_{i},\lambda_{i}})$ behaves like $ J(\sum \alpha_{i}
\delta_{\widetilde{a}_{i}, \widetilde\lambda_{i}}) + \|V\|^{2}.$ We define also a pseudo-gradient for the $V$ variable in the aim to make this variable disappear by setting $\frac{\partial V}{\partial s}= -\nu V$ where $\nu$ is taken to be a very large constant. Then at $s = 1,$ $V (s) = \exp(-\nu s ) V (0)$ will be as small as we wish. This shows that, in order to define our deformation, we can work as if $V$ was zero. The deformation will be extended immediately with the same properties to a neighborhood of zero in the $V$ variable.
We begin by characterizing the critical points at infinity of $J$ in the sets $V(p,\varepsilon),$ $p \geq 1$ under condition . This characterization is obtained through the construction of a suitable pseudogradient at infinity for the functional $J$ for which the Palais-Smale condition is satisfied along the decreasing flow lines as long as these flow lines do not enter in the neighborhood of a finite number of critical points $\xi_{i}; 1\leq i \leq p$ in $\mathcal K_{2}$ or such that $(\xi_{i},... , \xi_{p})\in \mathcal
K_{1}^{+}.$
**Construction of the pseudo gradient**
-----------------------------------------
This subsection is devoted to the construction of the pseudo gradient for the functional $J.$ It was extracted from [@G-H], where a complete and detailed description of the construction of the pseudo gradient is given.\
$\bullet$ In the set $V (1,\varepsilon),$ we have the following result:
\[V1\] Assume that $K$ satisfies the **$\beta-$flatness condition** and condition $\mathbf{(C)}$ and let\
$\beta := \max\{\beta(\xi_i),\ \xi_i
\;\text{verifying}\; \eqref{3'}\}$. Then, there exists a pseudo gradient $W$ and a constant $c > 0$ independent of $u =
\alpha\delta _{(a,\lambda)}\in V(1,\varepsilon),$ $\varepsilon$ small enough such that, if we denote $\overline{u}=u+ \overline{v},$ we have
1. $-J'(u)(W)\,\geq c ({\displaystyle}\frac{|\nabla K(a)|}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{\beta}}).$
2. $- J'(\bar{u})(W+{\displaystyle}\frac{\partial \bar{v}}{\partial(\alpha,a,\lambda)}(W))\;\geq c\,({\displaystyle}\frac{|\nabla K(a)|}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{\beta}}).$
3. $|W|$ is bounded. Furthermore, $\lambda$ is an increasing function along the flow lines generated by $W$, only if $a$ is close to a critical point $\xi_i\in \mathcal
K_1\cup\mathcal K_2.$
$\bullet$ In the set $V(p, \varepsilon),$ $p\geq 2,$ we obtain:
\[fieldW\] Assume that $K$ satisfies the **$\beta-$flatness condition** and condition $\mathbf{(C)}$ and let\
$\beta := \max\{\beta(\xi_i),\ \xi_i\
\text{verifying}\ \eqref{3'}\}$. For any $p\geq 2$, there exists a pseudo gradient $W$ so that the following hold:\
there is a positive constant $c$ independent of $u =\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta _{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}\in V(p,
\varepsilon),$ $\varepsilon$ small enough such that, if we denote $\overline{u}=u+ \overline{v},$ we have
1. $-J'(u)(W)\,\geq c ({\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{|\nabla K(a_{i})|}{\lambda_{i}}+ \sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{\beta}}+\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij})$\
2. $- J'(\bar{u})(W+{\displaystyle}\frac{\partial \bar{v}}{\partial(\alpha,a,\lambda)}(W))\;\geq c\,(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{|\nabla K(a_{i})|}{\lambda_{i}}+ \sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{\beta}}+ \sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij})$\
3. $|W|$ is bounded. Furthermore, the only cases where the maximum of the $\lambda_i's$ is not bounded is when the concentration points $(a_1, \ldots, a_p)$ satisfy: each point $a_j$ is close to a critical point $\xi_{i_j}$ of $K$ in the set $\mathcal K_1$ with $i_j \neq i_k$ for $j \neq k$ and $\varrho(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}}) > 0$, where $\varrho(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})$ is the least eigenvalue of $M(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}}).$
**Morse Lemma**
---------------
Once the pseudo gradient is constructed, following [@Bahri; @invariant] and [@Gamara; @prescribed], we establish our Morse Lemma at infinity: we can find a change of variables which gives the normal form of the functional $J$ on the subsets $V(p,\varepsilon).$ We obtain the following result:
\[V2\]
For $\xi \in \mathcal{K}_1\cup\mathcal K_2,$ there exists a change of variables in the set $ \{ \alpha\delta_{(a,\lambda)} + v: a $ is close to $\xi \}$, $v - \overline{v} \longmapsto V
\quad\text{and}\quad (a, \lambda) \longmapsto (\widetilde{a},
\widetilde{\lambda})$ such that in these new variables the functional $J$ behaves as $$\begin{aligned}
J(\alpha\delta _{(a,\lambda)} + v) =
\frac{S}{K(\tilde{a})^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\left(1+c(1-\mu)\frac{\Gamma(\xi)}{\tilde{\lambda}^{\gamma(\xi)}}\right)+\|V\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is a small positive constant and $$\begin{array}{rclrcl}\gamma(\xi) &=&\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cl} 2 \quad& \text{if}\;\;\xi \in \mathcal K_1\\
\beta \quad&\text{if}\;\; \xi \in \mathcal K_2
\end{array}\right.; &\Gamma(\xi)&=&\begin{array}{cl} {\displaystyle}-\sum_{k=1}^{2} b_{k}+\kappa' b_{0} \quad& \text{if}\;\;\xi \in \mathcal K_1\cup\mathcal K_2\\
\end{array}
\end{array}$$
The proof is similar to the one given in [@Bahri; @invariant; @B; @C; @C; @H; @Gamara; @prescribed], so we omit it here.\
As a consequence of Proposition \[V1\], we obtain:
\[p=1\]Let $K$ be a positive function on $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ satisfying the **$\beta-$flatness condition** and condition $\mathbf{(C)}.$ The only critical points at infinity in $V(1,
\varepsilon)$ are $\xi_{\infty}$ where $\xi\in\mathcal
K_1\cup\mathcal K_2$. The Morse index $i(\xi_\infty)$ of such a critical point is equal to $$\begin{array}{rcl}i(\xi_\infty) &=& 3-m(\xi)\\
\end{array}$$
If $p\geq 2,$ we have the following result:
[@Gamara; @prescribed]
For any $u=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta _{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}\in
V(p, \varepsilon_{1}),$ $(\varepsilon_{1}< \frac{\varepsilon}{2}),$ each $a_{i}$ close to a critical point $\xi\in\mathcal K_1,$ we find a change of variables in the space $(a_{i}, \alpha_{i}, \lambda_{i},
v),$ $ 1\leq i\leq p$ to $(\widetilde{a}_{i}, \widetilde\alpha_{i},
\widetilde\lambda_{i}, V),$ $(\widetilde\alpha_{i}=\alpha_{i})$, such that
$$\;\;\;\;\qquad J(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta _{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}
+ \overline{v}(\alpha, a, \lambda))= J(\sum_{i=1}^{p}
\alpha_{i}{\delta}_{\widetilde{a}_{i}, \widetilde\lambda_{i}})$$
with $$\label{property1} \sum_{i\neq j}
\widetilde{\varepsilon}_{ij}+
\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\widetilde\lambda_{i}^{2}}\longrightarrow 0
\Leftrightarrow \sum_{i\neq j}{\varepsilon}_{ij}+ \sum_{i}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{2}}\longrightarrow 0.$$ and $$\label{property2} \| \widetilde{a}_{i}- a_{i}
\| \longrightarrow 0\;\; \text{as}\;\; \sum_{i\neq
j}{\varepsilon}_{ij}+
\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{2}}\longrightarrow 0$$
As a consequence of proposition \[fieldW\], we obtain:
\[p\] The only critical points at infinity in $ V(p, \varepsilon),$ $p\geq 2$ are: $\xi_{\infty}=(\xi_{i_1},\ldots , \xi_{i_p} )_{\infty}$ such that the matrix $M(\xi_{i_1},\ldots , \xi_{i_p}) $ defined in $\eqref{4}$ is positive definite, where the $\xi_{i_j}'s$ are critical points of $K$ in the set $\mathcal K_1 $ and $i_j \neq i_k$ for $j \neq k.$ Such a critical point at Infinity has a Morse index equal to $$i(\xi_{\infty})= i(\xi_{i_1},\ldots , \xi_{i_p})_{\infty}= 4p-1-
\sum_{j=1}^p m(\xi_{i_{j}})$$
$\Box$
Proofs of Theorem \[existence\] and Theorem \[multiplicity\]
============================================================
**Proof of Theorem \[existence\]**\
Following [@G-G-A] and [@Gamara; @Riahi; @multiplicity], let $\mathcal K_{\infty}$ be the set of all critical points at infinity of $J$ and $L_0$ be their maximal Morse index given in (\[L0\]). We define for $0\leq l\leq L_0$ the following sets: $$X^{\infty}_{l}=\bigcup_{\xi_\infty\in\mathcal{K}_{\infty};\;M(\xi_{\infty})\leq l}\overline {W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi_{\infty})}$$ where $W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi_{\infty})$ is the unstable manifold associated to the critical point at infinity $\xi_{\infty}$. By a theorem of Bahri and Rabinowitz [@B-R], we have: $$\overline{W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi_{\infty})}=W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi_{\infty})
\cup\bigcup_{\xi'_{\infty}<\xi_{\infty}}W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi'_{\infty})
\cup\bigcup_{\omega<\xi_{\infty}}W_{u}(\omega),$$ where $\xi'_{\infty}$ is a critical point at infinity dominated by $\xi_{\infty}$ and $\omega$ is a solution of $(1.1)$ dominated by $\xi_{\infty}.$ Hence, $$X^{\infty}_{l}=\bigcup_{\xi_{\infty}\in\mathcal K_{\infty};M(\xi_{\infty})\leq l}\Big(W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi_{\infty})
\cup\bigcup_{\omega<\xi_{\infty}}W_{u}(\omega)\Big)$$ It follows that $X_{l}^{\infty}$ is a stratified set of top dimension $\leq l$. Without loss of generality, we may assume it equal to $l.$ Now, we consider the cone based on $X^{\infty}_{l}$ of vertex $(\xi_{0})_{\infty}$ where $\xi_{0}$ is a global maximum of $K$ on $\mathbb{S}^{3}:$ $$C(X^{\infty}_{l} ):= X^{\infty}_{l}\times [0, 1]\big/ (x,1)\sim
(y,1), \ x, y\in X^{\infty}_{l}$$ The cone $C(X^{\infty}_{l})$ is a stratified set of top dimension $l+1$. Next, we use the vector field $-\partial J$ to deform $C(X^{\infty}_{l}).$ During this deformation and based on transversality arguments, we assume that we can avoid the stable manifolds of all critical points as well as critical points at infinity having their Morse indices greater than $l+2$. It follows, by a Theorem of Bahri and Rabinowitz [@B-R], that $C(X^{\infty}_{l})$ retracts by deformation on the set $$U^{\infty}:=X^{\infty}_{l}\cup\bigcup_{M(\xi'_{\infty})=l+1}W_{u}^{\infty}(\xi'_{\infty})
\cup\bigcup_{\omega;\;\omega\ \textrm{dominated by}\
C(X^{\infty}_{l})}\;W_{u}(\omega)$$ Now, taking $l=k-1$ and using the assumption that there are no critical points at infinity with index k, we derive that $C(X^{\infty}_{k-1})$ retracts by deformation onto $$\label{40}
Z^{\infty}_{k}:=X^{\infty}_{k-1}\cup\bigcup_{\omega;\;\omega\
\textrm{dominated by}\ C(X^{\infty}_{k-1})}\;W_{u}(\omega)$$ Using the deformation above, problem $\eqref{1}$ has necessary a solution $\omega$ with $morse(\omega)\leq k$. Otherwise it follows from $\eqref{40}$ that $$1=\sum_{\xi_{\infty}\in\mathcal{K}_{\infty};\,M(\xi_{\infty})\leq k-1}(-1)^{M(\xi_{\infty})}=\displaystyle\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\xi\in \mathcal K_{2}\\ m(\xi)\geq 4-k\end{array}}(-1)^{m(\xi)+1}+\;\;
\sum_{p=1}^{l^{+}}\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l}(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal K^{+}\\
i(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})\leq k-1 \end{array}}}
(-1)^{i(\xi_{i_{1}},...,\xi_{i_{p}})}$$ Obviously this formula contradicts the first assumption of the theorem.
$\square$
**Proof of Theorem $\ref{multiplicity}$** Let us denote by $\mathcal{S}_{k}$ the set of solutions of problem $(1.1)$ having their morse indices less than or equal to $k.$ We derive from $\eqref{40}$, taking the Euler characteristic of its both sides, that: $$1=\sum_{\xi_{\infty}\in\mathcal{K}_{\infty};\;M(\xi_{\infty})\leq k-1}(-1)^{M(\xi_{\infty})}+\sum_{\omega< C(X^{\infty}_{k-1})}(-1)^{morse(\omega)}$$ It follows that $$\left|1-\sum_{\xi_{\infty}\in\mathcal{K}_{\infty};\,M(\xi_{\infty})\leq k-1}(-1)^{M(\xi_{\infty})}\right|\leq\#\mathcal{S}_{k}.$$ The result follows.\
$\square$
If we let $k= L_{0}+ 1,$ in Theorem \[existence\] the second assumption of this theorem is obviously satisfied and we obtain under this condition the following
\[maxexistence\] Let $K$ be as in Theorem \[existence\] such that:
$$\sum_{\xi\in \mathcal K_{2}}(-1)^{m(\xi)+1}+
\sum_{p=1}^{l^{+}}\sum_{(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal
K_{1}^{+}}
(-1)^{i(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})}\neq 1$$\
Then, there exists at least one solution of $\eqref{1}.$\
$\square$
This result generalizes the existence results due to Gamara and Riahi in [@Gamara; @Riahi; @interplay] and the multiplicity results due to the same authors in [@Gamara; @Riahi; @multiplicity] and finally recovers the existence results of Gamara and Hafassa in [@G-H]. Moreover, if we denote $\mathcal{S}$ the set of all the solutions of $\eqref{1},$ we obtain the following lower bound for $\mathcal{S}$
\[maxmultiplicity\] $$\#\mathcal{S}\geq\left|1+{\displaystyle}\sum_{\xi\in \mathcal
K_{2}}(-1)^{m(\xi)}-
\sum_{p=1}^{l^{+}}\sum_{(\xi_{i_{1}},.,\xi_{i_{p}})\in \mathcal
K_{1}^{+}} (-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^p m(\xi_{i_{j}})}\right|$$
$\square$
Appendix
========
Without loss of generality, we can assume for $p\geq 2$ that $\lambda_{1}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{ p}.$ Given $N$ a large positive constant, we define: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&:=&\left\{1\right\}\cup\left\{i\leq p:\lambda_k\leq
N\lambda_{k-1}\;\; \forall k\leq i\right \},\label{30}\\
I_2&:=&\left\{i\in I_1: a_i \;\hbox{{\rm is close to a critical
point}}\; \xi_{k_i}\;{\rm satisfying}\; \eqref{3'}\;{\rm with}\;
\beta > 2\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The set $I_1$ contains the indices $i$ such that $\lambda_i$ and $\lambda_1$ are of the same order.\
We denote by $V(p, \varepsilon)_{1}$ the subset of $V(p,\varepsilon)$ composed of the functions $u=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta
_{{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}}$ such that\
$\forall i\in I_1, \;\lambda_{i}
|\nabla_{\theta} K(a_{i}) | \leq 2 C^{'},
\;\sum_{j\neq k}\varepsilon_{jk}\leq{\displaystyle}\frac{C}{\lambda_{1}^{2}}, \
C \text{ and } C' \text{ are positive constants}
\text{ and } I_2= \emptyset.$ Following the work done in [@Gamara; @prescribed], we obtain the following expansion of the functional $J$ in $ V(p, \varepsilon)_{1}.$\
\[expansionJ\] There exists $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that, for any $u =
\overset{p}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}
\alpha_{i}\delta_{a_{i,}\lambda_{i}} + v \in V(p,\varepsilon)_{1}$, $\varepsilon < \varepsilon_{0}$, $v$ satisfying $(V_{0})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
J(u) &=&\frac{\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}^{2}}{[\sum
\alpha_{i}^{4}K(a_{i})]^{1/2}}S \Big[1 - \frac{c}{
2S^{2}}\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}
\frac{\alpha_{i}^{4}}{\overset{p}{\underset{k=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{k}^{4}K(a_{k})}
\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{2} b_{k}+\kappa' b_{0}}{\lambda_{i}^{2}} \\
&& \quad + \; S^{-2}\sum_{i\neq
j}c_{0}^{4}\frac{\omega_{3}}{4}\varepsilon_{ij}
(\frac{\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}}{\overset{p}{\underset{k=1}{\sum}}
\alpha_{k}^{2}} -
\frac{2\alpha_{i}^{3}\alpha_{j}K(a_{i})}{\overset{p}{\underset{k=1}{\sum}} \alpha_{k}^{4}K(a_{k})})\\
&&\qquad +\;\; f(v) + Q(v,v) + o(\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij}) +
o(\| v \|^{2}_{\theta_{1}})\Big],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
f(v) &=& - \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\big(
\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}
\alpha_{i}\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}} \big)^{3}v\;\theta_{1}\wedge d
\theta_{1},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
Q(v,v) = \frac{1}{\gamma_{2}} \|v\|^{2}_{L_{\theta_{1}}} -
\frac{3}{\gamma_{1}}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{3}}K\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}^{2}
\delta_{a_{i},\lambda_{i}}^{2}v^{2}\;\theta_{1}\wedge d \theta_{1},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{1} =
S^{2}\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}^{4}K(a_{i})\;,\;\;\;
\gamma_{2} = S^{2}\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}^{2}\;.\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore $\| f \|_{\theta_{1}}$ is bounded
$$\begin{aligned}
\| f \|_{\theta_{1}} &=&
O\Big(\overset{p}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}(\frac{|\nabla
K(a_{i})|}{\lambda_{i}} + \frac{1}{\lambda_{i}^{2}}) + \sum_{i\neq
j}\varepsilon_{ij}(\log
\varepsilon_{ij}^{-1})^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big),\;\; \text{if }\; K
\;\text{satisfies }\;(\ref{3'}).\end{aligned}$$
For a proof we refer to [@G-H].
$\square$
Next, we will give the expansions of the gradient of the functional $J $ which is the key of the Morse Lemma. Since the vector field $W$ is a variation of ${\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\in
V(p,\varepsilon)$ $(p\geq 2),$ hence we will expand $ J^{\prime}(u)(
{\displaystyle}\lambda_j\frac{\partial\delta_j}{\partial\lambda_j}),$ $J^{\prime}(u)(
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\frac{\partial\delta_j}{\partial a_j})$ and $ J^{\prime}(u)(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}}(D_{j})_{k}\delta_{j}),$ for $k=1, 2$ and $
J^{\prime}(u)(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{2}}(D_{j})_{0}\delta_{j})$ in the case where the concentration point $a_{j},$ $j\in \{1,
2,...p\}$ is close to a critical point $\xi_j$ of $K$ verifying $\eqref{3'}.$ We follow the lines of the method used in [@Gamara; @prescribed] and [@G-G-A]. Some of the following results are extracted from [@Gamara; @Riahi; @multiplicity].\
For the sake of simplicity, we will use the notation $\delta _{j}$ instead of $\delta _{a_{j},\lambda_{j}}.$ Let $u={\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}\delta_{i}\in V(p,\varepsilon),$ we have
\[GradJ0\][@Gamara; @prescribed]
1. $-J^{\prime}(u)( {\displaystyle}\lambda_j\frac{\partial \delta_j}{\partial\lambda_j})=
2 J(u)\left[{\displaystyle}\sum_{i\neq j}c\alpha_i\lambda_j{\displaystyle}\frac{\partial\varepsilon_{ij}}{\partial \lambda_j}(1+o(1))
- {\displaystyle}\frac{\omega_3}{24}\alpha_j{\displaystyle}\frac{\triangle K(a_j)}{K(a_j)\lambda_j^2}(1+o(1))\right.$\
$\left.\hspace*{4,5cm} +o\left (\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij}\right)\right]$
2. $-J^{\prime}(u)( {\displaystyle}\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\frac{\partial \delta_j}{\partial a_j})=2 J(u)\left[ {\displaystyle}\frac{\alpha_j}{K(a_j)}\frac{\omega_3}{48}{\displaystyle}\frac{\nabla K(a_j)}{\lambda_j}(1+o(1))+ O\left (\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij}+\frac{1}{\lambda_j^2}\right)\right]$ $\Box$
If there exists a point $a_{j},$ $j\in \{1, 2,...p\}$ close to a critical point $\xi_j$ of $K$ verifying $\eqref{3'}$, then the estimates in the above proposition can be improved see [@G-H] and we obtain:
\[GradJFlatness\]
1. For $k\in\{1,2\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& J^{\prime}(u)(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}}(D_{j})_{k}\delta_{j})=
-4J(u)^{3}\alpha_{j}^{4}\frac{c_{0}^{4}}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}
\Big[b_{k}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{|x_{k}+\lambda_{j}(a_{j})_{k}|^{\beta}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{6}}x_{k}\left(1+|z|^{2}\right)\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0}\\
&&\hspace{2cm}+b_{0}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{|t+\lambda_{j}^{2}(a_{j})_{0}+
2\lambda_{j}(x_{2}(a_{j})_{1}-x_{2}(a_{j})_{1})|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{6}}\left(x_{k}(1+|z|^{2})+(-1)^{k'}x_{k'}t\right)\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0}\Big]\\
&&\hspace{2cm}+o\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}\right)
+O\left(\sum_{i\neq j}\varepsilon_{ij}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& J^{\prime}(u)(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{2}}(D_{j})_{0}\delta_{j})=
-4J(u)^{3}\alpha_{j}^{4}\frac{c_{0}^{4}}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}
b_{0}\int_{\mathbb{H}^{1}}\frac{\Big|t+\lambda_{j}^{2}(a_{j})_{0}+
2\lambda_{j}(x_{2}(a_{j})_{1}-x_{2}(a_{j})_{1})\Big|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}}
{\Big|1+|z|^{2}-it\Big|^{6}}t\theta_{0}\wedge d\theta_{0}\\
&&\hspace{3.7cm}+o\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}\right)
+O\left(\sum_{i\neq j} \varepsilon_{ij}\right).\end{aligned}$$
2. If we assume that $\lambda_{j}|a_{j}|\leq \mu$, where $\mu$ is a small positive constant, then $$J^{\prime}(u)(\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}} \frac{\partial\delta_{j}}{\partial\lambda_{j}})=-2c_{4}J(u)\sum_{i\neq j}\alpha_{i}\lambda_{j}\frac{\partial \varepsilon _{ij}}{
\partial \lambda _{j}}+c_{5}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{2}b_{i}+\kappa b_{0}}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}+
o\left(\sum_{k\neq
r}\varepsilon_{kr}+\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{\beta}}\right)$$$\Box$
[99]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**New complex analytic methods in the theory of minimal surfaces: a survey**]{}
[**Antonio Alarcón and Franc Forstnerič**]{}
> [**Abstract**]{} In this paper we survey recent developments in the classical theory of minimal surfaces in Euclidean spaces which have been obtained as applications of both classical and modern complex analytic methods; in particular, Oka theory, period dominating holomorphic sprays, gluing methods for holomorphic maps, and the Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem. Emphasis is on results pertaining to the global theory of minimal surfaces, in particular, the Calabi-Yau problem, constructions of properly immersed and embedded minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and in minimally convex domains of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, results on the complex Gauss map, isotopies of conformal minimal immersions, and the analysis of the homotopy type of the space of all conformal minimal immersions from a given open Riemann surface.
>
> [**Keywords**]{} Minimal surface, Riemann surface, Oka manifold.
>
> [**Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)**]{} 53A10, 32B15, 32E30, 32H02
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
An immersed surface $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ in the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space $(n\ge 3)$ is said to be a [*minimal surface*]{} if it is locally area minimizing, meaning that sufficiently small pieces of the surface have the smallest area among all surfaces with the same boundary. Such surfaces were first studied by Euler in 1744 who showed that the only area minimizing surfaces of rotation are planes and catenoids. The subject was taken up by Lagrange in 1760 who studied the area functional and came up with the differential equation of minimal graphs in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. It was discovered by Meusnier in 1776 that a surface is minimal if and only if its mean curvature vector field ${\mathbf H} \colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ vanishes identically. Plateau pointed out in 1873 that minimal surfaces appear naturally as soap films, and Douglas [@Douglas1932TAMS] and Rad[ó]{} [@Rado1930AM] independently proved in 1932 that every Jordan curve in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ spans a minimal surface.
The influence of complex analysis in the study of minimal surfaces was apparent already in the third quarter of the 19th century when Enneper and Weierstrass provided an analytic formula for representing any minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The so-called [*Enneper-Weierstrass representation formula*]{} relies on the fact that for an isometric immersion $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ from a Riemannian surface $M$ (a smooth surface endowed with a Riemannian metric), the metric Laplacian of the immersion equals two times its mean curvature vector: $$\Delta X=(\Delta X_1,\ldots, \Delta X_n)=2 \mathbf H.$$ Since the vanishing of the Laplacian depends only on the conformal class of the metric, it follows that a conformal (angle preserving) immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ from a Riemann surface $M$ is minimal if and only if it is harmonic, $\Delta X=0$; equivalently, the $(1,0)$-derivative ${\partial}X=({\partial}X_1,\ldots,{\partial}X_n)$ is a holomorphic ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued $1$-form. Furthermore, $X$ is conformal if and only if ${\partial}X$ satisfies the null equation $$\label{eq:null1}
({\partial}X_1)^2 + ({\partial}X_2)^2 + \cdots + ({\partial}X_n)^2 = 0.$$ (See Sect. \[ss:null\].) This reduces the construction of oriented conformal minimal surfaces $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to the construction of holomorphic maps from the Riemann surface $M$ to the subvariety ${\mathfrak{A}}^{n-1}$ of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ defined by the equation $z_1^2+z_2^2+\cdots +z_n^2=0$, the [*null quadric*]{} (see ). This is the basis for the Enneper-Weierstrass formula; see Theorem \[th:EW\] and . The analogous formula applies to [*null holomorphic immersions*]{} $Z=(Z_1,\ldots, Z_n)\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$, i.e., holomorphic immersions satisfying $$(dZ_1)^2 + (dZ_2)^2 + \cdots + (d Z_n)^2 = 0.$$ Every conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is locally (on any simply connected subset of $M$) the real part of a null holomorphic immersion into ${\mathbb{C}}^n$; conversely, the real and the imaginary part of any null holomorphic immersion $M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ are conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$. See Sect. \[ss:flux\] for more details.
In the mid-20th century Osserman [@Osserman1986book] renewed the interest in the theory of minimal surfaces by showing in particular that the Enneper-Weierstrass representation formula is very useful for the construction of complete minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with finite total curvature. This was the true starting point for the study of the global theory of minimal surfaces by complex analytic methods. However, as late as in the 1980’s the prevailing thought was that hyperbolic Riemann surfaces (i.e., those carrying nonconstant negative subharmonic functions) play only a marginal role in the global theory of minimal surfaces. This belief was partially refuted by the pioneering works of Jorge and Xavier [@JorgeXavier1980AM] from 1980, Nadirashvili [@Nadirashvili1996IM] from 1996, and Morales [@Morales2003GAFA] from 2003 which combined the Enneper-Weierstrass formula with the classical Runge approximation theorem for holomorphic functions.
Nevertheless, the true power and versatility of this approach was revealed only in the last few years by bringing into the picture some of the more powerful complex analytic methods originating in Oka theory (which amounts to holomorphic approximation techniques combined with a nonlinear version of the ${\overline\partial}$-problem), and by adapting the classical Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem to the constructions of conformal minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and holomorphic null curves in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. One of the key advantages of these stronger complex analytic methods over the classical ones is that they allow a more precise control of the placement of the whole surface in the space. This enabled the authors, often in collaboration with B. Drinovec Drnovšek and F. J. López, to construct minimal surfaces with interesting global properties and with the complete control of the conformal stucture on the surface. In other words, not only it is now possible to find minimal surfaces with interesting global properties and with prescribed topological type, one can also control their conformal (holomorphic) type, a major advance in the theory.
The goal of this article is to present these recent developments in a way that is accessible not only to researchers, but also to graduate students in both the field of minimal surfaces and in complex analysis. What transpires from our narrative is that these two fields are much more closely intertwined than believed up to now, with major influences going in both directions. On the one hand, complex analytic methods are a powerful tool in the classical minimal surface theory; on the other hand, many questions about minimal surfaces lead to analogous questions about complex curves. Several lines of thought have been pursued separately by researchers in these two fields without having been aware of the analogies and synergies. Other problems have been considered only in one field and overlooked in the other one, even though they are perfectly natural and interesting in both fields.
Let us consider an example. It has been known since the early 1960’s that every open Riemann surface embeds properly holomorphically into ${\mathbb{C}}^3$ (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 2.4.1]; this is a special case of the Bishop-Narasimhan-Remmert embedding theorem for Stein manifolds). However, the question whether every such surface embeds as a smooth closed complex curve in the complex Euclidean plane ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ remains one of the most difficult open problems of complex analysis, known as the [*Forster Conjecture*]{} [@Forster1970] or the [*Bell-Narasimhan Conjecture*]{} [@BellNarasimhan1990EMS]. On the minimal surfaces side, there is the equally natural problem of determining the smallest dimension $d\ge 3$ for which every open Riemann surface embeds as a proper conformal minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Since every complex curve in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ is also a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ by Wirtinger [@Wirtinger1936MMP], we have $d\le 6$. The following recent result says in particular that $d\le 5$.
\[th:I-properRn\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface.
- There is a proper conformal minimal immersion $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$. Moreover, proper immersions are dense in the space of all conformal minimal immersions $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$ (in the compact-open topology).
- There is a proper conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^4$ with simple double points, and such immersions are dense in the space of all conformal minimal immersions $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^4$.
- There is a proper conformal minimal embedding $M{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}^5$. Moreover, proper conformal minimal embeddings are dense in the space of all conformal minimal immersions $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ for any $n\ge 5$.
Part (a) is due to Alarcón and López [@AlarconLopez2012JDG; @AlarconLopez2014TAMS], while parts (b) and (c) were proved in 2016 by the authors and López [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ]. A more precise result in this direction is Theorem \[th:SSY\] which provides conformal minimal immersions and embeddings with a proper projection to a coordinate $2$-plane, thereby giving an optimal negative answer to both Schoen-Yau’s and Sullivan’s conjectures (see Sect. \[ss:SullivanSchoenYau\]).
It is known that only a few open Riemann surfaces embed as proper minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ (see e.g. [@LopezRos1991JDG; @Collin1997AM; @CollinKusnerMeeksRosenberg2004JDG; @MeeksRosenberg2005AM; @MeeksPerezRos2015AM]), so the smallest embedding dimension for open Riemann surfaces as minimal surfaces satisfies $d\ge 4$. This leaves us with the question whether $d=4$ or $d=5$. An affirmative answer to the Forster-Bell-Narasimhan Conjecture would imply $d=4$. In the last decade, powerful new methods for constructing proper holomorphic embeddings of open Riemann surfaces into ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ have been developed by Wold and Forstnerič, using the technique of exposing boundary points and pushing the boundary of the surface in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ to infinity by holomorphic automorphisms; see the recent survey in [@Forstneric2017E Chap. 9]. For example, every circular domain in ${\mathbb{C}}$ embeds properly holomorphically into ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ [@ForstnericWold2013APDE]. These results, along with the absence of any conceptual obstructions, speak in favor of the Forster-Bell-Narasimhan Conjecture. Since minimal surfaces are more abundant than complex curves, the following conjecture has an even better chance.
\[conj:AF\] Every open Riemann surface admits a proper conformal minimal embedding into ${\mathbb{R}}^4$.
On the other hand, every open Riemann surface which is known to properly embed as a conformal minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$ is also known to properly embed as a complex curve in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$, the main reason being that no automorphisms of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ other than the rigid motions preserve map minimal surfaces to minimal surfaces.
Another example where the analogies between the fields of complex analysis and minimal surfaces become even more apparent is the problem of constructing complete bounded minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ (the Calabi-Yau problem) and complete bounded complex submanifolds in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ (Yang’s problem). We describe this topic briefly, referring to Sect. \[ss:CY\] for a more complete presentation.
Recall that an immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ from an open manifold $M$ is said to be [*complete*]{} if the pullback $g=X^*(ds^2)$ of the Euclidean metric on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by the immersion is a complete Riemannian metric on $M$; equivalently, given any divergent path $\gamma\colon [0,1)\to M$ (meaning that the point $\gamma(t)$ leaves every compact subset of $M$ as $t$ approaches $1$), the path $t\mapsto X(\gamma(t))\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ has infinite Euclidean length in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
The [*Calabi-Yau problem for minimal hypersurfaces*]{} asks whether there exist complete bounded minimal hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n\ge 3$. Calabi conjectured that such hypersurfaces do not exist (see [@Calabi1965Conjecture p. 170]). The first counterexample was given in 1996 by Nadirashvili [@Nadirashvili1996IM] who constructed a complete bounded immersed minimal disc in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. A plethora of results followed extending Nadirashvili’s construction to more general surfaces; see Sect. \[ss:CY\]. However, with the techniques available at that time it was impossible to control the conformal structure or the boundary behavior of the examples. The following considerably more precise result was proved in 2015 by the authors together with Drinovec Drnovšek and López [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS Theorem 1.1].
\[th:I-complete\] For every compact bordered Riemann surface $M$ and integer $n\ge 3$ there is a continuous map $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ whose restriction to the interior $\mathring M=M\setminus bM$ is a complete conformal minimal immersion $X\colon \mathring M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$. If $n\ge 5$ then $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ can be chosen a topological embedding.
If $X$ is as in the theorem, then $X(M)$ is a complete minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ bounded by finitely many Jordan curves, and we have a control of its conformal structure.
One of the tools that made this construction possible is the adaptation of the Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem to null holomorphic curves and conformal minimal immersions (see Sects. \[ss:RHcomplex\] and \[ss:RH\]). This topic was started by the authors [@AlarconForstneric2015MA] in dimension $n=3$. A more general result in any dimension $n\ge 3$ was obtained by the authors together with Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek and López [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS]. We showed that one can increase the intrinsic boundary distance in the Riemann surface $M$ by an arbitrarily big amount by changing the conformal minimal immersion $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ as little as desired in the ${\mathscr{C}}^0$-norm (see Lemma \[lem:Jordan\]). This is achieved by applying the Riemann-Hilbert method in a certain spiralling construction, somewhat resembling Nash’s method [@Nash1954] of constructing ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ isometric immersions of Riemannian manifolds into Euclidean spaces. The same technique applies to complex curves in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ for any $n\ge 2$, to holomorphic null curves in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ for any $n\ge 3$, and to holomorphic Legendrian curves in complex contact manifolds, thereby yielding an analogue of Theorem \[th:I-complete\] in that setting (see [@AlarconForstneric2017IMRN; @AlarconForstnericLopez2017CM]).
On the other hand, Calabi’s original conjecture holds for embedded minimal surfaces of finite topology in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ since these are necessarily proper in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ according to Colding and Minicozzi [@ColdingMinicozzi2008AM Corollary 0.13]; their result was extended to surfaces of finite genus and countably many ends by Meeks, Pérez, and Ros [@MeeksPerezRos-CY]. Nothing seems known about Calabi’s conjecture in dimensions $n>3$.
The analogous problem in complex analysis was raised in 1977 by Yang [@Yang1977] who asked whether there exist complete bounded complex submanifolds in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. The first such examples were found in 1979 by Jones [@Jones1979PAMS] who showed that the unit disc ${\mathbb D}=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}:|z|<1\}$ admits a complete bounded holomorphic immersion into ${\mathbb{C}}^2$, embedding into ${\mathbb{C}}^3$, and proper embedding into the ball of ${\mathbb{C}}^4$. Interest in this subject was revived only recently, due mainly to the influence of the developments in minimal surface theory. In 2013 the authors showed in [@AlarconForstneric2013MA] that every bordered Riemann surface admits a complete proper holomorphic immersion into the ball of ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ and embedding into the ball of ${\mathbb{C}}^3$. A flurry of recent activity followed and we refer to [@Forstneric2017E Sect. 4.18] for a survey. Contrary to the case of minimal hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n>3$, complete bounded complex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ exist in arbitrary dimension $n\ge 2$; see Alarcón and López [@AlarconLopez2016JEMS] for $n=2$ and Globevnik [@Globevnik2015AM] for any $n$. Indeed, Globevnik showed in [@Globevnik2015AM] that the ball ${\mathbb{B}}^n$ of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ can be foliated by complete closed complex hypersurfaces, and subsequently Alarcón [@Alarcon2018] proved that every smooth complete complex hypersurface in ${\mathbb{B}}^n$ can be embedded into a [*nonsingular*]{} holomorphic foliation of ${\mathbb{B}}^n$ all of whose leaves are complete.
Another classical topic of minimal surface theory is to understand which Riemann surfaces properly immerse or embed as conformal minimal surfaces in a given domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$. The case $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^n$ is covered by Theorem \[th:I-properRn\]. When considering minimal surfaces in proper domains $\Omega \subsetneq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, especially bounded ones, one must restrict attention to surfaces of hyperbolic conformal type. Classically this problem was studied for [*convex*]{} domains (see [@MartinMorales2005DMJ]). The authors, jointly with Drinovec Drnovšek and López, proved in [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS] that every bordered Riemann surface admits a complete proper conformal minimal immersion into any convex domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, which can be chosen an embedding if $n\ge 5$ and an immersion with simple double points if $n=4$. The Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem for conformal minimal immersions (see Theorem \[th:RHCMI\]) plays a major role in our proof. It provides an inductive construction by which all of the surface is kept inside $\Omega$ at every step, pushing its boundary closer and closer to $b\Omega$.
In the subsequent work [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] of the same authors this result was extended to the substantially bigger class of all [*minimally convex*]{} (also called [*$2$-convex*]{}) domains. A domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is minimally convex if it admits a smooth exhaustion function $\rho\colon \Omega\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that the smallest two eigenvalues $\lambda_1(x),\lambda_2(x)$ of its Hessian $H_\rho(x)=\left(\frac{{\partial}^2 \rho(x)}{{\partial}x_j{\partial}x_k}\right)$ at any point $x\in\Omega$ satisfy $\lambda_1(x)+\lambda_2(x)>0$. If $\Omega$ is smoothly bounded and $\nu_1(x)\le \nu_2(x)\le\cdots\le \nu_{n-1}(x)$ are the principal curvatures of the boundary $b\Omega$ at the point $x\in b\Omega$ from the inner side, then $\Omega$ is minimally convex if and only if $\nu_1(x) + \nu_2(x)\ge 0$ holds for every $x\in b\Omega$. In particular, if $n=3$ and $S$ is a properly embedded minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ (in which case $\nu_1(x) + \nu_2(x)=0$ holds identically on $S$), then each connected component of ${\mathbb{R}}^3\setminus S$ is a 2-convex domain. The following main result in this direction is [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Theorem 1.1] (see Sect. \[ss:proper\]).
\[th:I-minimally\_convex\] Assume that $\Omega$ is a minimally convex domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$, $M$ is a compact bordered Riemann surface, and $X\colon M\to\Omega$ is a conformal minimal immersion. Then $X$ can be approximated uniformly on compacts in $\mathring M=M\setminus bM$ by proper (and complete if so desired) conformal minimal immersions $\mathring M\to \Omega$.
Examples in [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] show that, in dimension $n=3$, minimally convex domains form the biggest class of domains for which one can expect general approximation results for conformal minimal immersions by proper ones. This line of results is intimately related to the construction, due to Drinovec Drnovšek and Forstnerič [@DrinovecForstneric2007DMJ], of proper holomorphic maps from bordered Riemann surfaces into any complex manifold $\Omega$ admitting an exhaustion function whose Levi form has at least two positive eigenvalues at every point (hence into any Stein manifold of dimension $>1$). Analysis of the proof in [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] reveals a deeper reason behind this connection.
Another interesting and important object in the theory is the [*complex Gauss map*]{} of a conformal minimal surface $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$. This is the Kodaira-type holomorphic map $G_X\colon M\to {\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ defined by $$G_X(p) = [{\partial}X_1(p) \colon \cdots \colon {\partial}X_n(p)]\in {\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}, \quad p\in M.$$ In view of the map $G_X$ assumes values in the complex hyperquadric $$Q_{n-2} = \bigl\{[z_1:\ldots : z_n]\in{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1} : z_1^2+ \cdots + z_n^2 = 0\bigr\}.$$ This map is especially interesting in dimension $n=3$. In this case, the quadric $Q_{1}$ is the image of a quadratically embedded rational curve ${\mathbb{CP}}^1{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{CP}}^2$, and hence we may consider $G_X$ as a holomorphic map $g_X\colon M\to {\mathbb{CP}}^1$, i.e., a meromorphic function on $M$. The complex Gauss map $g_X$ of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ provides crucial information about its geometry. Several important properties of the surface depend only on its Gauss map, in particular, the Gauss curvature and the Jacobi operator (see e.g. [@MeeksPerez2004SDG; @MeeksPerez2012AMS; @Osserman1980DG; @Osserman1986book]). Furthermore, it was shown by Barbosa and do Carmo [@BarbosaDoCarmo1976AJM Theorem 1.2] that the minimal surface $X(M)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is stable if the spherical image $g_X(M)\subset {\mathbb{CP}}^1$ of $X(M)$ has area less than $2\pi$; this holds for example if $g_X(M)$ is a proper subset of the unit disc ${\mathbb D}\subset{\mathbb{C}}$. Therefore, it is interesting to know the following recent result [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Corollary 1.2] of the authors with L[ó]{}pez.
\[th:I-Gauss\] Every meromorphic function on an open Riemann surface $M$ is the complex Gauss map of a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$. Furthermore, $X$ can be chosen as the real part of a holomorphic null curve $Z=X+{{\mathfrak{i}}}Y \colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^3$.
The analogous result holds in higher dimensions, see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Theorem 1.1]. We refer to Sections \[ss:Gauss\] and \[ss:OnGauss\] for more on this topic.
It is a natural problem to understand the homotopy type of the space ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of all conformal minimal immersions of a given open Riemann surface $M$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, endowed with the compact-open topology. A conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called [*nonflat*]{} if its image is not contained in any affine plane; the space of all such immersions is denoted by ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Similarly, ${\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ denotes the space of nonflat holomorphic null immersions $M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$, and $$\Re {\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n) =\{\Re Z\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n : Z\in {\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\}
\subset {\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n).$$ A continuous map $\phi\colon X\to Y$ of topological spaces is a [*weak homotopy equivalence*]{} if it induces a bijection of the path components of the two spaces and an isomorphism $\pi_k(X,x_0) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \pi_k(Y,\phi(x_0))$ of their homotopy groups for each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $x_0\in X$. The map is a [*homotopy equivalence*]{} if there is a continuous map $\psi\colon Y\to X$ such that $\psi\circ\phi\colon X\to X$ and $\phi\circ\psi\colon Y\to Y$ are homotopic to the identity on the respective spaces. Forstnerič and Lárusson [@ForstnericLarussonCAG] proved the following result (see Sect. \[ss:rough\]).
\[th:I-shape\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface, and let $\theta$ be a holomorphic $1$-form without zeros on $M$. The map $${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) \longrightarrow {\mathscr{C}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}^{n-1}_*),\qquad X\longmapsto {\partial}X/\theta,$$ is a weak homotopy equivalence, and is a homotopy equivalence if $M$ has finite topological type (i.e., finite genus and number of ends). Likewise, the inclusion $$\Re({\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)) {\ensuremath{\lhook\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow}}{\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$$ is a weak homotopy equivalence, and is a homotopy equivalence (indeed, the inclusion of a strong deformation retract) if $M$ has finite topological type.
Besides complex analysis, the proof of Theorem \[th:I-shape\] strongly relies on Gromov’s [*convex integration method*]{} which originates in his paper [@Gromov1973IZV] and has been fully developed in his monograph [@Gromov1986] (see also Spring [@Spring2010]). In the case at hand, this technique provides families of loops with specified integrals in the null quadric.
The main interest of Theorem \[th:I-shape\] lies in the fact that the space ${\mathscr{C}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}^{n-1}_*)$ is quite easy to understand. When $M$ has finite topology, the second part of Theorem \[th:I-shape\] may be interpreted as follows.
[*We can simultaneously continuously deform all nonflat conformal minimal immersions $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to those with vanishing flux, keeping the latter ones fixed.*]{}
That a single conformal minimal immersion can be deformed to one with zero flux was first shown by Alarcón and Forstnerič in [@AlarconForstneric2017CRELLE]. It was later proved in [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Corollary 1.6] that such a deformation exists through a family of conformal minimal immersions with the same complex Gauss map.
In Theorem \[th:I-shape\] we have excluded flat conformal minimal immersions and null curves; these present technical difficulties in the analysis of the structure of the respective mapping spaces. When $M$ is a compact bordered Riemann surface, the space ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of all nonflat conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r$ $(r\in {\mathbb{N}})$ is a real analytic Banach manifold (see Theorem \[th:structure\]), while flat immersions seem to be singular points of ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Nevertheless, in [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Theorem 7.1] the connected components of ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ were identified as follows.
\[th:I-pathcomponents\] Let $M$ be a connected open Riemann surface. The inclusion ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) {\hookrightarrow}{\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of the space of all nonflat conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ into the space of all conformal minimal immersions induces a bijection of path components of the two spaces. In particular, the set of path components of ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is in bijective correspondence with elements of the abelian group $({\mathbb{Z}}_2)^l$ where $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})={\mathbb{Z}}^l$, and ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is path connected if $n>3$.
It was shown by the authors and López [@AlarconForstnericLopezMAMS; @AlarconLopez2015GT] that complex analytic methods may also be used in the construction of [*non-orientable minimal surfaces*]{} in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by working on their oriented double-sheeted coverings. In [@AlarconForstnericLopezMAMS Example 6.1] the reader can find the first known example of a properly embedded minimal Möbius strip in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$ (see also Sect. \[ss:minimal\]). Space does not permit us to include these results. Another recently developed topic that is not treated in this survey but relies on complex analytic tools is the theory of uniform approximation by complete minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with finite total curvature, due to López [@Lopez2014JGA; @Lopez2014TAMS].
There are several other important aspects of the classical theory of minimal surfaces in Euclidean spaces where substantial progress has been made in recent years but are not covered in this paper; see in particular the survey by P[é]{}rez [@Perez2017] and the monographs by Meeks and Pérez [@MeeksPerez2004SDG; @MeeksPerez2012AMS].
The organization of the paper is evident from the table of contents. We include proofs of the main complex analytic results used in the constructions; an exception is the Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem for conformal minimal surfaces and null curves (see Sect. \[ss:RH\]) whose proofs are too complex to be included. The inductive procedures leading to the proofs of the main results are for the most part only sketched, referring to the original sources for further details.
From minimal surfaces to complex analysis and back {#sec:null}
==================================================
In this section we briefly review those classical facts relating minimal surfaces to complex analysis which are indispensable for the subsequent discussion. More complete presentations are available in the books of Osserman [@Osserman1986book], Colding and Minicozzi [@ColdingMinicozzi1999CLNM; @ColdingMinicozzi2011AMS], and several others. For geometry of surfaces we refer to do Carmo [@doCarmo1976book], and for the theory of Riemann surfaces we refer to the monographs by Donaldson [@Donaldson2011book], Farkas and Kra [@FarkasKra1992], and Forster [@Forster1981book].
Let ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ denote the real and the complex Euclidean space of dimension $n\in{\mathbb{N}}=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$, respectively. We also write ${\mathbb{R}}_\pm=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}: \pm x\ge 0\}$, ${\mathbb{C}}^n_*={\mathbb{C}}^n\setminus \{0\}$, and ${\mathbb{C}}_*={\mathbb{C}}^1_*$. We denote the coordinates on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and those on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ by $z=(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$, where $z=x+{{\mathfrak{i}}}y$ with $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${{\mathfrak{i}}}=\sqrt{-1}$. Maps to these spaces will be denoted by the corresponding capital letters, e.g. $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $Z\colon M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$. We denote the Euclidean inner product and norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $$x\,\cdotp y=\sum_{j=1}^n x_j y_j, \qquad |x|^2=x\,\cdotp x = \sum_{j=1}^n x_j^2.$$ The space ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is endowed with the Riemannian metric $ds^2=dx_1^2+\cdots+dx_n^2$.
Riemann surfaces {#ss:Riemann}
----------------
A [*Riemann surface*]{} is a one dimensional complex manifold. We denote the space of all holomorphic functions on a Riemann surface $M$ by ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$. Since every minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is parametrized by a nonconstant harmonic map from a Riemann surface, such a surface cannot be compact and without boundary. Hence we shall mainly consider Riemann surfaces that are either [*open*]{} (i.e., non-compact and without boundary) or compact with nonempty boundary. On an open Riemann surface $M$ we have the classical Runge-Mergelyan approximation and Weierstrass interpolation theorems. The former says that, given a [*Runge*]{} (also called [*${\mathcal{O}}(M)$-convex*]{}) compact subset $K\subset M$ (i.e., such that $M\setminus K$ has no relatively compact components), every continuous function $K\to{\mathbb{C}}$ that is holomorphic on the interior $\mathring K$ of $K$ may be approximated uniformly on $K$ by functions in ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$. The latter says that every map $\Lambda\to{\mathbb{C}}$ on a closed discrete subset $\Lambda\subset M$ extends to a function in ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$. (Weierstrass’s original theorem for planar domains [@Weierstrass1986] was extended to open Riemann surfaces by Florack [@Florack1948SMIUM] in 1948.) An open Riemann surface is the same thing as a $1$-dimensional Stein manifold (see Sect. \[ss:Stein\]), and the aforementioned results extend to any Stein manifold as the Oka-Weil approximation theorem and Oka-Cartan extension theorem, respectively.
The following classification of open Riemann surfaces has important implications in the theory of minimal surfaces; see Farkas and Kra [@FarkasKra1992 p. 179].
\[def:hyperbolic\] An open Riemann surface is said to be [*hyperbolic*]{} if it carries nonconstant negative subharmonic functions; otherwise it is said to be [*parabolic*]{}.
By Koebe’s uniformization theorem, the only simply connected open Riemann surfaces up to a biholomorphism are ${\mathbb{C}}$ which is parabolic by Liouville’s theorem, and the unit disc ${\mathbb D}=\{\zeta\in{\mathbb{C}}\colon |\zeta|<1\}$ which is hyperbolic. Every compact Riemann surface from which finitely many points have been removed is parabolic. We refer to the survey by Grigor’yan [@Grigoryan1999BAMS] for further information on parabolicity and hyperbolicity of Riemannian manifolds.
A [*compact bordered Riemann surface*]{} is a compact Riemann surface $M$ with boundary $bM\neq\varnothing$ consisting of finitely many pairwise disjoint Jordan curves. The interior $\mathring M=M\setminus bM$ of such $M$ is a [*bordered Riemann surface*]{} and is a hyperbolic open Riemann surface. Such $\mathring M$ is biholomorphic to a smoothly bounded domain in a compact Riemann surface without boundary.
The only topological invariants of a connected oriented surface $M$ are its genus and number of ends. We say that $M$ has [*finite topological type*]{} if both its genus $g$ and the number $m$ of its ends are finite; such $M$ is biholomorphic to a domain in a compact Riemann surface $R$ from which finitely many points and closed discs have been removed (see Stout [@Stout1965TAMS]). Its first homology group equals $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^l$ where $l=2g+m-1$. There exist smooth Jordan curves $C_1,\ldots, C_l$ in $M$ representing a basis of $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$. If $M$ is either open or compact with nonempty boundary, then these curves can be chosen such that their union $C=\bigcup_{j=1}^l C_j$ is contained in $\mathring M$ and is Runge in $\mathring M$; furthermore, $C$ is a strong deformation retract of $M$.
Immersed surfaces, Riemannian metrics, and isothermal coordinates {#ss:isothermal}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $S$ be a smooth real surface and $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\colon S\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a smooth immersion. The pullback of the Euclidean metric $ds^2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by the immersion $X$ is a Riemannian metric on $S$: $$g=X^*(ds^2) = (dX_1)^2+\cdots + (dX_n)^2.$$ In any smooth local coordinate $(u,v)$ on $S$ we have that $$\label{eq:gABC}
g= Adu^2 + 2B du dv + Cdv^2,$$ where $A>0,B,C>0$ are smooth functions and $AC-B^2>0$; this is called the [*first fundamental form*]{} of the immersed surface. If holds in coordinates $(u,v)$ on a domain $\Omega\subset S$, then the area of the immersed surface $X \colon \Omega \to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ equals $$\label{eq:area}
\mathrm{Area}\,(X(\Omega)) = \int_{\Omega} \sqrt{AC-B^2} \, du dv.$$ The $2$-form $$\label{eq:areael}
dA_{X(\Omega)}=\sqrt{AC-B^2} \, du dv$$ is called the [*area element*]{} of the immersed surface $X|_{\Omega}\colon \Omega \to{\mathbb{R}}^n$.
By the celebrated [*isometric immersion theorem*]{} of Nash [@Nash1954; @Nash1956], every smooth Riemannian metric on $S$ is induced by a smooth embedding $X\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ to a Euclidean space. See Gromov [@Gromov1986; @Gromov2017] for more information.
A Riemannian metric $g$ on an orientable surface $S$ determines an almost complex structure operator $J\colon TS\to TS$, with $J^2=-{\mathrm{Id}}$, by the condition that for every unit vector $\xi\in T_p S$ the pair $(\xi,J\xi)$ is a positively oriented $g$-orthonormal basis of the tangent space $T_p S$. Riemannian metrics $g,\tilde g$ on $S$ are said to be [*conformally equivalent*]{} if $\tilde g=\lambda g$ for some function $\lambda>0$; such metrics determine the same almost complex structure $J$. Conversely, a choice of $J$ uniquely determines a conformal class of Riemannian metrics. Around any point of $S$ there exist smooth [*isothermal coordinates*]{} $(u,v)$ in which the Riemannian metric $g$ has the form $$\label{eq:metricisothermal}
g = \lambda (du^2 + dv^2)$$ for some positive function $\lambda>0$. A change of coordinates which puts the metric in this form is found by solving the [*Beltrami equation*]{} (see Ahlfors [@Ahlfors2006]). In such coordinates, the associated almost complex structure $J$ is the [*standard almost complex structure*]{} on ${\mathbb{R}}^2_{(u,v)}\cong {\mathbb{C}}$ given by $J_{st} \, \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}u} = \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}v}$, $J_{st}\, \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}v} = -\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}u}$. The transition map between any two isothermal coordinates is a conformal isomorphism, hence holomorphic or antiholomorphic with respect to the complex coordinate $\zeta=u+{{\mathfrak{i}}}v$. If $S$ is orientable, we obtain an atlas ${\mathcal{U}}=\{(U_j,\phi_j)\}$ consisting of an open covering $\{U_j\}$ of $S$ and positively oriented isothermal coordinates $\phi_j\colon U_j \to \phi_j(U_j) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\cong {\mathbb{C}}$ whose transition maps $\phi_{i,j}=\phi_i\circ\phi_j^{-1}$ are biholomorphisms; that is, ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a complex atlas determining on $S$ the structure of a Riemann surface. If $S$ is connected and non-orientable, it admits a double-sheeted covering map $\pi\colon {\widetilde}S\to S$ with ${\widetilde}S$ orientable, and the same argument applied to the metric $\pi^*g$ on ${\widetilde}S$ shows that ${\widetilde}S$ carries the structure of a Riemann surface such that the projection map $\pi$ is conformal.
Minimal surfaces {#ss:minimal}
----------------
Assume that $S$ is a smooth orientable surface and $X\colon S\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a smooth immersion. Let $N\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a smooth vector field along $X$ such that for every $p\in S$ the vector $N(p)$ has unit length and is orthogonal to the tangent plane $dX_p(T_p S)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of $X$. Given a smooth function $\psi\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}$ with compact support, there is a number $\epsilon>0$ such that the maps $$X^t=X+t\psi N : S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n,\qquad t\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon),$$ are again smooth immersions. Such a family of immersions is called a [*normal variation with compact support*]{} of $X=X^0$. The associated area functional is $$\label{eq:areafunctional}
{\mathcal{A}}(t)={\rm Area}\, (X^t(S)),\qquad t\in(-\epsilon,\epsilon),$$ and the [*first variation of area formula*]{} says that $${\mathcal{A}}'(0)=\frac{d{\mathcal{A}}(t)}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}=-2\int_S {\bf H}\cdot N\, \psi\, dA_X,$$ where ${\bf H}$ and $dA_X$ are the mean curvature vector field and the area element of $X$, respectively. This leads to the following observation due to Meusnier.
\[pro:1vf\] Let $S$ be a smooth orientable surface and $X\colon S\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a smooth immersion. The following two conditions are equivalent:
- $X$ is a critical point of the area functional for all normal variations with compact support.
- The mean curvature vector field ${\bf H}\colon S\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of $X$ vanishes identically.
An immersed surface $X\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be [*minimal*]{} if it satisfies the equivalent conditions in Proposition \[pro:1vf\]. It follows from the [*second variation of area formula*]{} (see [@Nitsche1989 p. 95] or [@DierkesHildebrandtKusterWohlrab1992-I p. 83–84]) that every minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ minimizes area locally. Surfaces which minimize area globally are said to be [*area minimizing*]{}. Furthermore, for a minimal surface $X\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ we have that ${\mathcal{A}}''(0)> 0$ for all normal variations with compact support if and only if every such variation of $X$ strictly increases the area; if this holds then $X$ is said to be [*strongly stable*]{}. If, on the contrary, for some variation the second derivative is negative, ${\mathcal{A}}''(0)<0$, then there are nearby surfaces with smaller area and $X$ is then called [*unstable*]{}. Finally, those minimal surfaces for which ${\mathcal{A}}''(0)\ge 0$ holds for all normal variations with compact support are said to be [*stable*]{}. The stability property has important implications in the theory of minimal surfaces.
The simplest example of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an affine plane, which is in fact area minimizing. A classical result by Wirtinger [@Wirtinger1936MMP] says that every holomorphic curve in ${\mathbb{C}}^n={\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ $(n\ge 2)$ is area minimizing as well, hence a minimal surface. The following are some of the most classical examples of minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
$\bullet$ The [*catenoids*]{} (Euler, 1744) were the first minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ to be discovered, apart from (pieces of) affine planes. Planes and catenoids are the only minimal surfaces of revolution in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Here is a parametrization of a catenoid: $$X(\rho,\theta)=\Big(c\cosh\big(\frac{\rho}{c}\big)\cos \theta, c\cosh\big(\frac{\rho}{c}\big)\sin \theta, \rho\Big),
\quad \rho\in{\mathbb{R}},\, \theta\in [-\pi,\pi),$$ where $c\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$ is a constant. See Figure \[fig:catenoid\].
$\bullet$ The [*helicoids*]{}, discovered by Meusnier in 1776, are the only ruled minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ besides planes. Here is a parametrization of a helicoid: $$X(u,v)=\bigl(u\cos(cv),u\sin (cv), v\bigr),\quad (u,v)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ where $c\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$ is a constant. See Figure \[fig:catenoid\].
$\bullet$ The [*Enneper surface*]{}, which has self-intersections, was discovered by Enneper in 1864. Here is a parametrization; see Figure \[fig:enneper\]: $$X(u,v)=\Big( \big(1-\frac{u^2}3+v^2\big)u, -\big(1-\frac{v^2}3+u^2\big)v, u^2-v^2 \Big),
\quad (u,v)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2.$$
$\bullet$ The [*Riemann minimal examples*]{} form a $1$-parameter family of singly periodic minimal surfaces with infinitely many ends asymptotic to parallel planes (see Figure \[fig:enneper\]). These surfaces, described by Riemann in a posthumous paper from 1867, are the only minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, besides planes, catenoids, and helicoids, that are foliated by circles and affine lines in parallel planes.
$\bullet$ [*A properly embedded minimal Möbius strip in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$*]{} was found by the authors and López [@AlarconForstnericLopezMAMS Example 6.1]. The harmonic map $X\colon {\mathbb{C}}_*\to{\mathbb{R}}^4$ given by $$X(\zeta)=\Re\left( {{\mathfrak{i}}}\big(\zeta+\frac1{\zeta}\big), \zeta-\frac1{\zeta},
\frac{{{\mathfrak{i}}}}2 \big(\zeta^2-\frac1{\zeta^2}\big), \frac12 \big(\zeta^2+\frac1{\zeta^2}\big) \right)$$ is a proper conformal minimal immersion such that $X(\zeta_1)=X(\zeta_2)$ if and only if $\zeta_1=\zeta_2$ or $\zeta_1={\mathfrak{I}}(\zeta_1)$, where ${\mathfrak{I}}$ is the fixed-point-free antiholomorphic involution on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ (and on ${\mathbb{C}}_*$) given by ${\mathfrak{I}}(\zeta)=-1/\bar\zeta$. Since ${\mathbb{C}}_*/{\mathfrak{I}}$ is a Möbius strip, the image surface $X({\mathbb{C}}_*)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^4$ is a properly embedded minimal Möbius strip in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$.
Another famous example is Meeks’s immersed Möbius strip in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with finite total curvature $-6\pi$ (see [@Meeks1981DMJ Theorem 2] and [@AlarconForstnericLopezMAMS Example 2.6 and Figure 2.3]).
Conformal immersions and the null quadric {#ss:null}
-----------------------------------------
Note that vectors $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ are of the same size and orthogonal to each other if and only if the complex vector $z=x+{{\mathfrak{i}}}y\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ belongs to the [*null quadric*]{} $$\label{eq:null}
{\mathfrak{A}}=\bigl\{z=(z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_n)\in{\mathbb{C}}^n : z_1^2+z_2^2+\cdots + z_n^2=0\bigr\}.$$ Indeed, we have $\sum_{j=1}^n (x_j+{{\mathfrak{i}}}y_j)^2 = |x|^2-|y|^2 + {{\mathfrak{i}}}\, x\,\cdotp y$ from which the claim follows. Elements $z\in {\mathfrak{A}}$ are called [*null vectors*]{}. Note that ${\mathfrak{A}}$ is a complex cone which is nonsingular except at the vertex $0\in{\mathfrak{A}}$. The [*punctured null quadric*]{} $$\label{eq:null*}
{\mathfrak{A}}_*= {\mathfrak{A}}\setminus\{0\} = {\mathfrak{A}}_{{\mathrm{reg}}}$$ is a homogeneous space of the complex Lie group ${\mathbb{C}}_*\oplus {\mathrm O}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, where ${\mathrm O}_n({\mathbb{C}})=\{A\in GL_n({\mathbb{C}}): AA^t=I\}$ is the orthogonal group over ${\mathbb{C}}$. It follows that maps $M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ from any Stein manifold (in particular, from any open Riemann surface) satisfy the [*Oka principle*]{} (see Theorem \[th:OP\]). This is the most important fact in applications of complex analysis to the theory of minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Let $M$ be a Riemann surface. Note that an immersion $$\label{eq:immersion}
X=\left(X_{1},X_{2},\ldots,X_{n}\right) : M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$$ is conformal if and only if, in any local holomorphic coordinate $\zeta=u+{{\mathfrak{i}}}v$ on $M$, the partial derivatives $X_u={\partial}X/{\partial}u = (X_{1,u},\ldots,X_{n,u})\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $X_v={\partial}X/{\partial}v = (X_{1,v},\ldots,X_{n,v})\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ at any given point have the same length and are orthogonal: $$\label{eq:conformal}
|X_u|=|X_v|>0, \qquad X_u\, \cdotp X_v=0.$$ Following the customary notation in complex analysis, we set $$X_\zeta = \frac{{\partial}X}{{\partial}\zeta}= \frac{1}{2}\left(X_u-{{\mathfrak{i}}}X_v \right),\qquad
X_{\bar \zeta} = \frac{{\partial}X}{{\partial}\bar\zeta} = \frac{1}{2}\left(X_u+{{\mathfrak{i}}}X_v \right).$$ Thus, the equation $X_{\bar \zeta} =0$ characterizes holomorphic functions. In view of what has been said above, condition is equivalent to $$\label{eq:conformalC}
2X_\zeta = X_u - {{\mathfrak{i}}}X_v\in {\mathfrak{A}}_*$$ where ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is given by . The exterior derivative on $M$ splits into the sum $$d={\partial}+{\overline\partial}$$ of the $(1,0)$-part ${\partial}$ and the $(0,1)$-part ${\overline\partial}$, where $${\partial}X= X_\zeta d\zeta, \qquad {\overline\partial}X= X_{\bar \zeta} d\bar\zeta.$$ Hence, an immersion is conformal if and only if the $(1,0)$-differential ${\partial}X=({\partial}X_1,\ldots,{\partial}X_n)$ satisfies the nullity condition $$\label{eq:sum-zero}
({\partial}X_1)^2 + ({\partial}X_2)^2 + \cdots + ({\partial}X_n)^2 =0.$$
The Enneper-Weierstrass representation formula {#ss:EW}
----------------------------------------------
Assume now that $M$ is an open Riemann surface and $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a conformal immersion. In any local holomorphic coordinate $\zeta=u+{{\mathfrak{i}}}v$ on $M$ the Laplacian equals $$\label{eq:Delta}
\Delta=\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}u}\right)^2+\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}v}\right)^2 =
4\frac{{\partial}^2}{{\partial}\bar \zeta \,{\partial}\zeta}.$$ In particular, $X$ is harmonic if and only if the $1$-form ${\partial}X$ is holomorphic. It is classical (see Osserman [@Osserman1986book]) that $$\label{eq:DeltaH}
\Delta X =2 \mu \mathbf H$$ where $\mathbf H$ is the mean curvature vector field of $X$ and $\mu = |X_u|^2=|X_v|^2$. Taking into account also gives the following classical result.
\[th:equivalent\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface and $X:M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ be a smooth conformal immersion. Then the following conditions are pairwise equivalent.
- $X$ is minimal (a stationary point of the area functional ).
- $X$ has vanishing mean curvature vector field: $\mathbf H=0$.
- $X$ is harmonic: $\Delta X=0$.
- The ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued $1$-form ${\partial}X=({\partial}X_1,\ldots,{\partial}X_n)$ is nowhere vanishing on $M$, holomorphic, and satisfies the nullity condition .
- Let $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$. The map $f=2{\partial}X/\theta\colon M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is holomorphic and assumes values in ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ .
If these conditions hold then the induced Riemannian metric on $M$ equals $$\label{eq:metric}
X^*(ds^2)=2 \big(|{\partial}X_1|^2+\cdots+|{\partial}X_n|^2\big).$$
Every open Riemann surface $M$ admits a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form $\theta$ by the Oka-Grauert principle (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 5.3.1(iii)]). If $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a conformal minimal immersion then the $1$-form $2{\partial}X=f\theta$ with values in ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ has exact real part since $dX= {\partial}X +{\overline\partial}X = 2\Re({\partial}X)$; equivalently, $\oint_C \Re (f\theta)=0$ for every closed curve $C\subset M$. Conversely, every holomorphic $1$-form $f\theta$ with values in ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ and exact real part $\Re(f\theta)$ determines a conformal minimal immersion by integration. We record this observation in the following corollary to Theorem \[th:equivalent\].
\[th:EW\] Let $M$ be a connected open Riemann surface, $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$, and $p_0\in M$ be an arbitrary point. Every conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ is of the form $$\label{eq:EW}
X(p)=X(p_0) + \int_{p_0}^p \Re(f\theta), \quad p\in M,$$ where $f\colon M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is a holomorphic map into the punctured null quadric such that the ${\mathbb{R}}^n$-valued $1$-form $\Re(f\theta)$ is exact. We have that $2{\partial}X=f\theta$.
The complex Gauss map {#ss:Gauss}
---------------------
Let $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n) \colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a conformal minimal immersion. Its differential ${\partial}X= ({\partial}X_1, \ldots, {\partial}X_n)$ determines the Kodaira type holomorphic map $$\label{eq:GX}
G_X\colon M\to {\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1},\quad G_X(p) = [{\partial}X_1(p) \colon \cdots \colon {\partial}X_n(p)],
\quad p\in M,$$ called the [*generalized Gauss map*]{} of $X$. In view of the equation , $G_X$ assumes values in the complex hyperquadric $$\label{eq:nullquadric-projected}
Q_{n-2} = \bigl\{[z_1:\ldots : z_n]\in{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1} : z_1^2+ \cdots + z_n^2 = 0\bigr\}.$$ In the case $n=3$ the quadric $Q_1\subset {\mathbb{CP}}^2$ is the image of a quadratically embedded Riemann sphere ${\mathbb{CP}}^1{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{CP}}^2$, and the [*complex Gauss map*]{} of a conformal minimal immersion $X=(X_1,X_2,X_3)\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is defined to be the holomorphic map $$\label{eq:C-Gauss}
g_X = \frac{{\partial}X_3}{{\partial}X_1-{{\mathfrak{i}}}\, {\partial}X_2} = \frac{{\partial}X_2-{{\mathfrak{i}}}\, {\partial}X_1}{{{\mathfrak{i}}}\, {\partial}X_3} : M {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{CP}}^1.$$ The function $g_X$ equals the stereographic projection of the real Gauss map $N=(N_1,N_2,N_3) \colon M\to {\mathbb{S}}^2 \subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ to the Riemann sphere ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$; explicitly, $$g_X = \frac{N_1+{{\mathfrak{i}}}N_2}{1-N_3} : M {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}={\mathbb{CP}}^1.$$ We can recover the differential ${\partial}X=({\partial}X_1,{\partial}X_2,{\partial}X_3)$ from the pair $(g_X,\phi_3)$ with $\phi_3={\partial}X_3$ by the classical [*Weierstrass formula*]{}: $$\label{eq:EWR}
{\partial}X= \Phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3) =
\left( \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{g_X}-g_X\right), \frac{{{\mathfrak{i}}}}{2} \left(\frac{1}{g_X}+g_X \right),1\right) \phi_3.$$ (See [@Osserman1986book Lemma 8.1, p. 63].) Conversely, given a pair $(g,\phi_3)$ consisting of a holomorphic map $g\colon M\to {\mathbb{CP}}^1$ and a holomorphic $1$-form $\phi_3$ on $M$, the meromorphic $1$-form $\Phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3)$ defined by satisfies $\sum_{j=1}^3 \phi_j^2=0$; it is the differential ${\partial}X$ of a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ if and only if it is holomorphic, nowhere vanishing, and its real periods vanish. If this holds then the map $X$ is obtained from $\Phi$ by integration: $$X(p)=X(p_0) + 2 \int_{p_0}^p \Re(\Phi), \qquad p\in M.$$
The generalized Gauss map $G_X$ is of great importance in the theory of minimal surfaces; see Osserman [@Osserman1986book] and the papers [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA; @Fujimoto1983JMSJ; @Fujimoto1990JDG; @HoffmanOsserman1980MAMS; @LopezPerez2003IUMJ; @OssermanRu1997JDG; @Ros2002DG; @Ru1991JDG], among many others. In particular, the complex Gauss map $g_X \colon M\to{\mathbb{CP}}^1$ of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ provides crucial information about its geometry since the key quantities such as the Gauss curvature and the Jacobi operator depend only on $g_X$ (see e.g. [@MeeksPerez2004SDG; @MeeksPerez2012AMS; @Osserman1980DG; @Osserman1986book]). The authors together with F. J. L[ó]{}pez have recently shown in [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Corollary 1.2] that every meromorphic function on an open Riemann surface $M$ is the complex Gauss map of a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$; furthermore, $X$ can be chosen as the real part of a holomorphic null curve $Z=X+{{\mathfrak{i}}}Y \colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^3$.
Flux, period map, conjugate surfaces, and null curves {#ss:flux}
-----------------------------------------------------
The [*conjugate differential*]{} of a smooth map $X:M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is defined by $$d^c X= {{\mathfrak{i}}}({\overline\partial}X - {\partial}X) = 2 \Im ({\partial}X).$$ Recall that $d={\partial}+{\overline\partial}$. Hence we get $$2{\partial}X = dX + {{\mathfrak{i}}}d^c X, \qquad
dd^c X= 2{{\mathfrak{i}}}\, {\partial}{\overline\partial}X = \Delta_\zeta X \cdotp du\wedge dv,$$ where the last equation holds in any local holomorphic coordinate $\zeta=u+{{\mathfrak{i}}}v$. Thus, the map $X$ is harmonic if and only if $d^c X$ is a closed vector valued $1$-form on $M$, and in this case $d^c X=dY$ holds for any local harmonic conjugate $Y$ of $X$.
The [*flux map*]{} of a harmonic map $X\colon M \to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the group homomorphism ${\mathrm{Flux}}_X\colon H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by $$\label{eq:flux}
{\mathrm{Flux}}_X([C])=\oint_C d^c X = \oint_C 2 \Im ({\partial}X), \qquad [C]\in H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}}).$$ The integral is independent of the choice of the path in a given homology class, and we shall write ${\mathrm{Flux}}_X(C)$ for ${\mathrm{Flux}}_X([C])$ in the sequel.
Fix a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form $\theta$ on $M$. Associated to any holomorphic map $f\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is the [*period homomorphism*]{} ${\mathcal{P}}(f)\colon H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ defined on any closed oriented curve $C\subset M$ by $$\label{eq:period-map}
{\mathcal{P}}(f)(C) = \oint_{C} f\theta.$$ The map $f$ corresponds to a conformal minimal immersion $X \colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ as in (\[eq:EW\]) if and only if $f(M)\subset {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ and $\Re({\mathcal{P}}(f))=0$; in this case, $X$ is given by and $$\label{eq:FP}
{\mathrm{Flux}}_X = \Im ({\mathcal{P}}(f)) : H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ We have ${\mathrm{Flux}}_X=0$ if and only if $X$ admits a globally defined harmonic conjugate $Y\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ (the [*conjugate conformal minimal surface*]{}), and in this case the holomorphic immersion $Z=(Z_1,\ldots,Z_n) = X+{{\mathfrak{i}}}Y : M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ satisfies $$(dZ_1)^2 + (dZ_2)^2 + \cdots + (dZ_n)^2 = 0.$$ Such $Z$ is called a [*null holomorphic immersion*]{} of $M$ into ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. We see as in Theorem \[th:EW\] that every null holomorphic immersion is of the form $$\label{eq:NULL}
Z(p)=Z(p_0) + \int_{p_0}^p f\theta, \qquad p\in M,$$ where $f\colon M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is a holomorphic map into the punctured null quadric such that the ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued holomorphic $1$-form $f\theta$ is exact. The minimal surfaces $$X_t = \Re(e^{{{\mathfrak{i}}}t} Z) \colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n,\qquad t\in {\mathbb{R}}$$ are called the [*associated minimal surfaces*]{} of the null curve $Z$.
The [*catenoid*]{} and the [*helicoid*]{} (see Figure \[fig:catenoid\]) are conjugate minimal surfaces — the real and the imaginary part of the null curve $Z\colon {\mathbb{C}}\to {\mathbb{C}}^3$ given by $$Z(\zeta) = (\cos\zeta,\sin\zeta,-{{\mathfrak{i}}}\zeta),\qquad \zeta=x+{{\mathfrak{i}}}y\in{\mathbb{C}}.$$ Consider the family of minimal surfaces ($t\in {\mathbb{R}}$): $$\begin{aligned}
X_t(\zeta) &=& \Re\left( e^{{{\mathfrak{i}}}t} Z(\zeta) \right) \\
&=& \cos t \left(
\begin{matrix} \cos x \cdotp \cosh y \cr \sin x \cdotp \cosh y \cr y\end{matrix}\right)
+ \sin t \left(
\begin{matrix} \sin x \cdotp\sinh y \cr -\cos x \cdotp\sinh y \cr x\end{matrix}\right)\end{aligned}$$ At $t=0$ we have a parametrization of a catenoid, and at $t=\pm \pi/2$ we have a (left or right handed) helicoid.
Spaces of mappings {#ss:spaces}
------------------
If $M$ is an open Riemann surface, then ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$ is the algebra of holomorphic functions $M\to{\mathbb{C}}$, ${\mathcal{O}}(M,X)$ is the space of holomorphic mappings $M\to X$ to a complex manifold $X$, $${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$$ is the set of all conformal minimal immersions $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $${\mathrm{NC}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$$ is the space of all null holomorphic immersions $M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$. These spaces are endowed with the compact-open topology.
Assume now that $M$ is a compact bordered Riemann surface (see Sect. \[ss:Riemann\]). Given $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$, we denote by ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M)$ the space of all functions $M\to {\mathbb{C}}$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$ that are holomorphic in $\mathring M=M\setminus bM$. More generally, for any complex manifold $X$ we let ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M,X)$ denote the space of maps $M\to X$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r$ which are holomorphic in $\mathring M$. We write ${\mathscr{A}}^0(M)={\mathscr{A}}(M)$ and ${\mathscr{A}}^0(M,X)={\mathscr{A}}(M,X)$. Note that ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is a complex Banach space, and for any complex manifold $X$ the space ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M,X)$ is a complex Banach manifold modeled on the Banach space ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ with $n=\dim X$ (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 8.13.1] or [@Forstneric2007AJM Theorem 1.1]). A compact bordered Riemann surface $M$ can be considered as a smoothly bounded compact domain in an open Riemann surface $R$. It is classical that each function in ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M)$ can be approximated in the ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$ norm by functions in ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$, i.e., functions holomorphic in a neighborhood of $M$ in $R$. The same holds for maps to an arbitrary complex manifold (see [@DrinovecForstneric2007DMJ Theorem 5.1]). For any $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we denote by $${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$$ the set of all conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$. More precisely, an immersion $F\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r$ belongs to ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ if and only if ${\partial}F$ is a $(1,0)$-form of class ${\mathscr{C}}^{r-1}(M)$ that satisfies the nullity condition (\[eq:sum-zero\]) and is holomorphic on the interior $\mathring M$. Similarly, $${\mathrm{NC}}^r(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$$ denotes the space of all null holomorphic immersions $M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{A}}^r(M)$.
The following notions will play an important role in our analysis.
\[def:nondegenerate\] Let $M$ be a connected open or bordered Riemann surface, let $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$, and let ${\mathfrak{A}}$ be the null quadric (\[eq:null\]).
1. A holomorphic map $f:M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is [*flat*]{} if the image $f(M)$ is contained in a complex ray ${\mathbb{C}}\nu\subset {\mathfrak{A}}$ $(\nu\in {\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ of the null quadric, and is [*nonflat*]{} otherwise.
2. A conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is [*nonflat*]{} if the map $f={\partial}X/\theta: M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is nonflat; equivalently, if the image $X(M)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is not contained in an affine plane. A null holomorphic immersion $Z\colon M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is [*nonflat*]{} if the map $f=dZ/\theta: M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is nonflat.
3. A holomorphic map $f:M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is [*full*]{} if the image $f(M)$ is not contained in any complex hyperplane of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. A conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is [*full*]{} if the image $X(M)$ is not contained in any affine hyperplane of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
For a conformal minimal immersion $M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$, nonflat and full are equivalent conditions. However, in dimensions $n>3$ we clearly have that $\text{full $\Longrightarrow$nonflat}$, but the converse is obviously not true. If $M$ is an open Riemann surface, we denote by ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\rm nf}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ the open subset of ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ consisting of all immersions which are nonflat on every connected component of $M$. The analogous notation $${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\rm nf}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) \subset {\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$$ is used for a compact bordered Riemann surface $M$. Likewise, ${\mathrm{NC}}_{\rm nf}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is the space of all nonflat holomorphic null curves.
Since the tangent space $T_z{\mathfrak{A}}$ is the kernel at $z$ of the $(1,0)$-form $\sum_{j=1}^n z_j\, dz_j$, we have $T_z{\mathfrak{A}}= T_w{\mathfrak{A}}$ for $z,w\in{\mathbb{C}}^n\setminus\{0\}$ if and only if $z$ and $w$ are colinear. This implies
\[lem:nonflat\] A holomorphic map $f\colon M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is nonflat if and only if the linear span of the tangent spaces $T_{f(p)} {\mathfrak{A}}\subset T_{f(p)}{\mathbb{C}}^n\cong {\mathbb{C}}^n$ over all points $p\in M$ equals ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
We now introduce sets in Riemann surfaces that are used in Mergelyan approximation theorems for conformal minimal immersions, and the notion of a generalized conformal minimal immersion on them. Such sets appear naturally in the constructions of conformal minimal immersions.
\[def:admissible\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface. A compact set $S\subset M$ is [*admissible*]{} if it is Runge in $M$ and of the form $S=K\cup \Gamma$, where $K$ is a finite union of pairwise disjoint smoothly bounded compact domains in $M$ and $\Gamma= S \setminus\mathring K$ is a finite union of pairwise disjoint smooth Jordan arcs and closed Jordan curves meeting $K$ only in their endpoints (or not at all) and such that their intersections with the boundary $bK$ of $K$ are transverse.
\[def:GCMI\] Let $S=K\cup\Gamma$ be an admissible set in an open Riemann surface $M$ and let $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$. A [*generalized conformal minimal immersion*]{} $S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a pair $(X,f\theta)$, where $X\colon S\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a smooth map that is a conformal minimal immersion on an open neighborhood of $K$ and $f\colon S\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is a smooth map that is holomorphic on a neighborhood of $K$, such that
- $f\theta =2{\partial}X$ holds on an open neighborhood of $K$, and
- for any smooth path $\alpha$ in $M$ parametrizing a connected component of $\Gamma$ we have $\Re(\alpha^*(f\theta))=\alpha^*(dX)=d(X\circ \alpha)$.
We denote the space of all generalized conformal minimal immersions $S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $${\mathrm{GCMI}}(S,{\mathbb{R}}^n).$$
Oka theory, period dominating sprays, and loops with given periods in the null quadric {#sec:Oka}
======================================================================================
Oka theory concerns the existence, approximation, and extension theorems for holomorphic maps $f\colon S\to O$ from Stein manifolds $S$ to Oka manifolds $O$. In this section we recall the main results of Oka theory which are used in the study of minimal surfaces. For Stein manifolds, see any of the monographs [@GrauertRemmert1979; @GunningRossi2009; @Hormander1990book] or [@Forstneric2017E Chap. 2]. For Oka theory, see [@Forstneric2017E Chaps. 5–7] and the surveys [@Forstneric2013KAWA; @ForstnericLarusson2011]. A recent survey of holomorphic approximation theory is available in [@FornaessForstnericWold2018].
Stein manifolds {#ss:Stein}
---------------
A complex manifold $S$ is said to be a [*Stein manifold*]{} (named after Karl Stein who introduced this important class of complex manifolds in 1951) if it satisfies the following two conditions:
1. holomorphic functions on $S$ separate any pair of distinct points, and
2. if $K$ is a compact subset of $S$, then so is its ${\mathcal{O}}(S)$-convex hull $${\widehat}K =\bigl\{x \in S : |f(x)| \le \sup_K |f|\ \ \forall f\in {\mathcal{O}}(S)\bigr\}.$$
A compact set $K\subset S$ is called [*${\mathcal{O}}(S)$-convex*]{} if $K={\widehat}K$. If $S={\mathbb{C}}^n$ then ${\widehat}K$ is the [*polynomial hull*]{} of $K$. Clearly, no manifold containing a compact complex submanifold of positive dimension is Stein.
The main example for the purposes of this paper is when $\dim S=1$, i.e., $S$ is a Riemann surface. Every open Riemann surface is a Stein manifold according to Behnke and Stein (1949), and in this case the hull ${\widehat}K$ of any compact set $K\subset S$ is the union of $K$ with all relatively compact connected components of its complement $S\setminus K$. Furthermore, the Cartesian product $S_1\times S_2$ of a pair of Stein manifolds is Stein, and the total space $E$ of any holomorphic vector bundle $E\to S$ over a Stein base $S$ is Stein. A domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is Stein if and only if it is a domain of holomorphy (which holds if and only if it is pseudoconvex). In particular, every domain in ${\mathbb{C}}$ is Stein, and every convex domain in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ for any $n\ge 1$ is Stein.
There are several other characterizations of the class of Stein manifolds. One is that a Stein $n$-manifold $S$ embeds properly holomorphically into the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}$ (Remmert 1956, Bishop 1960, Narasimhan 1961; see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 2.4.1]); the converse is easily seen by restricting holomorphic polynomials to the embedded submanifold. Another characterization of Stein manifolds is by the existence of strongly plurisubharmonic exhaustion functions (see [@Forstneric2017E Sect. 2.5]).
The axioms (1) and (2) say that a Stein manifold admits many holomorphic functions. More explicit manifestations of this phenomenon are the [*Oka-Weil approximation theorem*]{} and the [*Oka-Cartan extension theorem*]{}. The first one says that, given an ${\mathcal{O}}(S)$-convex compact set $K$ in a Stein manifold $S$ and a holomorphic function $f$ on a neighborhood of $K$, we can approximate $f$ as closely as desired uniformly on $K$ by global holomorphic functions on $S$. This generalizes the classical Runge theorem for functions on ${\mathbb{C}}$. (See the survey [@FornaessForstnericWold2018] for more information.) The second one says that for any closed complex subvariety $S'$ of a Stein manifold $S$ and holomorphic function $f\colon S'\to {\mathbb{C}}$ there exists a holomorphic function $F\colon S\to {\mathbb{C}}$ extending $f$, i.e., $F|_{S'}=f$. If $S$ is an open Riemann surface and $S'$ is a discrete subset of $S$, this is the classical Weierstrass interpolation theorem [@Weierstrass1886] (see also [@Florack1948SMIUM]). One may combine the approximation and the interpolation statement, including also jet interpolation on a subvariety and continuous dependence on parameters; see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 2.8.4]. The same results hold for sections of any holomorphic vector bundle over a Stein manifold. These classical results, along with Cartan’s Theorems A and B (see [@Forstneric2017E Sect. 2.6]), form the basis for analysis on Stein manifolds.
Oka theory {#ss:Oka}
----------
We may consider holomorphic functions on Stein manifolds as holomorphic maps $S\to {\mathbb{C}}$. Applying the above mentioned approximation and interpolation results componentwise, we can extend them to maps $S\to{\mathbb{C}}^N$ for any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. A completely different picture emerges for maps $S\to X$ to more general complex manifolds. For example, [*Picard’s theorem*]{} says that there are no nonconstant holomorphic maps ${\mathbb{C}}\to {\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{0,1\}$. On the other hand, Grauert proved in 1957–58 [@Grauert1957MA; @Grauert1958MA] that the approximation and interpolation results still hold in the absence of topological obstructions for maps to complex homogeneous manifolds; the case when $X={\mathbb{C}}_*$ is Oka’s theorem from 1939.
\[th:OP\] Assume that $S$ is a Stein manifold, $K$ is an ${\mathcal{O}}(S)$-convex compact subset of $S$, $S'$ is a closed complex subvariety of $S$, $X$ is a complex homogeneous manifold, and $f\colon S\to X$ is a continuous map that is holomorphic on an open neighborhood of $K$ and whose restriction $f|_{S'}\colon S'\to X$ is holomorphic. Then, $f$ can be approximated uniformly on $K$ by holomorphic maps $F\colon S\to X$ satisfying $F|_{S'}=f$. If in addition $f$ is holomorphic on a neighborhood of $S'$, then $F$ can be chosen to agree with $f$ to any given finite order along $S'$. The analogous result holds for sections $S\to E$ of any principal fibre bundle $\pi:E\to S$ over a Stein manifold $S$.
In the theory of minimal surfaces, Theorem \[th:OP\] is mainly used with $X$ either the punctured null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}_*\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$, the intersection of ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ with an affine complex hyperplane in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, the punctured Euclidean space ${\mathbb{C}}^n_*$, or a projective space ${\mathbb{CP}}^n$. All these manifolds are complex homogeneous.
A complex manifold $X$ satisfying the conclusion of Theorem \[th:OP\] is called an [*Oka manifold*]{}. The class of Oka manifolds also contains many nonhomogeneous manifolds; see [@Forstneric2017E Sect. 5.6 and Chap. 7]. The most general Oka principle for maps from Stein manifolds to Oka manifolds is given by [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 5.4.4] which also includes the parametric case, i.e., families of maps depending continuously on a parameter in a compact Hausdorff space. It follows in particular that for every Stein manifold $S$ and Oka manifold $O$ the natural inclusion ${\mathcal{O}}(S,O){\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr{C}}(S,O)$ is a weak homotopy equivalence (see [@Forstneric2017E Corollary 5.5.6]), and is the inclusion of a strong deformation retract (hence a homotopy equivalence) if $S$ is of finite analytic type in the sense that it admits a strongly plurisubharmonic exhaustion function with only finitely many critical points (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 5.5.9] due to Lárusson). Note that an open Riemann surface $S$ is of finite analytic type if and only if it is of finite topological type, i.e., the homology group $H_1(S;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is finitely generated.
Theorem \[th:OP\] and its extension to Oka manifolds also hold with Mergelyan type approximation; see [@Forstneric2017E Corollaries 5.4.6 and 5.4.7] and [@FornaessForstnericWold2018].
A useful sufficient condition for a manifold $X$ to be Oka is the existence of finitely many ${\mathbb{C}}$-complete holomorphic vector fields $V_1,\ldots, V_N$ on $X$ which span the tangent space of $X$ at any point. (If $X=G/H$ is a homogeneous manifold of a complex Lie group $G$, this holds for $G$-invariant holomorphic vector fields on $X$ which are always complete.) The composition of their flows $\phi^j_t$ for complex values of $t$ gives the map $\sigma \colon X\times {\mathbb{C}}^N\to X$, defined by $$\label{eq:flowspray}
\sigma(x,t_1,\ldots,t_N) = \phi^1_{t_1}\circ \cdots \circ \phi^N_{t_N}(x)\in X$$ for $x\in X$ and $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_N)\in{\mathbb{C}}^N$, satisfying the domination condition $$\label{eq:domination}
\frac{{\partial}\sigma(x,t)}{{\partial}t}\bigg|_{t=0} \colon {\mathbb{C}}^N \to T_x X\quad \text{is surjective for every}\ x\in X.$$ A holomorphic map $\sigma\colon X\times {\mathbb{C}}^N\to X$ satisfying $\sigma(x,0)=x$ for all $x\in X$ and the domination condition is called a [*dominating spray*]{} on $X$. More generally, we may take as the domain of the spray the total space $E$ of any holomorphic vector bundle $\pi\colon E\to X$. Gromov proved in [@Gromov1989JAMS] that every complex manifold admitting a dominating spray is an Oka manifold. For more on this subject see [@Forstneric2017E Chap. 6].
A [*(holomorphic) dominating spray of maps*]{} $S\to X$ is a holomorphic map $F\colon S\times V\to X$, where $V\subset {\mathbb{C}}^N$ is an open neighborhood of the origin in a complex Euclidean space, such that $$\label{eq:domination-maps}
\frac{{\partial}F(s,t)}{{\partial}t}\bigg|_{t=0} : {\mathbb{C}}^N \longrightarrow T_{F(s,0)} X\quad \text{is surjective for every}\ s\in S.$$ The map $F_0=F(\cdotp,0): S\to X$ is called the [*core map*]{}, or simply the [*core*]{}, of $F$. If $X$ admits a dominating spray $\sigma\colon X\times{\mathbb{C}}^N\to X$, then for any holomorphic map $f\colon S\to X$, the map $F\colon S\times {\mathbb{C}}^N\to X$ given by $$F(s,t) = \sigma(f(s),t) \in X,\qquad s\in S,\ t\in {\mathbb{C}}^N$$ is a dominating spray of maps with the core $F_0=f$. For instance, if $\sigma$ is of the type defined by flows $\phi^j_t$ of complete holomorphic vector fields, then $$\label{eq:flowspray-maps}
F(s,t_1,\ldots,t_N) = \phi^1_{t_1}\circ \cdots \circ \phi^N_{t_N}(f(s))\in X,
\qquad s\in S,\ t\in{\mathbb{C}}^N.$$ In general, globally defined dominating sprays with a given core do not exist unless $S$ is an Oka manifold. However, for every holomorphic map $f\colon S\to X$ from a Stein manifold $S$ to an arbitrary complex manifold $X$ and for any compact subset $K\subset S$ there exist a Stein neighborhood $U\Subset S$ of $K$ and a dominating spray $F\colon U\times V\to X$ of the form with $F(\cdotp, 0)=f|_U$, where $V$ is a neighborhood of the origin in some ${\mathbb{C}}^N$. Such $F$ is obtained by composing flows of (not necessarily complete) holomorphic vector fields on $X$ defined on a neighborhood $\Omega \subset S\times X$ of the graph $
G_f(U) = \{(s,f(s)): s\in U\} \subset S\times X
$ of $f|_U$. Note that $G_f(U)$ admits an open Stein neighborhood in $S\times X$ by Siu’s theorem (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 3.1.1]), and the rest follows from Cartan’s Theorem A on Stein manifolds.
Period dominating sprays of maps into the null quadric {#ss:period-dominating}
------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a compact connected bordered Riemann surface with boundary $bM$. Denote by $g\ge 0$ the genus of $M$ and by $m\ge 1$ the number of its boundary components; hence $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^l$ with $l=2g+m-1$. We may assume that $M$ is a smoothly bounded domain in an open Riemann surface $R$. For a fixed choice of a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form $\theta$ on $R$ and of a basis $\{C_j\}_{j=1}^l$ of $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ we let $$\label{eq:P}
{\mathcal{P}}=({\mathcal{P}}_1,\ldots, {\mathcal{P}}_l) : {\mathscr{A}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\to ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l = {\mathbb{C}}^{ln}$$ be the [*period map*]{} whose $j$-th component equals $$\label{eq:Pj}
{\mathcal{P}}_j(f) = \oint_{C_j} f\theta \in {\mathbb{C}}^n,\qquad f\in {\mathscr{A}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n).$$ Note that the holomorphic 1-form $f\theta$ on $M$ is exact if and only if ${\mathcal{P}}(f) =0$; this condition is clearly independent of the choice of a period basis.
Recall that ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ denotes the punctured null quadric . The following lemma (see [@AlarconForstneric2014IM Lemma 5.1] and [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ Lemma 3.2]) provides one of our main technical tools.
\[lem:deformation\] Given a nonflat map $f\in {\mathscr{A}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ (see Definition \[def:nondegenerate\]), there exist an open neighborhood $V$ of the origin in ${\mathbb{C}}^{ln}$ and a map $\Phi_f\colon M\times V \to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}(M\times V,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ such that $\Phi_f(\cdotp,0)=f$ and $$\label{eq:period-domination}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\bigg|_{t=0} {\mathcal{P}}(\Phi_f(\cdotp,t)) : ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l \to ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l
\quad \text{is an isomorphism}.$$ Furthermore, given a finite set $P\subset M$ and $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we may choose $\Phi_f$ such that $$\label{eq:agree}
\text{$\Phi_f(\cdotp,t)\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ agrees with $f$ to order $r$ at each
$p\in P$ for all $t\in V$.}$$ There is a neighborhood $\Omega_f$ of $f$ in ${\mathscr{A}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ such that the map $\Omega_f \ni g \mapsto \Phi_{g}$ depends holomorphically on $g$.
A map $\Phi_f$ satisfying Lemma \[lem:deformation\] is called a [*period dominating spray*]{} of maps $M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ with the core $\Phi_f(\cdotp,0)=f$.
We first consider the case without paying attention to ; the modification to ensure this matching condition will be explained at the end.
Let $C_1,\ldots,C_l\subset \mathring M$ be smooth oriented Jordan curves providing a homology basis for $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ and such that $C=\bigcup_{j=1}^l C_j$ is Runge in $M$ (see Sect. \[ss:Riemann\]). We may assume that the curves $C_i$ have a single common point $p_0\in M$, i.e., $C_i\cap C_j=\{p_0\}$ for any $i\ne j$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}=({\mathcal{P}}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal{P}}_l)$ be the associated period map , . Since $f$ is nonflat, Lemma \[lem:nonflat\] and the identity principle show that for every $j=1,\ldots, l$ there are points $p_{j,k}\in C_j\setminus \{p_0\}$ and holomorphic vector fields $V_{j,k}$ ($k=1,\ldots, n$) on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, tangent to the null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}$, such that $$\label{eq:span}
{\mathrm{span}}\bigl\{V_{j,k}(x_{j,k}): k=1,\ldots,n\bigr\}={\mathbb{C}}^n\quad \text{where}\ x_{j,k}=f(p_{j,k}).$$ Let $\phi^{j,k}_t$ denote the local holomorphic flow of $V_{j,k}$ for a complex time variable $t$. Write $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_l)\in ({\mathbb{C}}^{n})^l$ where $t_j=(t_{j,1},\ldots,t_{j,n})\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$. For every $j=1,\ldots,l$ and $k=1,\ldots,n$ we pick a smooth function $h_{j,k} \colon C\to {\mathbb{C}}$, supported on a short arc in $C_j$ around the point $p_{j,k}\in C_j$, and consider the map $$\label{eq:Phi}
\Phi(p,t)=\phi_{h_{1,1}(p)t_{1,1}}^{1,1} \circ \cdots \circ \phi_{h_{l,n}(p)t_{l,n}}^{l,n}(f(p)) \in{\mathfrak{A}}_*,\qquad p\in C.$$ (We take the composition of flows $\phi_{h_{j,k}(p)t_{j,k}}^{j,k}$ for all $j=1,\ldots,l$ and $k=1,\ldots,n$.) Note that $\Phi(\cdotp,0)=f$, $\Phi$ is well defined for all $t\in {\mathbb{C}}^{ln}$ sufficiently close to the origin, and it has range in ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$. Clearly we have that $$\frac{{\partial}\Phi(p,t) }{{\partial}t_{j,k}}\bigg|_{t=0} = h_{j,k}(p) V_{j,k}(f(p)), \qquad p\in C,$$ and hence $$\frac{{\partial}{\mathcal{P}}_i(\Phi(\cdotp,t))}{{\partial}t_{j,k}}\bigg|_{t=0} = \oint_{C_i} h_{j,k} (V_{j,k}\circ f) \theta.$$ A suitable choice of the functions $h_{j,k}$ ensures that the above expression is as close as desired to $V_{j,k}(x_{j,k})$ if $i=j$, and it equals zero otherwise. In view of it follows that the differential $\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}|_{t=0} {\mathcal{P}}(\Phi(\cdotp,t))\colon {\mathbb{C}}^{ln}\to {\mathbb{C}}^{ln}$ has a block structure with vanishing off-diagonal $n\times n$ blocks and with invertible diagonal blocks; hence it is invertible. By Mergelyan’s theorem we can approximate each function $h_{j,k}$ uniformly on $C$ by a holomorphic function $\tilde h_{j,k}\in {\mathcal{O}}(M)$. Inserting these new functions into the definition of $\Phi$ we obtain a spray $\Phi_f$ of maps $M\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ satisfying the conclusion of the lemma. Indeed, holds provided that the approximation of the functions $h_{j,k}$ by $\tilde h_{j,k}$ is close enough, and the other properties are obvious.
In order to ensure the condition , we choose the curves $C_i$ in the homology basis so that they do not intersect the finite set $P$. Choose a funtion $g\in{\mathcal{O}}(M)$ that vanishes to order $r+1$ at each of the points in $P$ and has no other zeros. We replace each of the functions $h_{j,k}$ in the spray by the product $g h_{j,k}$. Proceeding as before, we obtain a new spray of the same type with $h_{j,k}\in{\mathcal{O}}(M)$. It is elementary to see that the map $(p,t) \to \phi^{j,k}_{g(p)h_{j,k}(p) t}(f(p))$ is tangent to $f$ to order $r$ at every point $p\in P$ (see [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2017 Lemma 2.2]); hence the same holds for their composition $\Phi_f$.
\[rem:PD1\] By using additional flows in the definition of $\Phi_f$ we can ensure that the spray $\Phi_{f_q}$ is period dominating for a given continuous family $\{f_q\colon q\in Q\}$ of holomorphic maps $f_q\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ with the parameter in a compact Hausdorff space $Q$. In this case, condition is replaced by asking that the $t$-differential of the period map is surjective at $t=0$. On the other hand, we are unable to find a period dominating spray whose core is a flat map since the tangent spaces to ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ are constant along a complex ray of ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$, and hence they do not span ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
\[rem:PD2\] Proofs of Lemmas \[lem:deformation\] and \[lem:existence-sprays\] extend in an obvious way to the case when $M=K\cup \Gamma$ is an admissible set in an open Riemann surface $R$; see Definition \[def:admissible\]. A map $f\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ of class ${\mathscr{A}}(M)$ is said to be nonflat or full if the restriction of $f$ to $K$ and to each connected component of $\Gamma$ is nonflat or full, respectively. Such $f$ typically arises as the derivative map $f=2{\partial}\Phi/\theta\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ of a generalized conformal minimal immersion on an admissible set; see Definition \[def:GCMI\].
The following result (see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ Theorem 3.1]) is a straightforward application of Lemma \[lem:deformation\]. The notation has been established in Section \[ss:spaces\].
\[th:structure\] Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface with nonempty boundary $bM$, and let $n\ge 3$ and $r\ge 1$ be integers. Then the following hold.
- The space ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\rm nf}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is a real analytic Banach manifold.
- The space ${\mathrm{NC}}_{\rm nf}^r(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is a complex Banach manifold.
We do not know whether the spaces ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and ${\mathrm{NC}}^r(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ are also Banach manifolds. In fact, it seems that flat conformal minimal immersions and holomorphic null curves are singular points of these spaces.
By [@Forstneric2007AJM Theorem 1.1] the space ${\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ is a complex Banach manifold modeled on the complex Banach space ${\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^{n-1})$, where $\dim {\mathfrak{A}}_*=n-1$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}\colon {\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\to ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l$ denote the holomorphic period map (\[eq:P\]). Set $${\mathscr{A}}_0^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)=\bigl\{f\in {\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*): \Re({\mathcal{P}}(f))=0\bigr\},$$ and let ${\mathscr{A}}_{0,{\mathrm{nf}}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ denote the open subset of ${\mathscr{A}}_0^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ consisting of all nonflat maps (see Definition \[def:nondegenerate\]). Lemma \[lem:deformation\] implies that the differential $d{\mathcal{P}}_{f_0}$ at any point $f_0\in {\mathscr{A}}_{0,{\mathrm{nf}}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ has maximal rank equal to $ln$. By the implicit function theorem, $f_0$ admits an open neighborhood $\Omega \subset {\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ such that $\Omega\cap {\mathscr{A}}_0^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)=\Omega \cap {\mathscr{A}}_{0,{\mathrm{nf}}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ is a real analytic Banach submanifold of $\Omega$ parametrized by the kernel of the real part $\Re(d{\mathcal{P}}_{f_0})$ of the differential of ${\mathcal{P}}$ at $f_0$; this is a real codimension $ln$ subspace of the complex Banach space ${\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^{n-1})$ (the tangent space of the complex Banach manifold ${\mathscr{A}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$). This shows that ${\mathscr{A}}_{0,{\mathrm{nf}}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}^*)$ is a real analytic Banach manifold. The integration $p\mapsto v+\int_{p_0}^p \Re(f\theta)$ $(p\in M)$, with an arbitrary choice of the value $v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ at a base point $p_0\in M$, provides an isomorphism between the Banach manifold ${\mathscr{A}}_{0,{\mathrm{nf}}}^{r-1}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}^*) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, so the latter is also a real analytic Banach manifold. This proves (a). Essentially the same argument applies in case (b).
We now give another version of Lemma \[lem:deformation\] in which a period dominating spray is obtained by multiplying the given core map $f\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ by a nonvanishing holomorphic function (a [*multiplier*]{}).
A path $f\colon I=[0,1]\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is said to be [*full*]{} if the ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear span of its image equals ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}\colon {\mathscr{C}}(I,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ denote the map $${\mathcal{P}}(f)=\int_0^1 f(s)\, ds\in{\mathbb{C}}^n,\qquad f\in {\mathscr{C}}(I,{\mathbb{C}}^n).$$ The following result is [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Lemma 2.1].
\[lem:spray-loops\] Assume that $I'$ is a nontrivial closed subinterval of $I=[0,1]$ and $Q$ is a compact Hausdorff space. Given a continuous map $f\colon I\times Q \to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $f(\cdot,q)$ is full on $I'$ for every $q\in Q$, there exist finitely many continuous functions $g_1,\ldots,g_N\colon I\to{\mathbb{C}}$, supported on $I'$, such that the function $h\colon I\times {\mathbb{C}}^N \to{\mathbb{C}}$ given by $$\label{eq:h-spray}
h(s,t)=1 + \sum_{i=1}^N t_i g_i(s),\qquad s\in I,\ t=(t_1,\ldots,t_N)\in{\mathbb{C}}^N,$$ is a [*period dominating multiplier of $f$*]{}, in the sense that $$\label{eq:period-domination1}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} {\mathcal{P}}(h(\cdot,t)f(\cdot,q)) \big|_{t=0} : {\mathbb{C}}^N\to{\mathbb{C}}^n
\ \ \text{is surjective for every $q\in Q$.}$$
Let $N\ge n$ be an integer and, for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, let $g_i\colon I\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be a continuous function; both the number $N$ and the functions $g_i$ will be specified later. Let $h$ be defined by . Note that $\frac{{\partial}h(s,t)}{{\partial}t_i} \big|_{t=0} = g_i(s)$ and hence $$\label{eq:diQ}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t_i} {\mathcal{P}}(h(\cdot,t)f(\cdot.q)) \bigg|_{t=0}
= \int_0^1 \left. \frac{{\partial}h(s,t)}{{\partial}t_i} \right|_{t=0} f(s,q)\, ds
= \int_0^1 g_i(s) f(s,q)\, ds.$$ Since $f(\cdot,q)$ is full on $I'$ for every $q\in Q$, compactness of $Q$ and continuity of $f$ ensure that there are points $s_1,\ldots,s_N\in \mathring I'$ for a big $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\label{eq:span-N}
{\mathrm{span}}\bigl\{ f(s_1,q),\ldots, f(s_N,q) \bigr\}={\mathbb{C}}^n\quad \text{for all $q\in Q$}.$$ Pick a small $\epsilon>0$ and for every $i=1,\ldots, N$ a continuous function $g_i\colon I\to{\mathbb{C}}$ supported on $(s_i-\epsilon,s_i+\epsilon)\subset I$ such that $$\label{eq:intg1}
\int_0^1 g_i(s)\, ds=\int_{s_i-\epsilon}^{s_i+\epsilon} g_i(s)\, ds=1.$$ For small $\epsilon>0$ we have in view of and that $$\frac{{\partial}{\mathcal{P}}(h(\cdot,t)f(\cdot.q))}{{\partial}t_i} \bigg|_{t=0} = \int_0^1 g_i(s) f(s,q)\, ds \approx f(s_i,q)$$ for all $q\in Q$ and $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. Assuming as we may that the approximations are close enough, it follows from that holds.
By using Lemma \[lem:spray-loops\] we easily obtain the following result which is essentially [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Lemma 3.2]. In this lemma, ${\mathcal{P}}\colon {\mathscr{A}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\to ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l$ again denotes the period map , . The same result holds if $M$ is a compact admissible subset of an open Riemann surface; see Definition \[def:admissible\] and Remark \[rem:PD2\].
\[lem:existence-sprays\] Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface with $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})={\mathbb{Z}}^l$, let $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$, and let $Q$ be a compact Hausdorff space. Assume that $f\colon M\times Q\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is a continuous map such that $f(\cdot,q)\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is a full map of class ${\mathscr{A}}(M)$ for every $q\in Q$. Then there exist finitely many holomorphic functions $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in {\mathcal{O}}(M)$ such that the function $h\colon M\times {\mathbb{C}}^N \to{\mathbb{C}}$ given by $$h(p,t)= 1 + \sum_{i=1}^N t_i g_i(p),\qquad t=(t_1,\ldots,t_N)\in{\mathbb{C}}^N,\ p\in M,$$ is a [*period dominating multiplier of $f$*]{}, meaning that $$\label{eq:period-domination2}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} {\mathcal{P}}(h(\cdot,t)f(\cdot,q)) \big|_{t=0} : {\mathbb{C}}^N \to ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^l
\ \ \text{is surjective for every $q\in Q$.}$$
Paths with prescribed periods in the null quadric {#ss:loops}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section we present a construction of paths with prescribed integrals in the punctured null quadric. An elementary result concerning a single path is [@AlarconForstneric2014IM Lemma 7.3]. The parametric version (see [@ForstnericLarussonCAG Lemma 3.1]) is needed in the investigation of the homotopy structure of the spaces ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and ${\mathrm{NC}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$; see Sect. \[ss:rough\]. Here we present a $1$-parametric version, [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Lemma 2.3], which has the advantage of preserving the Gauss map, so it can be used to construct conformal minimal immersions with prescribed complex Gauss map (see Sect. \[ss:Gauss\]).
\[lem:periods\] Set $I=[0,1]$. Let $\alpha\colon I\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ and $f\colon I\times I \to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ be continuous maps such that the path $f_t:= f(\cdotp,t) \colon I\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is full for every $t\in I$. Then there exists a continuous function $h\colon I\times I\to {\mathbb{C}}_*$ such that $h(s,t)=1$ for $t\in I$ and $s\in \{0,1\}$ and $$\label{eq:exact}
\int_0^1 h(s,t) f(s,t)\, ds = \alpha(t), \qquad t\in[0,1].$$ If in addition we have that $\int_0^1 f(s,0)\, ds= \alpha(0)$, then $h$ can be chosen such that $h(s,0)=1$ for all $s\in [0,1]$.
If the map $f$ in Lemma \[lem:periods\] has range in the punctured null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$, then the same holds for the map $hf$ for any nowhere vanishing function $h$. This is how the lemma is used in the present paper. The analogous conclusion holds when $f$ has range in any conical complex subvariety of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
We begin by explaining a reduction to the case when the exact condition is replaced by an approximate condition $$\label{eq:approximate}
\left| \int_0^1 h(s,t) f(s,t)\, ds - \alpha(t)\right| <\epsilon, \qquad t\in[0,1],$$ where $\epsilon>0$ is any given number. Indeed, since the path $f_t$ is full for every $t\in I$, we can divide the $t$-interval $I$ into finitely many subintervals $I_1,\ldots, I_m$ such that for every $i=1,\ldots,m$ there is a closed subinterval $J_i\subset I$ such that the restricted path $f_t\colon J_i\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is full for every $t\in I_i$. Clearly it suffices to consider the problem separately on each $I_i$. Hence, replacing $I$ by $I_i$, we may assume that there is a closed subinterval $J \subset I$ such that $f_t\colon J \to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is full for every $t\in I$. Choose nontrivial disjoint subintervals $J_1,J_2\subset J$. Replacing the $s$-interval $I$ by $J_1$, it suffices to prove that for any given $\epsilon>0$ there is a function $h\colon I\times I\to {\mathbb{C}}_*$ satisfying . Choosing $\epsilon$ small enough, we can correct the small error and obtain by applying the period dominating argument, furnished by Lemma \[lem:spray-loops\], on the subinterval $J_2$.
It remains to explain the construction of a function $h$ satisfying . Since $f_t$ is full for each $t\in I$, there is a division $0=s_0<s_1<\cdots <s_N=1$ of $I$ such that $${\mathrm{span}}\{f_t(s_1),\ldots, f_t(s_N)\}={\mathbb{C}}^n\quad \text{for all}\ t\in I.$$ Set $$V_j(t) = \int_{s_{j-1}}^{s_j} f_t(s)\, ds,\qquad j=1,\ldots,N.$$ Note that $V_j(t)$ is close to $f_t(s_j)(s_j-s_{j-1})$ if the intervals $[s_{j-1},s_j]$ are short. Passing to a finer division if necessary we may therefore assume that $${\mathrm{span}}\bigl\{V_1(t),\ldots, V_N(t)\bigr\} ={\mathbb{C}}^n,\qquad t\in I.$$ For each $t\in I$ we let $\Sigma_t\subset {\mathbb{C}}^N$ denote the affine complex hyperplane defined by $$\Sigma_t= \biggl\{(g_1,\ldots,g_N) \in {\mathbb{C}}^N : \sum_{j=1}^N g_j V_j(t) = \alpha(t) \biggr\}.$$ Clearly, there exists a continuous map $g=(g_1,\ldots, g_N)\colon I\to {\mathbb{C}}^N$ such that $g(t)\in \Sigma_t$ for every $t\in I$. (We may view $g$ as a section of the affine bundle over $I$ whose fiber over the point $t$ equals $\Sigma_t$.) This can be written as follows: $$\label{eq:exact2}
\sum_{j=1}^N \int_{s_{j-1}}^{s_j} g_j(t) f_t(s)\, ds = \alpha(t),\qquad t\in I.$$ Note that $\sum_{j=1}^N V_j(t) = \int_0^1 f_t(s)\, ds$. Hence, if $\int_0^1 f(0,s)\, ds= \alpha(0)$ then $g$ can be chosen such that $g(0)=(1,\ldots,1)\in {\mathbb{C}}^N$. We assume in the sequel that this holds since the proof is even simpler otherwise.
By a small perturbation we may assume that $g_j(t)\in {\mathbb{C}}_*$ for every $t\in I$ and $j=1,\ldots, N$. This changes the exact condition to the approximate condition $$\label{eq:epsilon2}
\left| \, \sum_{j=1}^N \int_{s_{j-1}}^{s_j} g_j(t) f_t(s)\, ds - \alpha(t)\right| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}, \qquad t\in I.$$ For a fixed $t\in I$ we consider the vector $g(t)=(g_j(t))_j\in {\mathbb{C}}^N$ as a step function of $s\in I$ which equals the constant $g_j(t)$ on $s\in [s_{j-1},s_{j})$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$. We now approximate this step function by a continuous function $h_t=h(\cdotp,t)\colon I\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$ which agrees with the step function, except near the points $s_0,s_1,\ldots,s_{N}$, ensuring also that $h_t(0)=h_t(1)=1$. Here are the details. Let $C>1$ be chosen such that $$\max_{(s,t)\in I\times I} |f(s,t)|\le C, \qquad \max_{t\in I,\, j=1,\ldots,N} |g_j(t)| \le C.$$ Pick a number $\eta>0$ such that $$\label{eq:eta}
4C(C+1) N \eta < \epsilon.$$ For each $t\in I$ and $j=1,\ldots N$ we define the function $h(\cdotp,t)\colon [s_{j-1},s_j] \to {\mathbb{C}}_*$ by $$h(s,t) = \begin{cases}
g_{j}((s-s_{j-1})t/\eta), & s\in [s_{j-1},s_{j-1}+\eta]; \\
g_j(t), & s\in [s_{j-1}+\eta,s_j-\eta]; \\
g_{j}((s_j-s)t/\eta), & s\in [s_{j}-\eta,s_j].
\end{cases}$$ Thus, $h(s,t)$ spends most of its time (for $s\in [s_{j-1}+\eta,s_j-\eta]$) at the point $g_j(t)$, and it travels between the point $1\in {\mathbb{C}}_*$ (where it is at the endpoints $s=s_{j-1}$ and $s=s_j$) and the point $g_j(t)$ along the trace of the path $\tau\mapsto g_{j}(\tau t)\in{\mathbb{C}}_*$. This defines a continuous function $h\colon I\times I \to {\mathbb{C}}_*$ satisfying $$\label{eq:hleC}
|h(s,t)|\le C\quad \text{for all $(s,t)\in I\times I$.}$$ It follows easily from , , and that the replacement of the step function by $h(s,t)$ causes an error of size $<\epsilon/2$. This yields the estimate .
Transversality methods for conformal minimal surfaces {#ss:transversality}
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section we indicate how the techniques of Section \[ss:period-dominating\], especially Lemma \[lem:deformation\], can be used to prove the following general position theorem for conformal minimal immersions of bordered Riemann surfaces. The original reference is [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ Theorem 4.1].
\[th:desingBRS\] Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface and $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Every conformal minimal immersion $X \in {\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for $n\ge 5$ can be approximated arbitrarily closely in the ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$ norm by a conformal minimal embedding ${\widetilde}X \in {\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying ${\mathrm{Flux}}_{{\widetilde}X}={\mathrm{Flux}}_X$. If $n=4$ then $X$ can be approximated by conformal minimal immersions with simple (transverse) double points.
Since the set of embeddings $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is clearly open in the set of immersions of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$ for any $r\ge 1$ and ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is a closed subset of the Banach space ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ (hence a Baire space), the following corollary is immediate.
Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface. For every pair of integers $n\ge 5$ and $r\ge 1$ the set of conformal minimal embeddings $M\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^r(M)$ is residual (of the second category) in the Baire space ${\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. The same holds for the set of conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^4$ with simple double points.
We may assume that $M$ is a smoothly bounded domain in an open Riemann surface $R$ and $X$ is a nonflat conformal minimal immersion in an open neighborhood of $M$ in $R$. We associate to $X$ the [*difference map*]{} $\delta X\colon M\times M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ defined by $$\delta X(p,q)=X(q)-X(p), \qquad p,q\in M.$$ Clearly, $X$ is injective if and only if $(\delta X)^{-1}(0)= D_M:=\{(p,p): p\in M\}$. Since $X$ is an immersion, it is locally injective, and hence there is an open neighborhood $U\subset M\times M$ of the diagonal $D_M$ such that $\delta X$ does not assume the value $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ on $\overline U\setminus D_M$. To prove the theorem, it suffices to find arbitrarily close to $X$ a conformal minimal immersion ${\widetilde}X \colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ whose difference map $\delta {\widetilde}X$ is transverse to the origin $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ on $M\times M\setminus U$. Since $\dim_{\mathbb{R}}M\times M=4<n$, this will imply that $\delta{\widetilde}X$ does not assume the value zero on $M\times M\setminus U$, so ${\widetilde}X(p)\ne {\widetilde}X(q)$ if $(p,q)\in M\times M\setminus U$. If $(p,q)\in U \setminus D_M$ then ${\widetilde}X(p)\ne {\widetilde}X (q)$ provided that ${\widetilde}X$ is close enough to $X$, so ${\widetilde}X$ is an embedding. To obtain such ${\widetilde}X$, we find a neighborhood $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ of the origin in a Euclidean space and a real analytic map $H\colon \Omega \times M \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfying the following conditions:
- $H(0,\cdotp)=X$,
- $H(\xi,\cdotp)\in {\mathrm{CMI}}^r(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for every $\xi \in \Omega$, and
- the difference map $\delta H\colon \Omega \times M\times M \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$, defined by $$\delta H(\xi,p,q) = H(\xi,q)-H(\xi,p), \qquad \xi\in \Omega, \ \ p,q\in M,$$ is a submersive family on $M\times M\setminus U$, in the sense that the partial differential $$\label{eq:pd}
d_\xi|_{\xi=0} \, \delta H(\xi,p,q) \colon {\mathbb{R}}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$$ is surjective for every $(p,q)\in M\times M\setminus U$.
For the details of the construction of $H$ see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ Theorem 4.1]; one uses Lemma \[lem:deformation\] and the implicit function theorem. Assume now that such $H$ exists. By compactness of $M\times M \setminus U$, the partial differential $d_\xi (\delta H)$ (\[eq:pd\]) is surjective for all $\xi$ in a neighborhood $\Omega'\subset \Omega$ of the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. Hence, the map $\delta H \colon M\times M\setminus U\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is transverse to any submanifold of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, in particular, to the origin $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. The transversality argument due to Abraham [@Abraham1963TAMS] (see also [@Forstneric2017E Sect. 8.8]) shows that for a generic choice of $\xi\in\Omega'$, the difference map $\delta H(\xi,\cdotp,\cdotp)$ is transverse to $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ on $M\times M\setminus U$, and hence it omits the value $0$ by dimension reasons. By choosing $\xi$ sufficiently close to $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ we thus obtain a conformal minimal embedding ${\widetilde}X=H(\xi,\cdotp)\colon M \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ close to $u$, thereby proving the theorem.
Conformal minimal immersions: approximation, interpolation, embeddings, and isotopies {#sec:OkaP}
=====================================================================================
At the dawn of the 21st century, not much was known about how to deform a given minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ into another one with more desirable properties. At that time we only counted on a few techniques which had been created ad hoc in order to settle specific problems. This is for instance the case of the [*López-Ros deformation*]{} for minimal surfaces $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$ (see [@LopezRos1991JDG]) which amounts to multiplying the complex Gauss map $g_X$ by a nowhere vanishing holomorphic function, subject to suitable period vanishing conditions on the Weierstrass data. Its main shortcoming is that one needs the initial conformal minimal immersion $X$ already defined everywhere on $M$; let us point out that, at that time, few open Riemann surfaces were known to be the underlying complex structure of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
The implementation of the complex analytic tools from Sections \[ss:Oka\]–\[ss:transversality\], and also those to be explained in Section \[sec:RH\], gave rise to the birth and development of the theories of approximation, interpolation, and isotopies for conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ from any given open Riemann surface $M$, leading to an array of new results. In this section we discuss both the foundations of the aforementioned theories and some of their applications. Results depending on the Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem (see e.g. Theorem \[th:I-complete\]) are treated in the following section.
Runge approximation with jet interpolation for conformal minimal immersions {#ss:Mergelyan}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is one of the main new tools for the construction of minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for any $n\ge 3$ with interesting global properties and arbitrary conformal structure. It is analogous in spirit to the combination of the Runge approximation theorem and the Weierstrass interpolation theorem for holomorphic maps from open Riemann surfaces to ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
\[th:ALL\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface, $\Lambda\subset M$ be a closed discrete subset, and $K\subset M$ be a smoothly bounded compact Runge domain. For each $p\in\Lambda$ let $\Omega_p\subset M$ be a neighborhood of $p$ in $M$ such that $\Omega_p\cap \Omega_q=\varnothing$ for all $p\neq q\in \Lambda$, and set $\Omega:=\bigcup_{p\in\Lambda}\Omega_p$. Given a function $r\colon \Lambda \to {\mathbb{N}}$, every conformal minimal immersion $X\colon K\cup\Omega\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ can be approximated uniformly on $K$ by conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ having a contact of order $r(p)$ with $X$ at every point $p\in\Lambda$.
In fact, more is true: the conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X:M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ in Theorem \[th:ALL\] can be chosen complete (see Theorem \[th:ALL-complete\]); furthermore, if the map $X:\Lambda \to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is proper (this holds in particular if $\Lambda$ is finite) then ${\widetilde}X$ can also be chosen proper (see Theorems \[th:SSY\] and \[th:ALL-proper\]). As we shall see in the proof, one can also obtain Mergelyan approximation on admissible sets (see Definition \[def:admissible\]). By using the general position argument in Theorem \[th:desingBRS\], one easily sees that the immersions ${\widetilde}X\in {\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ can be chosen embeddings if $n\ge 5$, immersions with simple double points if $n=4$, and to have prescribed flux compatible with the flux of the initial immersion $X$ for any loop in $K$.
The analogous Runge approximation theorems with jet interpolation holds for holomorphic null curves, and more generally for holomorphic immersions $M\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ directed by any conical complex subvariety $A\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $A\setminus\{0\}$ is an Oka manifold (see [@AlarconForstneric2014IM Theorems 7.2 and 7.7] and [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2017 Theorem 1.3]). Here we say that a holomorphic immersion $Z\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}^n$ is [*directed by*]{} $A$, or an [*$A$-immersion*]{}, if $(dZ/\theta)(M)\subset A\setminus\{0\}$, where $\theta$ is any nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$. Thus, null holomorphic immersions correspond to the case when $A={\mathfrak{A}}$ .
Theorem \[th:ALL\] is a compilation of results from the paper [@AlarconLopez2012JDG] by Alarcón and López where the existence and approximation was proved for conformal minimal immersions into ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, the paper [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ] by the authors and López where the same was done in any dimension $n\ge 3$, and the paper [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2017] by Alarcón and Castro-Infantes where interpolation was added.
We assume that the function $r\colon \Lambda\to {\mathbb{N}}$ is constant; the general case is obtained by an obvious modification.
Pick a smooth strongly subharmonic Morse exhaustion function $\rho\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and exhaust $M$ by an increasing sequence $$\label{eq:exhaustion}
K=M_1\Subset M_2\Subset\cdots\Subset \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty M_i=M$$ of compact smoothly bounded domains of the form $M_i=\{p\in M\colon \rho(p)\le c_i\}$, where $c_1<c_2<\cdots$ is an increasing sequence of regular values of $\rho$ with $\lim_{i\to\infty} c_i =+\infty$. Thus, each domain $M_i$ is a possibly disconnected compact bordered Riemann surface. For convenience of exposition we also assume that $\rho$ has at most one critical point $p_i$ in each difference $\mathring M_{i+1}\setminus M_i$, and that no point of $\Lambda$ is a critical point of $\rho$. It follows that $M_{i}$ is Runge in $M$ for every $i\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Set $\Lambda_i=\Lambda\cap M_i$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$; this is a finite set since $\Lambda\subset M$ is closed and discrete. Up to enlarging $K$ and $\Lambda$ if necessary, we may assume that $\rho$ is chosen such that $\Lambda\cap bM_i=\varnothing$ and $\Lambda_{i+1}\setminus\Lambda_i$ consists of a single point for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
Set $X_1=X|_{M_1}$ and assume as we may that $X_1$ is nonflat. To prove the theorem, we inductively construct a sequence of nonflat conformal minimal immersions $\{X_i\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i)\}_{i\ge 2}$ satisfying the following conditions.
- $X_i$ is as close to $X_{i-1}$ as desired in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M_{i-1})$ topology for all $i\geq 2$.
- $X_i$ and $X$ have a contact of order $r$ at every point in $\Lambda_i$.
It is clear that if the approximations in [(a)]{} are close enough then the limit ${\widetilde}X=\lim_{i\to\infty} X_i\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfies the conclusion of the theorem.
The basis of the induction is given by the already fixed $X_1$. Assume that we already have the immersion $X_i$ for some $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. We consider two different cases depending on the topology of $M_{i+1}\setminus M_i$.
[*The noncritical case*]{}: $\rho$ has no critical value in $[c_i,c_{i+1}]$. In this case $M_i$ is a strong deformation retract of $M_{i+1}$. We may assume that $M_i$ is connected; otherwise we apply the same argument in each connected component. Set $f_i=2 {\partial}X_i/\theta\colon M_i\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$, write $\Lambda_i=\{q_1,\ldots,q_k\}$, and denote by $q_0$ the only point in $\Lambda_{i+1}\setminus\Lambda_i$. Pick a point $p_0\in \mathring M_i\setminus\Lambda$ and choose a family of smooth Jordan arcs $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k$ in $\mathring M_{i+1}$ and smooth Jordan curves $\alpha_{k+1},\ldots,\alpha_{k+l}$ in $\mathring M_i$ $(l=\dim H_1(M_i;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ satisfying the following conditions.
- $\alpha_a\cap\alpha_b=\{p_0\}$ for all $a\neq b\in \{0,\ldots,k+l\}$.
- The endpoints of $\alpha_a$ are $p_0$ and $q_a$ for all $a\in\{0,\ldots,k\}$. We orient each $\alpha_a$ so that $p_0$ is its initial point and $q_a$ is its final point.
- The curves $\alpha_{k+1},\ldots,\alpha_{k+l}$ determine a homology basis of $M_i$.
- $\Upsilon=\bigcup_{a=0}^{k+l} \alpha_a$ is a Runge set in $M$.
- The set $S=M_i\cup \Upsilon=M_i\cup \Gamma$, where $\Gamma=\bigcup_{a=0}^k \alpha_a$, is admissible in $M$ (see Definition \[def:admissible\]).
By Lemma \[lem:periods\] we can extend $X_i\colon M_i\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ to a generalized conformal minimal immersion $({\widetilde}X_i,f_i\theta)\colon S\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ (see Definition \[def:GCMI\]) such that ${\widetilde}X_i=X$ on $\Lambda_{i+1}$ and on a neighborhood of $q_0$; this is possible by condition [(b)]{} for the index $i$. (Here, $\theta$ is a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$.) Consider the period map $${\mathcal{P}}(f)=\left(\int_{\alpha_a}f\theta\right)_{a=0}^{k+l},\qquad f\in {\mathcal{A}}(S,{\mathbb{C}}^n).$$ Lemma \[lem:deformation\] and Remark \[rem:PD2\] furnish a period dominating spray of maps $f_{i;w}\colon S\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ of class ${\mathscr{A}}(S)$ with core $f_{i;0}=f_i$, depending holomorphically on a parameter $w$ in a ball $B\subset {\mathbb{C}}^N$ for some $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, such that $f_{i;w}$ and $f_i$ have a contact of order $r$ at every point in $\Lambda_{i+1}$. Since ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$ is a complex homogeneous manifold and $S$ is Runge in $M$ and a deformation retract of $M_{i+1}$, we may apply Theorem \[th:OP\] to approximate $f_{i;w}$ uniformly on $M_i$ and uniformly with respect to $w\in B$ (shrinking $B$ slightly if necessary) by a holomorphic spray of holomorphic maps $g_w\colon M_{i+1}\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ having a contact of order $r$ with $f_i$ at every point in $\Lambda_{i+1}$. Assuming that the approximation is close enough, the period domination condition of $f_{i;w}$ and the implicit function theorem give a point $w_0\in B$ close to $0\in{\mathbb{C}}^N$ such that ${\mathcal{P}}(g_{w_0})={\mathcal{P}}(f_i)$. The conformal minimal immersion $$X_{i+1}(p)=X_i(p_0)+ \int_{p_0}^p \Re(g_{w_0}\theta),\qquad p\in M_{i+1},$$ then satisfies conditions [(a)]{} and [(b)]{} for the index $i+1$.
[*The critical case*]{}: $\rho$ has a unique (Morse) critical point $p_{i+1}\in M_{i+1}\setminus M_i$. Since $\rho$ is strongly subharmonic, $p_{i+1}$ has Morse index either $0$ or $1$.
If the Morse index is $0$, a new simply connected component of the sublevel set $\{\rho\leq c\}$ appears at $p_{i+1}$ when $c$ passes the value $\rho(p_{i+1})$. We define $X_{i+1}$ on this new component as any conformal minimal immersion, thereby reducing the proof to the noncritical case.
If the Morse index of $p_{i+1}$ is $1$, the change of topology at $p_{i+1}$ is described by attaching to $M_i$ a smooth arc $E\subset \mathring M_{i+1}\setminus (M_i\cup\Lambda)$ such that $M_i\cup E$ is a compact admissible Runge set (see Definition \[def:admissible\]) which is a strong deformation retract of $M_{i+1}$. Let $\theta$ be a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form on $M$. Consider the smooth map $f_i={\partial}X_i/\theta:M_i\to {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ which is holomorpic in $\mathring M_i$. We can extend $f_i$ to a smooth map $\tilde f_i \colon M_i\cup E\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$. We orient $E$ and let $p,q\in bM_i$ denote the beginning and the endpoint of $E$, respectively. Lemma \[lem:periods\] applied on $E$ furnishes a smooth function $h\colon E\to {\mathbb{C}}_*$ which equals $1$ near both endpoints such that $$\int_E h\tilde f_i\theta = X_i(q)-X_i(p).$$ We extend $h$ to a smooth function on $M_i\cup E$ by setting $h|_M=1$. Let $\hat f_i=h\tilde f_i$. By integrating $\hat f_i\theta$ from any initial point $p_0\in M_i$ we obtain a generalized conformal minimal immersion $(\widehat X_i,\hat f_i\theta)\in{\mathrm{GCMI}}(M_i\cup E,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ (see Definition \[def:GCMI\]) such that $\widehat X_i=X_i$ on $M_i$. We finish as in the noncritical case considered above, applying the method of period dominating sprays on the admissible set $M_i\cup E$.
The López-Ros deformation [@LopezRos1991JDG] for minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ enables one to perturb a given conformal minimal immersion by preserving one of its component functions; this is crucial in all applications of this technique in the literature. Theorem \[th:ALL\] also admits a version in which all but two components of the initial immersion are preserved. The next theorem is a compilation of results from [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2017; @AlarconFernandezLopez2013CVPDE; @AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ; @AlarconLopez2012JDG].
\[th:ALL-2\] (Assumptions as in Theorem \[th:ALL\].) Assume in addition that $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ is nonflat and that the functions $X_3,\ldots,X_n$ extends harmonically to $M$. Then the approximating conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X=({\widetilde}X_1,\ldots,{\widetilde}X_n)\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in Theorem \[th:ALL\] can be found with ${\widetilde}X_k=X_k$ for $k=3,\ldots,n$.
The following extension of Theorem \[th:ALL\] requires some additional work.
\[th:ALL-complete\] The conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ in Theorem \[th:ALL\] can be chosen complete.
If one ignores the interpolation, then Theorem \[th:ALL-complete\] follows from Theorem \[th:SSY\] to the effect that a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon K\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n\ge 3$ from a Runge set $K$ in an open Riemann surface $M$ can be approximated by [*proper*]{} (hence complete) conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Assuming in addition that $X: \Lambda \to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a proper map, it is also possible to match the interpolation condition in Theorem \[th:ALL\] by a proper conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ (see Theorem \[th:ALL-proper\]).
Following the noncritical case in the proof of Theorem \[th:ALL\], we assume without loss of generality that $M_i$ is connected and, for simplicity of exposition, that $bM_i$ is connected as well; hence $A=M_{i+1}\setminus \mathring M_i$ is a smoothly bounded compact annulus with $bA=bM_{i+1}\cup bM_i$. Write $X_i=(X_{i;1},\ldots,X_{i;n})$. We split $A$ into two annuli $A_0$ and $A_1$ such that $A_0\cap A_1$ is a boundary component of both $A_0$ and $A_1$, $bM_i\subset bA_0$, $bM_{i+1}\subset bA_1$, and the only point $q_0$ in $\Lambda_{i+1}\setminus \Lambda_i$ lies in $\mathring A_0$. By the proof of Theorem \[th:ALL\] we may assume that $X_i$ extends to $M_{i+1}$ having a contact of order $k$ with $X$ at every point in $\Lambda_{i+1}$, and that ${\partial}X_{i;1}$ vanishes nowhere on $A_1$. We then consider a labyrinth of compact sets $\Upsilon$ in $\mathring A_1$ as in Jorge-Xavier [@JorgeXavier1980AM], i.e., $\Upsilon$ is a finite union of pairwise disjoint compact sets in $\mathring A_1$ such that if $\gamma\colon[0,1]\to A_1\setminus \Upsilon$ is a path connecting the two boundary components of $A_1$ then $$\label{eq:diX1}
\int_\gamma |{\partial}X_{i;1}|>2\tau$$ for a given number $\tau>0$. By Theorem \[th:ALL-2\] we obtain $X_{i+1}=(X_{i+1;1},\ldots, X_{i+1;n})\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_{i+1},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ which is close to $X_i$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M_i\cup A_0)$ norm, has a contact of order $k$ with $X$ everywhere on $\Lambda_{i+1}\subset M_i\cup A_0$, $X_{i+1;1}=X_{i;1}$ everywhere on $M_{i+1}$, and $|X_{i+1;2}(p)-X_{i;2}(q)|>\tau$ for all points $p\in \Upsilon$ and $q\in A_0$. Together with , this and guarantee that, if the approximation of $X_i$ by $X_{i+1}$ is close enough, the intrinsic distance between the boundaries of $A_1$ with respect to the metric induced on $M_{i+1}$ by the Euclidean metric in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ via $X_{i+1}$ is greater than $\tau$. Since $\tau>0$ is arbitrary, this shows that we may arbitrarily enlarge the intrinsic diameter of the surface in every step of the inductive construction in the proof of Theorem \[th:ALL\], thereby ensuring completeness of the limit map.
On Sullivan’s and Schoen-Yau’s conjectures and the embedding problem {#ss:SullivanSchoenYau}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have mentioned in the introduction, as late as in the 1990s hyperbolic Riemann surfaces were thought to play only a marginal role in the global theory of minimal surfaces as seen from the following well known conjectures.
\[co:Sullivan\] Every properly immersed minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with finite topology is parabolic.
No hyperbolic open Riemann surface $M$ carries proper harmonic maps $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$. In particular, every minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with proper projection to ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is parabolic.
The first and more ambitious part of Schoen-Yau’s conjecture was refuted in 1999 by Bo[ž]{}in [@Bozin1999IMRN] who constructed in a very explicit way a proper harmonic map ${\mathbb D}\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Another counterexample was given in 2001 by Forstneri[č]{} and Globevnik [@ForstnericGlobevnik2001MRL] who constructed a proper holomorphic map $f=(f_1,f_2)\colon{\mathbb D}\to{\mathbb{C}}^2$ with $f({\mathbb D})\subset ({\mathbb{C}}_*)^2$; hence, $(\log|f_1|,\log|f_2|)\colon {\mathbb D}\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a proper harmonic map. However, the second part of the conjecture concerning minimal surfaces remained open at that time. Sullivan’s conjecture was refuted in 2003 by Morales [@Morales2003GAFA] who constructed a proper conformal minimal immersion ${\mathbb D}\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ by using the López-Ros deformation and the Runge theorem in a highly intricate way. Morales’ result was later extended to the existence of proper hyperbolic minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with arbitrary topology; see Ferrer, Martín and Meeks [@FerrerMartinMeeks2012AM].
Finally, Alarcón and López [@AlarconLopez2012JDG] proved in 2012 that every open Riemann surface admits a conformal minimal immersion into ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ properly projecting to a plane; this gave a counterexample to the second part of Schoen-Yau’s conjecture and provided an optimal solution to the two problems. The following more precise result in this direction is due to the authors and López (see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2016MZ Theorem 7.1]).
\[Conformal minimal immersions with proper projections to ${\mathbb{R}}^2$\] \[th:SSY\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface and $K\subset M$ be a Runge compact set. Every conformal minimal immersion $U\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ from an open neighborhood $U\subset M$ of $K$ can be approximated uniformly on $K$ by proper conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n={\mathbb{R}}^2\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-2}$ properly projecting into ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times\{0\}^{n-2}\cong{\mathbb{R}}^2$. The approximating immersions can be chosen with prescribed flux compatible with the flux of the initial immersion, with simple double points if $n=4$, and embeddings if $n\ge 5$.
Concerning the analogue of the Schoen-Yau conjecture in higher dimension, it was recently shown by Forstneri[č]{} [@ForstnericJAM Corollary 3.5] that every Stein manifold $X$ of complex dimension $n\ge 1$ admits a proper pluriharmonic map into ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$.
Although Theorem \[th:SSY\] contributes to the aforementioned conjectures, its main relevance concerns the problem of determining the minimal dimension $d$ for which every open Riemann surface properly embeds into ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ as a conformal minimal surface; compare with Theorem \[th:I-properRn\] and Conjecture \[conj:AF\] in the Introduction.
We may assume that $K$ is a smoothly bounded compact Runge domain in $M$. Let $X_0\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(K,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Choose an exhaustion $K=M_0\Subset M_1\Subset\cdots$ of $M$ as in and inductively construct a sequence $X_i=(X_{i,1},X_{i,2},\ldots,X_{i,n})\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ $(i\in{\mathbb{N}})$ satisfying the following conditions.
- $\max\{X_{i,1},X_{i,2}\}> i$ everywhere on $bM_i$.
- $\max\{X_{i,1},X_{i,2}\}> i-1$ everywhere on $M_i\setminus\mathring M_{i-1}$.
- $X_i$ is as close to $X_{i-1}$ as desired in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M_{i-1})$ norm.
- $X_i$ only has simple double points if $n=4$ and is an embedding if $n\ge 5$.
(The way to prescribe the flux map is the standard one; we shall omit it.) Clearly, if the approximation in [(c)]{} is close enough then the limit conformal minimal immersion $\lim_{i\to\infty} X_i\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfies the conclusion of the theorem.
We begin the induction with $X_0\in {\mathrm{CMI}}(K,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ which, up to composing with a translation and using Theorem \[th:desingBRS\], satisfies (a) and (d), while (b), (c) are vacuous.
We now explain the [*noncritical case*]{} in the inductive step. Assume that $M_{i-1}$ is a strong deformation retract of $M_i$ for some $i\ge 1$ and that we already have $X_{i-1}\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_{i-1},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with the desired properties. Note that $M_i\setminus \mathring M_{i-1}$ is union of finitely many pairwise disjoint compact annuli. For simplicity of exposition we assume that there is only one annulus, so $A=M_i\setminus \mathring M_{i-1}$, since the same argument can be applied separately to each one of them. Note that $bA=bM_i\cup bM_{i-1}$. By Theorem \[th:desingBRS\] it suffices to find $X_i\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying [(a)]{}, [(b)]{}, and [(c)]{}. In view of condition [(a)]{} for the index $i-1$, $bM_{i-1}$ splits into $l\ge 3$ compact subarcs $\alpha_k$, $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l={\mathbb{Z}}/l{\mathbb{Z}}$, lying end to end, for which there are complementary subsets $I_1$ and $I_2={\mathbb{Z}}_l\setminus I_1$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}_l$ satisfying that $X_{i-1,\sigma}>i-1$ everywhere on $\alpha_k$ for all $k\in I_\sigma$, $\sigma=1,2$. Denote by $p_k\in bM_{i-1}$ the only point in $\alpha_k\cap\alpha_{k+1}$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, and choose a family $\gamma_k$ $(k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l)$ of pairwise disjoint smooth Jordan arcs in $A$ such that $\gamma_k$ connects $p_k$ with a point $q_k\in bM_i$ and is otherwise disjoint from $bA$. We choose these arcs such that the set $S=M_{i-1}\cup \bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l} \gamma_k\subset M$ is admissible (see Definition \[def:admissible\]). Denote by $\beta_k$ the Jordan arc in $bM_i$ connecting $q_{k-1}$ and $q_k$, and by $\Omega_k\subset A$ the closed disc bounded by $\gamma_{k-1}\cup\alpha_k\cup\gamma_k\cup\beta_k$ for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$. Theorem \[th:ALL\], applied to a suitable generalized conformal minimal immersion on $S$ extending $X_{i-1}$, furnishes $Y=(Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_n)\in {\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ as close as desired to $X_{i-1}$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M_{i-1})$ norm and smoothly bounded compact discs $D_k\subset \Omega_k\setminus(\gamma_{k-1}\cup\alpha_k\cup\gamma_k)$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, such that $D_k\cap\beta_k\neq\varnothing$ is a Jordan arc in $\beta_k\setminus\{q_{k-1},q_k\}$,
- $Y_\sigma>i$ everywhere on $\overline{\beta_k\setminus D_k}$ for all $k\in I_\sigma$, $\sigma=1,2$, and
- $Y_\sigma>i-1$ everywhere on $\overline{\Omega_k\setminus D_k}$ for all $k\in I_\sigma$, $\sigma=1,2$.
(See Figure \[fig:proper\].)
Note that $Y$ already satisfies conditions [(a)]{} and [(b)]{} but only on $\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l} \overline{\Omega_k\setminus D_k}$. Now, since $Y$ is defined everywhere on $M_i$ and it may be assumed nonflat in view of Theorem \[th:ALL\], by Theorem \[th:ALL-2\] (the Mergelyan approximation with fixed components) we may approximate $Y$ on $M_{i-1}\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_2}\Omega_k$ by a conformal minimal immersion $Y'=(Y_1',Y_2',\ldots,Y_n')\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that
- $Y_1'=Y_1$ everywhere on $M_i$, and
- $Y_2'>i$ everywhere on $\bigcup_{k\in I_1} D_k$.
Indeed, it suffices to apply Theorem \[th:ALL-2\], keeping the first component fixed, with a conformal minimal immersion ${\widetilde}Y\in {\mathrm{CMI}}(M_{i-1}\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_2}\Omega_k\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_1} D_k)$ of the form $${\widetilde}Y=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
Y & \text{on $M_{i-1}\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_2}\Omega_k$,}
\\
(0,C,0,\ldots,0)+Y & \text{on $\bigcup_{k\in I_1} D_k$},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $C>0$ is a large enough constant.
Note that, by [(P3)]{}, if the approximation of $Y$ by $Y'$ is close enough then [(P1)]{} and [(P2)]{} hold with $Y'$ in place of $Y$. Observe that $Y'$ already satisfies conditions [(a)]{} and [(b)]{} but only on $\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l} \overline{\Omega_k\setminus D_k}\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_1} D_k$; we will now deform it to meet these requirements also on $\bigcup_{k\in I_2} D_k$ and this will finish the proof. Indeed, proceeding in a symmetric way we may approximate $Y'$ on $M_{i-1}\cup \bigcup_{k\in I_1}\Omega_k$ by a conformal minimal $Y''=(Y_1'',Y_2'',\ldots,Y_n'')\in{\mathrm{CMI}}(M_i,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that
- $Y_2''=Y_1'$ everywhere on $M_i$, and
- $Y_2''>i$ everywhere on $\bigcup_{k\in I_2} D_k$.
As above, by [(P5)]{}, if the approximation of $Y'$ by $Y''$ is close enough then $Y''$ formally satisfies [(P1)]{}, [(P2)]{}, and [(P4)]{}. This and [(P6)]{} shows that $X_i:=Y''$ meets conditions [(a)]{} and [(b)]{}. Finally, [(c)]{} also holds provided that the approximations of $X_{i-1}$ by $Y$, of $Y$ by $Y'$, and of $Y'$ by $Y''$ are sufficiently close. This concludes the proof.
By joining the ideas in the above proof with those in Theorem \[th:ALL\] we obtain the following extension of Theorem \[th:ALL\], due to Alarcón and Castro-Infantes [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2017].
\[th:ALL-proper\] In the assumptions of Theorem \[th:ALL\], if in addition $X|_\Lambda\colon \Lambda\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a proper map, then the conformal minimal immersions ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ in Theorem \[th:ALL\] can be chosen proper.
On the Gauss map {#ss:OnGauss}
----------------
The Gauss map of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and, more generally, the generalized Gauss map $G_X\colon M\to{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ (see ) of a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$, is a fundamental object in the theory. It is classical that $G_X$ is a holomorphic map assuming values in the null quadric (see Sec. \[ss:Gauss\]). Somewhat surprisingly, the following converse was proved only very recently by the authors and López (see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2]).
\[th:Gauss\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface. For any holomorphic map ${\mathscr{G}}\colon M\to Q_{n-2}\subset {\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ $(n\ge 3)$ into the quadric there is a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with the generalized Gauss map $G_X={\mathscr{G}}$ and with vanishing flux. If in addition the map ${\mathscr{G}}$ is full (i.e., its image is not contained in any proper projective subspace), then $X$ can be chosen to have arbitrary flux and to be an immersion with simple double points if $n=4$ and an embedding if $n\ge 5$.
In particular, every holomorphic map $g\colon M\to{\mathbb{CP}}^1$ is the complex Gauss map of a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$ with vanishing flux. If $g$ is nonconstant, then we can find $X$ with arbitrary given flux.
We first apply the Oka-Grauert principle (see Theorem \[th:OP\]) to lift the map ${\mathscr{G}}\colon M\to {\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ to a holomorphic map $G\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}_*^n$ such that $\pi\circ G={\mathscr{G}}$, where $\pi\colon{\mathbb{C}}_*^n\to{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ is the canonical projection. Obviously, $G$ assumes values in the punctured null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}_*\subset{\mathbb{C}}^n$ , . To complete the proof of the first part of the theorem, it then suffices to fix a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $1$-form $\theta$ on $M$ and find a holomorphic function $\varphi\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$ such that the real part of the $1$-form $\Phi=\varphi G\theta$ is exact on $M$. If such $\varphi$ exists then given $p_0\in M$ the Enneper-Weierstrass formula (Theorem \[th:EW\]) shows that the map $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by $X(p)=\int_{p_0}^p \Re(\Phi)$, $p\in M$, is a conformal minimal immersion with the generalized Gauss map $G_X=[{\partial}X]=[\Phi]=\pi\circ (\varphi G)=\pi\circ G={\mathscr{G}}$.
The construction of the function $\varphi$ follows the scheme of proof of Theorem \[th:ALL\] but using Lemma \[lem:existence-sprays\] instead of Lemma \[lem:deformation\]. Let us focus on the case of vanishing flux, i.e., we look for $\varphi$ such that $\varphi G\theta$ is exact. Choose an exhaustion $M_1\Subset M_2\Subset\cdots$ of $M$ as in such that $M_1$ is simply connected. We inductively construct a sequence of holomorphic functions $\varphi_i\colon M_i\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$ $(i\in{\mathbb{N}})$ such that
- $\varphi_i G\theta$ is exact on $M_i$, and
- $\varphi_i$ is as close to $\varphi_{i-1}$ as desired in the ${\mathscr{C}}(M_{i-1})$ norm for all $i\ge 2$.
The limit function $\varphi=\lim_{i\to\infty}\varphi_i\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$ clearly meets the requirements if all approximations in [(b)]{} are close enough. Since $M_1$ is simply connected, the basis of the induction is given by any holomorphic function $\varphi_1\colon M_1\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$. For the inductive step we assume that we already have $\varphi_{i-1}$ for some $i\ge 2$. For simplicity of exposition we assume that $M_{i-1}$ is connected and a strong deformation retract of $M_i$ (i.e., we only discuss the noncritical case). Lemma \[lem:existence-sprays\] provides a period dominating multiplier $h\colon M_{i-1}\times{\mathbb{C}}^N\to{\mathbb{C}}$ of $\varphi_{i-1}$. Next, we approximate $\varphi_{i-1}$ and $h$ on $M_{i-1}$ by a holomorphic function $f\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}_*$ and a spray of holomorphic functions $h'\colon M_i\times{\mathbb{C}}^N\to{\mathbb{C}}$, respectively, such that $h'$ is a period dominating multiplier of $f$. If the approximations of $\varphi_{i-1}$ by $f$ and of $h$ by $h'$ are close enough, then there is a point $\zeta_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^N$ close to the origin such that the function $\varphi_i(p)=f(p) h(p,\zeta_0)$, $p\in M_i$, does not vanish anywhere and meets conditions [(a)]{} and [(b)]{}.
For the second assertion concerning the cases $n=4$ and $n\ge 5$, we adapt the transversality method described in Section \[ss:transversality\] to the current framework. By using period dominating multipliers given by Lemma \[lem:existence-sprays\], we may improve Theorem \[th:desingBRS\] by ensuring that the approximating immersion ${\widetilde}X$ has the same generalized Gauss map as $X$. (See [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Proof of Theorem 1.1] for the details.) This enables us to find the function $\varphi_i$ in the inductive construction such that the conformal minimal immersion $X_i\colon M_i\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by $X_i(p)=\int_{p_0}^p \Re(\varphi_i G\theta)$, $p\in M_i$, has simple double points if $n=4$, and is an embedding if $n\ge 5$. The same holds for $X=\lim_{i\to\infty}X_i\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ provided the approximations in [(b)]{} are sufficiently close.
The size of the spherical image of the Gauss map of a minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ has important implications. For instance, Barbosa and do Carmo [@BarbosaDoCarmo1976AJM] proved that if the area of the spherical image is smaller than $2\pi$ (half of the area of the sphere) then the surface is stable. Thus, Theorem \[th:Gauss\] leads to the following corollary.
\[co:stable\] If $M$ is an open Riemann surface and $g\colon M\to{\mathbb{CP}}^1$ is a holomorphic map whose image $g(M)$ has spherical area less than $2\pi$, then there is a stable conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ with the complex Gauss map $g$.
Another important direction in the study of the Gauss map of conformal minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ is to understand how many points it can omit. A seminal result of Fujimoto [@Fujimoto1988JMSJ] says that the Gauss map of a complete nonflat minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ can omit at most four points of ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$; there are examples with four omitted points, for instance, the classical Sherk’s doubly periodic surface. In higher dimensions, Ru [@Ru1991JDG] proved that if $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a complete nonflat conformal minimal immersion then its generalized Gauss map $G_X$ can omit at most $\frac12 n(n+1)$ hyperplanes in general position in ${\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$. (As pointed out in [@Fujimoto1983JMSJ p. 280], this is equivalent to Fujimoto’s theorem for $n=3$.) However, the number of exceptional hyperplanes depends on the complex structure of the surface. Ahlfors [@Ahlfors1941ASSF] proved that any holomorphic map ${\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ avoiding $n+1$ hyperplanes of ${\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ in general position is degenerate (for $n=2$ this is Picard theorem). This shows that the following result of Alarcón, Fernández, and López [@AlarconFernandezLopez2012CMH; @AlarconFernandezLopez2013CVPDE] is the best possible for all minimal surfaces with nondegenerate Gauss map.
\[th:Isa\] Let $M$ be an open Riemann surface. For any group homomorphism ${\mathfrak{p}}\colon H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ there is a complete conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with the flux map ${\mathfrak{p}}$ whose generalized Gauss map is nondegenerate and omits $n$ hyperplanes of ${\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ in general position. In particular, every open Riemann surface admits a complete nonflat conformal minimal immersion into ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ whose complex Gauss map omits two points of ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$.
On the other hand, Osserman proved in 1964 [@Osserman1964AM] that the Gauss map of a complete nonflat minimal surface with finite total curvature in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ can omit at most three points of ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ (see also [@Osserman1986book p. 89]). His question, whether there is an example of this kind whose Gauss map omits three points, is still open.
We explain the case $n=3$ without taking care of the flux. It suffices to find a complete nonflat conformal minimal immersion $X=(X_1,X_2,X_3)\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that ${\partial}X_3$ does not vanish anywhere on $M$. Indeed, by , this implies that the complex Gauss map $g_X\colon M\to{\mathbb{C}}$ of $X$ is holomorphic and nowhere vanishing, and hence the Gauss map of $X$ assumes neither the north nor the south poles of ${\mathbb{S}}^2$. Note that Theorem \[th:ALL-2\] (the Runge theorem with fixed components for minimal surfaces) ensures that every nonconstant harmonic function $X_3\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a component function of a nonflat conformal minimal immersion $X=(X_1,X_2,X_3)\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$; choosing $X_3$ with no critical points we have that ${\partial}X_3$ vanishes nowhere on $M$. To complete the proof, it remains to show that such an immersion $X$ may be chosen to be complete. As in the proof of Theorem \[th:ALL\], the map $(X_1,X_2)\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is constructed inductively: $(X_1,X_2)=\lim_{i\to\infty} ({\widetilde}X_{i,1},{\widetilde}X_{i,2})$ for suitable harmonic maps $({\widetilde}X_{i,1},{\widetilde}X_{i,2})\colon M_i\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$. (Here $M_1\Subset M_2\Subset\cdots$ is an exhaustion of $M$ as in .) To ensure completeness of $X=\lim_{i\to\infty} {\widetilde}X_i=({\widetilde}X_{i,1},{\widetilde}X_{i,2},X_3)\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ we suitably enlarge the intrinsic diameter of each immersion ${\widetilde}X_i\colon M_i\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ by using a Jorge-Xavier type labyrinth of compact sets in $\mathring M_i\setminus M_{i-1}$ as in the proof of Theorem \[th:ALL-complete\].
Rough shape of the space of conformal minimal immersions {#ss:rough}
--------------------------------------------------------
Several of the results already stated in the paper may be extended to continuous families of conformal minimal immersions by exploiting the parametric Oka property of the punctured null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}_*\subset{\mathbb{C}}^n$. For instance, for an open Riemann surface $M$,
*every conformal minimal immersion $X_0\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is isotopic through conformal minimal immersions $X_t\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(t\in[0,1])$ to*
1. a complete conformal minimal immersion [@AlarconForstneric2017CRELLE],
2. a complete conformal minimal immersion with arbitrary flux if the generalized Gauss map of $X_0$ is nondegenerate [@AlarconForstneric2017CRELLE], and
3. a complete conformal minimal immersion with vanishing flux such that all maps $X_t$ have the same generalized Gauss map $M\to{\mathbb{CP}}^{n-1}$ [*(see [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Corollary 1.4])*]{}.
Fix a nowhere vanishing holomorphic 1-form $\theta$ on $M$ and consider the following commuting diagram of spaces and maps: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n) \ar^\phi[r] \ar_{\Re}[d] &
{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*) \ar@{^{(}->}^i[r] & {\mathcal{O}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*) \ar@{^{(}->}^j[r] & \mathscr C (M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*) \\
\operatorname{\Re}{\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n) \ar@{^{(}->}^\alpha[r]
& {\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) \ar_{\psi}[u] \ar@{^{(}->}^\beta[r] & {\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)
}$$ The left hand side map $\Re$ (the real part projection) is a homotopy equivalence by continuity of the conjugate map transform. Note that $\operatorname{\Re}{\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is the space of conformal minimal immersions $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with zero flux. The maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ are defined by $\phi(Z)=dZ/\theta$ and $\psi(X)=2{\partial}X/\theta$, respectively. The space ${\mathcal{O}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ consists of all nonflat holomorphic maps $M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ (see Def. \[def:nondegenerate\]).
Forstnerič and Lárusson proved in [@ForstnericLarussonCAG] that all maps in the above diagram, with the only possible exception of the inclusion ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) {\hookrightarrow}{\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, are weak homotopy equivalences, and are homotopy equivalences if $M$ has finite topological type. (See [@ForstnericLarussonCAG Theorem 1.1] for the inclusion $\alpha\colon \Re {\mathrm{NC}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\hookrightarrow {\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, [@ForstnericLarussonCAG Theorem 1.2] for maps $\phi$ and $\psi$, and [@ForstnericLarussonCAG Theorem 5.4] for the inclusion $i\colon {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*) {\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$. The inclusion ${\mathcal{O}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*) {\hookrightarrow}\mathscr C(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)$ is a weak homotopy equivalence by the Oka-Grauert Theorem \[th:OP\]. For the proof of strong homotopy equivalences, see [@ForstnericLarussonCAG Sect. 6].) Subsequently, Alarcón and Lárusson [@AlarconLarusson2017IJM] used the methods from [@ForstnericLarussonCAG] to show that the map $\pi\colon {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathfrak{A}}_*)\to H^1(M;{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ sending a nonflat holomorphic map $g\colon M\to{\mathfrak{A}}_*$ to the cohomology class of $g\theta$ is a Serre fibration; this also implies the aforementioned results from [@ForstnericLarussonCAG].
The only map in the above diagram which is not completely understood is the inclusion ${\mathrm{CMI}}_{\mathrm{nf}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n) {\hookrightarrow}{\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of the space of nonflat conformal minimal immersions into the space of all conformal minimal immersions. The authors and López showed in [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017JGEA Theorem 7.1] that this inclusion induces a bijection of path components of the two spaces. In particular, we have the following result.
For any open Riemann surface $M$ the space ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is path connected if $n>3$, whereas the set of path components of ${\mathrm{CMI}}(M,{\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is in bijective correspondence with the elements of the abelian group $({\mathbb{Z}}_2)^l$ where $H_1(M;{\mathbb{Z}})={\mathbb{Z}}^l$.
The Riemann-Hilbert method for minimal surfaces {#sec:RH}
===============================================
The Riemann-Hilbert problem is a classical boundary value problem for holomorphic functions and maps. The basic form of the problem was mentioned by Riemann in his dissertation in 1851. A brief history, references and a list of applications can be found in [@AlarconForstneric2015Abel Sect. 3]. In Sect. \[ss:RHcomplex\] we describe the original complex analytic setting. In Sect. \[ss:RH\] we state without proof a version of the Riemann-Hilbert problem for conformal minimal immersions from bordered Riemann surfaces to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. This is the basis for the construction of complete conformal minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ bounded by Jordan curves and normalized by any given bordered Riemann surface (see Theorems \[th:I-complete\] and \[th:Jordan\]), the construction of proper complete conformal minimal immersions of such surfaces to minimally convex domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ (see Sect. \[ss:proper\]), and the description of the minimal hull of a compact set in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by sequences of minimal discs (see [@DrinovecForstneric2016TAMS] for $n=3$ and [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] for $n>3$). Due to space limitations we shall not discuss minimal hulls in this survey.
The Riemann-Hilbert problem in complex analysis {#ss:RHcomplex}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a complex manifold. We are given a holomorphic map $f\colon {\overline{\mathbb D}}\to X$ (an [*analytic disc*]{} in $X$) and for each point $z\in {\mathbb{T}}=b{\mathbb D}$ a holomorphic map $g_z\colon \overline{\mathbb D}\to X$ with $g_z(0)=f(z)$ and depending continuously on $z\in {\mathbb{T}}$. Set $T_z=g_z({\mathbb{T}}) \subset X$ and $S_z=g_z(\overline {\mathbb D})\subset X$ for $z\in{\mathbb{T}}$. Fix a distance function ${\mathrm{dist}}$ on $X$. Given numbers $0<r<1$ and $\epsilon>0$, the [*approximate Riemann-Hilbert problem*]{} asks for a holomorphic map $F\colon \overline{\mathbb D}\to X$ satisfying the following conditions for some $r'\in [r,1)$:
- ${\mathrm{dist}}(F(z),T_z)<\epsilon$ for $z\in{\mathbb{T}}$,
- ${\mathrm{dist}}(F(\rho z),S_z)<\epsilon$ for $z\in {\mathbb{T}}$ and $r'\le \rho\le 1$, and
- ${\mathrm{dist}}(F(z),f(z))<\epsilon$ for $|z|\le r'$.
(The domain of $f$ may in fact be any bordered Riemann surface $M$, but the domain of the maps $g_z$ is always the closed disc $\overline{\mathbb D}$.) This implies that
- $F({\overline{\mathbb D}})$ lies in the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the set $\Sigma= f({\overline{\mathbb D}})\cup \bigcup_{z\in {\mathbb{T}}} g_z({\overline{\mathbb D}})$, and
- its boundary $F({\mathbb{T}})$ lies in the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the torus $T=\bigcup_{z\in {\mathbb{T}}} g_z({\mathbb{T}})$.
This shows that the placement of the image curve $F({\overline{\mathbb D}})$ in $X$ is well controlled, a very important point in most applications. (The exact problem, asking for $F$ satisfying $F(z)\in T_z$ for every $z\in b{\mathbb D}$, is only rarely solvable.)
For $X={\mathbb{C}}^n$ the problem is solved as follows (see [@DrinovecForstneric2012IUMJ] for the details). The map $${\mathbb{T}}\times \overline{\mathbb D}\ni (z,w) \mapsto g_z(w) - f(z) \in{\mathbb{C}}^n$$ is continuous in $z$, holomorphic in $w$, and vanishes at $w=0$ for any $z\in {\mathbb{T}}$ since $g_z(0)=f(z)$. We can approximate it arbitrarily closely by a rational map $$G(z,w)= z^{-m} \sum_{j=1}^N A_j(z) w^j \in{\mathbb{C}}^n,$$ where the $A_j$’s are ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued holomorphic polynomials. Pick $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and set $$\label{eq:F}
F(z)= f(z)+ G(z,z^k)= f(z) + z^{k-m} \sum_{j=1}^N A_j(z) z^{k(j-1)}, \quad z\in \overline {\mathbb D}.$$ The pole at $z=0$ cancels if $k>m$, and one easily verifies that $F$ satisfies conditions (a)–(c) if the integer $k$ is chosen big enough.
Consider now the case when the domain of $f$ is a bordered Riemann surface $M$ and the target manifold $X$ is arbitrary. In most applications it suffices to solve the following restricted problem. Pick a pair of arcs $I_0,I_1\subset bM$ with $I_0\subset \mathring I_1$ and a smooth function $\chi\colon bM\to [0,1]$ such that $\chi=1$ on $I_0$ and $\chi=0$ on $bM\setminus I_1$. Set $\tilde g_z(w)=g_z(\chi(z)w)$ for $z\in bM$ and $w\in \overline{\mathbb D}$. Note that $\tilde g_z$ agrees with $g_z$ for $z\in I_0$ and is the constant disc $w\to f(z)$ for any point $z\in bM\setminus I_1$. Let $D\subset M$ be a smoothly bounded simply connected domain (a disc) such that $I_1$ is a relatively open subset of $bD\cap bM$. We define $\tilde g_z$ as the constant dics $f(z)$ for points $z\in bD \setminus I_1$ (this is consistent with the previous choices). Let ${\widetilde}F:\overline D\to X$ be an approximate solution of the Riemann-Hilbert problem with the data $f|_{\overline D}$ and $\tilde g_z$, $z\in bD$. (Such ${\widetilde}F$ is found by reducing this local problem to the Euclidean case via suitable Stein neighborhoods of the graphs of our maps.) By choosing the integer $k$ in (\[eq:F\]) big enough, ${\widetilde}F$ satisfies condition (a) for $z\in I_0$, it satisfies (b) for $z\in bD$, and is uniformly close to $f$ on $\overline D \setminus U$ where $U\subset \overline M$ is any given neighborhood of the arc $I_1$. Write $\overline M=A\cup B$ where $A,B\subset \overline M$ are smoothly bounded compact domains such that $A$ is the complement of a small neighborhood of the arc $I_1$, $B\subset \overline D$ contains a small neighborhood of $I_1$, we have that $\overline{A\setminus B}\cap \overline{B\setminus A}=\varnothing$, and ${\widetilde}F$ is uniformly close to $f$ on $C=A\cap B$. Next, we glue $f$ and ${\widetilde}F$ into a solution $F\colon M\to X$ by the method of [*gluing holomorphic sprays*]{}. An outline can be found in [@AlarconForstneric2015Abel Sect. 3], and the method is fully explained in [@Forstneric2017E Chapter 5]. This method lies at the heart of proof of the Oka principle for maps from Stein manifolds to Oka manifolds (see [@Forstneric2017E Theorem 5.4.4]).
The Riemann-Hilbert method for null curves and minimal surfaces {#ss:RH}
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem has been adapted to null holomorphic curves in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ and conformal minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for any $n\ge 3$ in the papers [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS; @AlarconForstneric2015MA]. A special case for null curves in ${\mathbb{C}}^3$ was first obtained by the authors in [@AlarconForstneric2015MA] by using the double sheeted spinor parametrization $\pi\colon{\mathbb{C}}^2_*\to{\mathfrak{A}}^2_*$ of the null quadric, lifting to derivative maps from ${\mathfrak{A}}_*^2$ to ${\mathbb{C}}^2_*$, applying the Riemann-Hilbert method in ${\mathbb{C}}^2_*$ and then pushing the resulting maps down to ${\mathfrak{A}}^2_*$. When replacing the disc by a bordered Riemann surface $M$, one must glue local solutions on small discs abutting $bM$ by using the method of gluing sprays as described in the previous section. Since the Riemann-Hilbert problem is not used directly for null curves but for their derivatives with values in the null quadric ${\mathfrak{A}}_*$, one must also pay attention to the period vanishing conditions to ensure that the approximating maps integrate to null curves. The results from [@AlarconForstneric2015MA] were extended to any dimension $n\ge 3$ and were adapted to conformal minimal immersions by the authors with Drinovec Drnovšek and López [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS]. The following result is [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS Theorem 3.6].
\[th:RHCMI\] Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface with boundary $bM\ne\varnothing$, and let $I_1,\ldots,I_k$ be pairwise disjoint compact arcs in $bM$ which are not connected components of $bM$. Let $r \colon bM \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ be a continuous nonnegative function supported on $I:=\bigcup_{i=1}^k I_i$. Also, let $\sigma \colon I \times\overline{{\mathbb D}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be a function of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ such that for every $\zeta\in I$ the function ${\overline{\mathbb D}}\ni \xi \mapsto \sigma(\zeta,\xi)$ is holomorphic on ${\mathbb D}$, $\sigma(\zeta,0)=0$, and the partial derivative ${\partial}\sigma/{\partial}\xi$ is nowhere vanishing on $I \times {\overline{\mathbb D}}$. Choose a thin annular neighborhood $A\subset M$ of $bM$ and a smooth retraction $\rho\colon A\to bM$. For each $i=1,\ldots, k$ let ${\mathbf{u}}_i,{\mathbf{v}}_i\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a pair of orthogonal vectors satisfying $|{\mathbf{u}}_i|=|{\mathbf{v}}_i|>0$. Given $X\in{\mathrm{CMI}}^1(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ $(n\ge 3)$, consider the continuous map $\varkappa\colon bM \times\overline{{\mathbb D}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by $$\label{eq:varkappa}
\varkappa(\zeta ,\xi)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
X(\zeta ), & \zeta \in bM\setminus I; \\
X(\zeta ) + r(\zeta )\bigl( \Re \sigma(\zeta,\xi) {\mathbf{u}}_i+ \Im \sigma(\zeta,\xi) {\mathbf{v}}_i \bigr), &
\zeta \in I_i,\; i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Given $\epsilon>0$ there exist an arbitrarily small open neighborhood $\Omega\subset M$ of $I$ and a conformal minimal immersion $Y \in{\mathrm{CMI}}^1(M,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying the following conditions.
1. ${\mathrm{dist}}(Y(\zeta ),\varkappa(\zeta ,{\mathbb{T}}))<\epsilon$ for all $\zeta \in bM$.
2. ${\mathrm{dist}}(Y(\zeta ),\varkappa(\rho(\zeta ),\overline{{\mathbb D}}))<\epsilon$ for all $\zeta \in \Omega$.
3. $Y$ is $\epsilon$-close to $X$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ norm on $M\setminus \Omega$.
4. ${\mathrm{Flux}}(Y)={\mathrm{Flux}}(X)$.
The proof will not be reproduced here due to its complexity and space limitations. Note that the boundary discs $\varkappa(\zeta ,\cdotp)$ $(\zeta\in bM)$ lie in affine $2$-planes. A more precise result is available in dimension $n=3$; see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Theorem 3.2]. In that case the map $\varkappa$ may be chosen of the form $$\label{eq:varkappa2}
\varkappa(\zeta,\xi)=X(\zeta) + \alpha\bigl(\zeta,r(\zeta) \,\xi\bigr),$$ where $\alpha \colon I \times\overline{{\mathbb D}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a map of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ such that for every $\zeta\in I$ the map ${\overline{\mathbb D}}\ni \xi \mapsto \alpha(\zeta,\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a conformal minimal immersion with $\alpha(\zeta,0)=0$ and we take $\alpha\bigl(\zeta,r(\zeta) \,\xi\bigr)=0$ for $\zeta\in bM\setminus I$. The advantage is that the conformal minimal discs ${\overline{\mathbb D}}\ni \xi\mapsto \alpha\bigl(\zeta,r(\zeta) \,\xi\bigr)\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ are arbitrary and not necessarily flat as before.
The Riemann-Hilbert method has also been adapted by the authors and López [@AlarconForstnericLopez2017CM] to holomorphic Legendrian curves in the standard complex contact structure on Euclidean spaces ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}$.
On the Calabi-Yau problem {#ss:CY}
-------------------------
The Calabi-Yau problem for minimal surfaces originated in the following conjecture of Calabi from 1965.
\[conj:Calabi\] A complete minimal hypersurface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n\ge 3$ is unbounded. Even more, its projection to every $(n-2)$-dimensional affine subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is unbounded.
Nothing seems known about this problem for $n\ge 4$. For $n=3$, the latter assertion in Calabi’s conjecture was refuted by Jorge and Xavier [@JorgeXavier1980AM] in 1980, and the former by Nadirashvili [@Nadirashvili1996IM] in 1996. In both cases the counterexample is normalized by the disc, and the proof combines the López-Ros deformation for minimal surfaces [@LopezRos1991JDG] with an inventive use of the Runge approximation theorem for holomorphic functions. In his [*2000 Millennium Lecture*]{} [@Yau2000], Yau revisited Calabi’s conjectures and proposed several questions concerning the topology, complex structure, and asymptotic behavior of complete bounded minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Ferrer, Martín, and Meeks [@FerrerMartinMeeks2012AM] proved in 2012 that there is no restriction on their topological type; controlling the complex structure is a much more challenging task. The second part of Conjecture \[conj:Calabi\] was settled in 2012 by Alarc[ó]{}n, Fern[á]{}ndez, and L[ó]{}pez [@AlarconFernandezLopez2012CMH] who proved the following result. (A special case was obtained beforehand in [@AlarconFernandez2011DGA].)
\[th:AFeL\] Given an open Riemann surface $M$ and a nonconstant harmonic function $h\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}$, there is a complete conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ whose third coordinate function equals $h$. In particular, $M$ admits a complete nonflat conformal minimal immersion $M\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ with a bounded component function if and only if there exists a bounded nonconstant harmonic function $M\to{\mathbb{R}}$.
In the subsequent paper [@AlarconFernandezLopez2013CVPDE] of the same authors this result was extended to conformal minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n>3$, where now $n-2$ of the coordinate functions can be prescribed.
On the other hand, open Riemann surfaces normalizing complete bounded minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ are far from classified. By introducing the Riemann-Hilbert method into the picture, the authors with Drinovec Drnovšek and López [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS] proved the following result to the effect that every bordered Riemann surface normalizes a complete bounded minimal surface with Jordan boundary.
\[th:Jordan\] Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface. Every conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ may be approximated uniformly on $M$ by continuous maps ${\widetilde}X\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that ${\widetilde}X|_{bM}\colon bM{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a topological embedding and ${\widetilde}X|_{\mathring M}\colon \mathring M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a complete conformal minimal immersion. If $n\ge 5$ there are embeddings ${\widetilde}X\colon M{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with these properties. The flux map of ${\widetilde}X$ can also be prescribed.
Theorem \[th:Jordan\] follows by an obvious inductive application of the following approximation result (see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS Lemma 4.1]) together with Theorem \[th:desingBRS\] and a transversality argument which deals with the injectivity on the boundary.
\[lem:Jordan\] In the assumptions of Theorem \[th:Jordan\], given $p_0\in \mathring M$ and $\lambda>0$, $X$ may be approximated arbitrarily closely in the ${\mathscr{C}}^0(M)$ topology by a conformal minimal immersion $Y\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ such that ${\mathrm{dist}}_Y(p_0,bM)>\lambda$.
In turn, Lemma \[lem:Jordan\] follows from the maximum principle, the divergence of the sequence $d_j=d_{j-1}+\frac1{j}$ $(d_0>0)$, the convergence of the sequence $\delta_j=\sqrt{\delta_{j-1}^2+\frac1{j}^2}$ $(\delta_0>0)$, and an inductive application of the following result (see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS Lemma 4.2]).
\[lem:Jordan2\] In the assumptions of Theorem \[th:Jordan\], let ${\mathfrak{Y}}\colon bM\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a smooth map and choose $\delta>0$ such that $|X(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p)|<\delta$ for all $p\in bM$. Also let $p_0\in \mathring M$ and choose $d>0$ such that $0<d<{\mathrm{dist}}_X(p_0,bM)$. For any $\eta>0$ the map $X$ may be approximated uniformly on compacts in $\mathring M$ by conformal minimal immersions $Y\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ satisfying ${\mathrm{dist}}_Y(p_0,bM)> d+\eta$ and $|Y(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p)|<\sqrt{\delta^2+\eta^2}$ for all $p\in bM$.
We assume that $M$ is a smoothly bounded compact domain in an open Riemann surface ${\widetilde}M$ and, for simplicity of exposition, that $bM$ is connected. Choose a smoothly bounded compact domain $K\subset\mathring M$ which is a strong deformation retract of $M$ and such that ${\mathrm{dist}}_X(p_0,bK)>d$. We assume without loss of generality that $X-{\mathfrak{Y}}\neq 0$ on $bM$. Given $\epsilon>0$ we look for a conformal minimal immersion $Y\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $|Y-X|<\epsilon$ on $K$ and satisfying the lemma.
Fix a number $\epsilon_0>0$ which will be specified later. By continuity of $X$ and ${\mathfrak{Y}}$, $bM$ splits into $l\geq 3$ compact arcs $\alpha_k$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, lying end to end and such that for all pairs of points $p,q$ in $\alpha_k$ we have $|{\mathfrak{Y}}(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(q)|<\epsilon_0$, $|X(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(q)|<\delta$, and $|X(p)-X(q)|<\epsilon_0$. Denote by $p_k$ the only point in $\alpha_k\cap\alpha_{k+1}$ and by $\pi_k\colon{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\rm span}\bigl\{X(p_k)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_k)\bigl\} \, \subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ the orthogonal projection onto the affine real line ${\rm span}\{X(p_k)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_k)\}$. The first step consists of perturbing $X$ near the points $\{p_k\colon k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l\}$ in order to find a conformal minimal immersion $X_0\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ which is close to $X$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(K)$ norm and such that the distance between $p_0$ and $\{p_k\colon k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l\}$ in the induced metric $X_0^*(ds^2)$ is large in a suitable way. To be precise, we ask $X_0$ to keep satisfying
- $|X_0(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(q)|<\delta$ and $|X_0(p)-X(q)|<\epsilon_0$ for all $\{p,q\}\in \alpha_k$, $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$,
and to meet also the following condition:
- For each $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$ there is a small open neighborhood $U_k$ of $p_k$ in $M$, with $\overline U_k\cap K=\varnothing$, enjoying the following condition: if $\gamma\subset M$ is an arc with initial point in $K$ and final point in $\overline U_k$, and if $\{J_a\}_{a\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l}$ is a partition of $\gamma$ by Borel measurable subsets, then $\sum_{a\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} {\mathrm{length}}\, \pi_a(X_0(J_a)) >\eta$.
To find such $X_0$, we take a family of pairwise disjoint Jordan arcs $\{\gamma_k\subset {\widetilde}M\colon k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l\}$ such that each $\gamma_k$ contains $p_k$ as an endpoint, is attached transversely to $M$ at $p_k$ and is otherwise disjoint from $M$, and the set $S:=M\cup\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} \gamma_k \subset{\widetilde}M$ is admissible (see Definition \[def:admissible\]). We then extend $X$ to a generalized conformal minimal immersion $(X,f\theta)\in{\mathrm{GCMI}}(S,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ so that the following analogues to [(i)]{} and [(ii)]{} hold.
- $|X(x)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(q)|<\delta$ and $|X(x)-X(q)|<\epsilon_0$ for all $(x,q)\in (\gamma_{k-1}\cup \alpha_k\cup \gamma_k)\times \alpha_k$.
- If $\{J_a\}_{a\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l}$ is a partition of $\gamma_k$ by Borel measurable subsets, then $\sum_{a\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} {\mathrm{length}}\, \pi_a(X(J_a)) > 2\eta.$
This means that $X$ is chosen on each arc $\gamma_k$ to be highly oscillating in the direction of $F(p_a)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_a)$ for all $a\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, but with very small extrinsic diameter. Now, apply Theorem \[th:ALL\] to approximate $(X,f\theta)$ uniformly on $S$ by a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon {\widetilde}M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$; let us keep denoting it by $X$. Let $q_k$ denote the endpoint of $\gamma_k$ different from $p_k$. If the approximation is close enough then [@ForstnericWold2009JMPA Theorem 2.3] provides a smooth diffeomorphism $\phi\colon M\to\phi (M)$ satisfying:
- $\phi \colon \mathring M \to \phi(\mathring M)$ is a biholomorphism,
- $\phi$ is as close as desired to the identity in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ norm on the complement in $M$ of a small neighborhood of $\{p_k\colon k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l\}$, and
- $\phi(p_k) = q_k\in b\,\phi(M)$ and $\phi$ maps a suitably chosen neighborhood of $\{p_k\colon k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l\}$ in $M$ to a small neighborhood of $\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l}\gamma_k$ in ${\widetilde}M$.
Thus, doing things in the right way, when composing $\phi$ with $X$ we are merging the arcs $X(\gamma_k)$ into $X(M)$ without modifying $M$ itself. It follows that the ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ conformal minimal immersion $X_0=X\circ\phi\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfies conditions [(i)]{} and [(ii)]{}.
We may assume that the sets $\overline U_k$, $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$, are simply connected, smoothly bounded, and pairwise disjoint. Roughly speaking, $X_0$ meets the requirements in the lemma, except that ${\mathrm{dist}}_{X_0}(p_0,p)>d+\delta$ only holds for the points $p$ in $bM$ which lie in a $\overline U_k$. To conclude the proof we perturb $X_0$ outside $\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} U_k$, preserving what has already been achieved. At this point the Riemann-Hilbert method is invoked. Fix $\epsilon_1>0$ to be specified later, choose an annular neighborhood $A\subset M\setminus K$ of $bM$ and a smooth retraction $\rho\colon A\to bM$. By [(i)]{} there is a family of pairwise disjoint, smoothly bounded closed discs $\overline D_k$ in $M\setminus K$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, satisfying $\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} \overline D_k\subset A$, $\overline D_k\cap bM$ is a compact connected Jordan arc in $\alpha_k\setminus\{p_{k-1},p_k\}$ with an endpoint in $U_{k-1}$ and the other endpoint in $U_k$, and the following conditions:
- $|X_0(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(q)|<\delta$ for all $(p,q)\in \overline D_k\times\alpha_k$, and
- $\rho(\overline D_k)\subset \alpha_k\setminus\{p_{k-1},p_k\}$ and $|X_0(\rho(x))-X_0(x)|<\epsilon_1$ for all $x\in\overline D_k$, $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$.
For each $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$ we choose a pair of compact Jordan arcs $\beta_k\Subset I_k\Subset \overline D_k\cap\alpha_k$ with an endpoint in $U_{k-1}$ and the other endpoint in $U_k$, and a pair of vectors ${\mathbf{u}}_k$, ${\mathbf{v}}_k\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, such that $|{\mathbf{u}}_k|=1 = |{\mathbf{v}}_k|$ and ${\mathbf{u}}_k$, ${\mathbf{v}}_k$, and $X(p_k)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_k)$ are pairwise orthogonal. We then choose a continuous function $\mu\colon bM\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $$0\leq\mu\leq\eta,\qquad \text{$\mu=\eta$\ \ on $\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} \beta_k$,\qquad
\text{$\mu=0$\; on $bM\setminus \bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} I_k$}}.$$ Consider the continuous map $\varkappa\colon bM \times\overline{{\mathbb D}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by $$\varkappa(x,\xi)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
X_0(x), & x\in bM\setminus \bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} I_k; \\
X_0(x) + \mu(x)(\Re \xi {\mathbf{u}}_k + \Im \xi {\mathbf{v}}_k), & x\in I_k,\; k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l.
\end{array}\right.$$ These are the boundary data of a Riemann-Hilbert problem on $X_0$ for which the boundary disc $\varkappa(x,\cdotp)$ at each point $x\in \beta_k$ is a round planar disc of radius $\eta$ that is orthogonal to $X(p_k)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_k)$. Theorem \[th:RHCMI\] provides for every $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$ an arbitrarily small open neighborhood $\Omega_k\subset \overline D_k$ of $I_k$ in $M$ and a conformal minimal immersion $Y\colon M\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ satisfying the following conditions.
- ${\mathrm{dist}}(Y(x),\varkappa(x,{\mathbb{T}}))<\epsilon_1$ for all $x\in bM$.
- ${\mathrm{dist}}(Y(x),\varkappa(\rho(x),\overline{{\mathbb D}}))<\epsilon_1$ for all $x\in \Omega:=\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l}\Omega_k$.
- $Y$ is $\epsilon_1$-close to $X_0$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ norm on $M\setminus \Omega$.
Using conditions [(i)]{}–[(vii)]{} and Pythagoras’ theorem, it is not hard to see that $Y$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma provided that $\epsilon_0>0$ and $\epsilon_1>0$ are chosen sufficiently small. Very briefly, by [(vi)]{}, [(iv)]{}, and the definition of $\varkappa$ we have that $\pi_k\circ Y$ is $2\epsilon_1$-close to $\pi_k\circ X_0$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^0(\Omega_k)$ topology for all $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l$, and so a weaker version of condition [(ii)]{} is preserved by the second deformation procedure. This enables to ensure that ${\mathrm{dist}}_Y(p_0,p)>d+\eta$ for all $p\in bM\cap\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l} \overline U_k$. Taking into account [(i)]{}, [(v)]{}, and that $\mu=\eta$ on $\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} \beta_k$, we infer the same inequality for all points $p\in bM\setminus \bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_l} \overline U_k$. On the other hand, [(i)]{}, [(v)]{}, [(vii)]{}, the facts that $\mu=\eta$ on $\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} \beta_k$ and that ${\mathbf{u}}_k$, ${\mathbf{v}}_k$, and $X(p_k)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p_k)$ are pairwise orthogonal, and Pythagoras’ theorem guarantee that $|Y(p)-{\mathfrak{Y}}(p)|<\sqrt{\delta^2+\eta^2}$ for all $p\in bM$.
Another recent application of the Riemann-Hilbert method is the construction of complete minimal surfaces densely lying in arbitrary domains of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The following result is due to Alarcón and Castro-Infantes [@AlarconCastro-Infantes2018GT].
\[th:dense\] Let $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ $(n\ge 3)$ be an open connected set. Every bordered Riemann surface $M$ admits a complete conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $X(M)$ is a dense subset of $D$. If $n\ge 5$ then $X$ may be chosen injective.
Proper conformal minimal surfaces in minimally convex domains {#ss:proper}
-------------------------------------------------------------
A major problem in minimal surface theory is to understand which domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ admit complete properly immersed minimal surfaces, and how the geometry of the domain influences the conformal properties of such surfaces (see [@MeeksPerez2004SDG Section 3] for a background on this topic). In dimension $n=3$ this subject is connected with the Calabi-Yau problem. In view of Nadirashvili’s example [@Nadirashvili1996IM], Yau [@Yau2000] asked whether there exist complete minimal surfaces properly immersed in the ball of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. An affirmative answer for any either convex or bounded and smoothly bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ was given by Martín and Morales in [@MartinMorales2004TAMS; @MartinMorales2005DMJ; @MartinMorales2006CMH]. In the opposite direction, Mart[í]{}n, Meeks, and Nadirashvili [@MartinMeeksNadirashvili2007AJM] gave examples of bounded domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ which do not admit any complete proper minimal surfaces of finite topology.
If $M$ is a bordered Riemann surface for which one is able to construct in a standard inductive way a proper conformal minimal immersion into a given domain $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, then one can also construct a [*complete*]{} proper one by the procedure in Lemma \[lem:Jordan\] which enlarges the intrinsic boundary distance within the surface as much as desired by an arbitrarily small displacement of the surface in $D$. Hence it suffices to focus on the existence of proper conformal minimal immersions. Recent examples by Alarcón et al. [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] show that some geometric assumptions on the domain are necessary to obtain positive results. Indeed, there is a bounded simply connected domain $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ carrying no proper conformal minimal disc ${\mathbb D}\to D$ passing through a certain point in $D$, and a bounded domain $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ admitting no proper minimal surfaces with finite topology and a single end (see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Examples 1.13 and 1.14]). Much earlier, Dor [@Dor1996MZ] found a bounded domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{C}}^m$ for any $m\ge 2$ which does not admit any proper holomorphic discs ${\mathbb D}\to\Omega$. It remains an open problem whether there is a domain $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n>3$ without any proper minimal discs.
A ${\mathscr{C}}^2$ function $\rho\colon D\to {\mathbb{R}}$ on a domain $D \subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be [*strongly minimal plurisubharmonic*]{} if ${\mathrm{tr}}_L {\mathrm{Hess}}_\rho(x)>0$ for every affine $2$-dimensional linear subspace $L$ and every point $x\in D\cap L$; equivalently, if $\lambda_1(x) + \lambda_2(x) > 0$ for all $x\in D$ where $\lambda_1(x)\le \lambda_2(x)$ are the two smallest eigenvalues of the Hessian ${\mathrm{Hess}}_\rho(x )$. The domain $D$ is said to be [*minimally convex*]{} if it admits a strongly minimal plurisubharmonic exhaustion function (see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS 2]). The following result was obtained as an application of Theorem \[th:RHCMI\] (the Riemann-Hilbert method) with functions $\varkappa$ of the form ; see [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Theorem 1.1 and Remark 3.8].
\[th:ADFL\] Let $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n\ge 3$ be a minimally convex domain and $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface. Every conformal minimal immersion $M\to D$ may be approximated uniformly on compacts in $\mathring M=M\setminus bM$ by proper (and complete if so desired) conformal minimal immersions (embeddings if $n\ge 5$) $\mathring M\to D$.
In particular, every [*mean-convex*]{} domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ admits complete proper minimal surfaces normalized by any bordered Riemann surface. We refer to [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2015PLMS; @AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS] for more precise results including infinite topologies, control of the flux, and continuous extendibility up to the boundary.
Since the complement of an embedded minimal surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a minimally convex domain [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Corollary 1.3], we have the following corollary to Theorem \[th:ADFL\].
Let $S\subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a properly embedded minimal surface and let $D$ be a connected component of ${\mathbb{R}}^3\setminus S$. Every bordered Riemann surface admits a proper conformal minimal immersion into $D$.
We discuss the case $n=3$. Let $\rho\colon D\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ be a smooth strongly minimally plurisubharmonic Morse exhaustion function with the (discrete) critical locus $P$. We extend $\rho$ to a function on the tube $D\times{{\mathfrak{i}}}{\mathbb{R}}^3\subset{\mathbb{C}}^3$ which is independent of the imaginary coordinates. A simple calculation shows that $\rho$ is strongly minimally plurisubharmonic if and only if the Levi form of the extended function at any point of $D\times{{\mathfrak{i}}}{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is positive on every null vector $w\in {\mathfrak{A}}_*$ (see [@DrinovecForstneric2016TAMS Lemma 4.3]; such functions are called [*strongly null plurisubharmonic*]{}). By using this fact, it is not hard to see (cf. [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Lemma 3.1]) that for any compact set $L \subset D\setminus P$ there is a constant $c=c_L>0$ and families of embedded null holomorphic discs $\sigma_x^j = \alpha_x^j + {{\mathfrak{i}}}\beta_x^j \colon {\overline{\mathbb D}}\to {\mathbb{C}}^3$ $(x\in L,\ j=1,2)$, depending locally ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ smoothly on the point $x\in L$ and satisfying the following conditions:
- $\sigma_x^j(0)=0$,
- $\{x + \alpha_x^j(\xi) : \xi\in {\overline{\mathbb D}}\} \subset D$, and
- the function ${\overline{\mathbb D}}\ni \xi\mapsto \rho\bigl(x+ \alpha_x^j(\xi)\bigr)$ is strongly convex and satisfies $\rho\bigl(x + \alpha_x^j(\xi)\bigr) \ge \rho(x)+c |\xi|^2$ for $\xi\in {\overline{\mathbb D}}$.
Indeed, it suffices to choose the null discs $\sigma_x^j$ in the quadratic complex hypersurface $$\Sigma_{x}= \biggl\{w=(w_1,w_2,w_3)\in{\mathbb{C}}^3 : \sum_{j=1}^3 \frac{{\partial}\rho}{{\partial}x_j}(x) w_j
+ \sum_{j,k=1}^3 \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial z_j \partial\bar z_k}(x) w_j w_k=0 \biggr\}.$$ The tangent plane $T_0\Sigma_x\subset{\mathbb{C}}^3$ contains precisely two null directions which leads to two families of null discs as above. The restriction of $\rho$ to the affine hypersurface $x+\Sigma_{x}$ has the Taylor expansion $$\rho(x +w)=\rho(x)+{\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;w)+o(|w|^2),$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho$ denotes the Levi form of $\rho$. Since the Levi form ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;w)$ is positive on null vectors $w\in {\mathfrak{A}}_*$, we get the estimates in condition (c).
Using the conformal minimal discs $\alpha_x^j$ as above and a conformal minimal immersion $X\colon M\to D$, we consider the Riemann-Hilbert problem in Theorem \[th:RHCMI\], but with the function $\varkappa$ of the form . This shows that for any compact set $L\subset D\setminus P$ there are constants $\epsilon_0>0$ and $C_0>0$ such that the following holds. Let $M$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface and $X\colon M\to D$ be a conformal minimal immersion of class ${\mathscr{C}}^1(M)$ with $X(bM)\subset L$. Given a continuous function $\epsilon \colon bM\to [0,\epsilon_0]$ supported on the set $J=\{\zeta\in bM: X(\zeta) \in L\}$, an open set $U\subset M$ containing ${\mathrm{supp}}(\epsilon)$ in its relative interior, and a constant $\delta>0$, there exists a conformal minimal immersion $Y\colon M\to D$ satisfying the following conditions.
- $|\rho(Y(\zeta)) - \rho(X(\zeta)) -\epsilon(\zeta)| <\delta$ for every $\zeta\in bM$.
- $\rho(Y(\zeta))\ge \rho(X(\zeta)) -\delta$ for every $\zeta\in M$.
- $Y$ is $\delta$-close to $X$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^1$ norm in $M\setminus U$.
- $Y$ is $C_0 \sqrt{\epsilon_0}$-close to $X$ in the ${\mathscr{C}}^0$ norm in $M$.
The theorem is proved by a inductive application of this procedure, together with a well known method of avoiding critical points of $\rho$. By using also Lemma \[lem:Jordan\] we can obtain complete proper conformal minimal immersions $\mathring M\to D$.
There is a variety of results and open questions in the literature as to which domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ may or may not contain minimal surfaces (possibly with additional properties) which are proper in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. One of the main examples is the theorem of Hoffman and Meeks from 1990 [@HoffmanMeeks1990IM] to the effect that a properly immersed minimal surface $M\subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ is never contained in a half space unless $M$ is a plane. Since minimally convex domains are not necessarily convex and they may be quite big, it is a natural question whether they may contain nonflat minimal surfaces which are proper in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Although we do not know a definitive answer to this question, we have the following rigidity result [@AlarconDrinovecForstnericLopez2018TAMS Theorem 1.16] for properly immersed minimal surfaces of finite total curvature in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ lying in minimally convex domains.
\[th:FTC\] Let $S$ be a complete connected properly immersed minimal surface with finite total curvature in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, possibly with (compact) boundary, and let $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a connected minimally convex domain containing $S$. If $S$ is not a plane then $D={\mathbb{R}}^3$. If $S$ is a plane then $D$ is a slab (a domain bounded by two parallel planes), a halfspace, or ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
A. Alarcón is partially supported by the MINECO/FEDER grants no. MTM2014-52368-P and MTM2017-89677-P, Spain. F. Forstnerič is partially supported by the research program P1-0291 and the grant J1-7256 from ARRS, Republic of Slovenia.
We wish to thank Barbara Drinovec Drnovšek and Francisco J. López for the collaboration on the subject matter of this survey, and Finnur Lárusson (an Associate Editor) and George Willis (Editor-in-Chief) for their kind invitation to write this survey for the Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society.
Finally, we sincerely thank an anonymous referee for pointing out several misprints and for the remarks which helped us to improve the presentation.
[100]{}
R. Abraham. Transversality in manifolds of mappings. , 69:470–474, 1963.
L. V. Ahlfors. The theory of meromorphic curves. , 3(4):31, 1941.
L. V. Ahlfors. , volume 38 of [ *University Lecture Series*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2006. With supplemental chapters by C. J. Earle, I. Kra, M. Shishikura and J. H. Hubbard.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n. . , Feb. 2018. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.02004>.
A. [Alarc[ó]{}n]{} and I. [Castro-Infantes]{}. . , Jan. 2017. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04379>.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and I. Castro-Infantes. Complete minimal surfaces densely lying in arbitrary domains of [$\mathbb {R}^n$]{}. , 22(1):571–590, 2018.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, B. Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Every bordered [R]{}iemann surface is a complete conformal minimal surface bounded by [J]{}ordan curves. , 111(4):851–886, 2015.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, B. Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. . , Oct. 2015. . [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [to appear]{}.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and I. Fern[á]{}ndez. Complete minimal surfaces in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{} with a prescribed coordinate function. , 29(suppl. 1):S9–S15, 2011.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, I. Fern[á]{}ndez, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Complete minimal surfaces and harmonic functions. , 87(4):891–904, 2012.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, I. Fern[á]{}ndez, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Harmonic mappings and conformal minimal immersions of [R]{}iemann surfaces into [$\mathbb{R}^{\rm N}$]{}. , 47(1-2):227–242, 2013.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Every bordered [R]{}iemann surface is a complete proper curve in a ball. , 357(3):1049–1070, 2013.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. Forstneri[č]{}. . , Aug. 2014. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5315>. [*J. reine angew. Math.*]{}, to appear. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2015-0069>.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Null curves and directed immersions of open [R]{}iemann surfaces. , 196(3):733–771, 2014.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. Forstneri[č]{}. The [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au problem, null curves, and [B]{}ryant surfaces. , 363(3-4):913–951, 2015.
A. Alarcón and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Null holomorphic curves in [$\mathbb C^3$]{} and applications to the conformal [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au problem. In [*Complex geometry and dynamics*]{}, volume 10 of [*Abel Symp.*]{}, pages 101–121. Springer, Cham, 2015.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Darboux charts around holomorphic [L]{}egendrian curves and applications. , 153(9):1945–1986, 2017.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Embedded minimal surfaces in [$\mathbb{R}^n$]{}. , 283(1-2):1–24, 2016.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Every meromorphic function is the [G]{}auss map of a conformal minimal surface. , Apr. 2016. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00514>. [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{}, to appear. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007>.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. New complex analytic methods in the study of non-orientable minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^n$. , Mar. 2016. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01691>. [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, to appear.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n, F. Forstneri[č]{}, and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Holomorphic [L]{}egendrian curves. , 153(9):1945–1986, 2017.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. L[á]{}russon. Representing de [R]{}ham cohomology classes on an open [R]{}iemann surface by holomorphic forms. , 28(9):1740004, 12, 2017.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Minimal surfaces in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{} properly projecting into [$\mathbb{R}^2$]{}. , 90(3):351–381, 2012.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Properness of associated minimal surfaces. , 366(10):5139–5154, 2014.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Approximation theory for nonorientable minimal surfaces and applications. , 19(2):1015–1062, 2015.
A. Alarc[ó]{}n and F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Complete bounded embedded complex curves in [$\mathbb {C}^2$]{}. , 18(8):1675–1705, 2016.
J. L. Barbosa and M. do Carmo. On the size of a stable minimal surface in [$R^{3}$]{}. , 98(2):515–528, 1976.
S. R. Bell and R. Narasimhan. Proper holomorphic mappings of complex spaces. In [*Several complex variables, [VI]{}*]{}, volume 69 of [ *Encyclopaedia Math. Sci.*]{}, pages 1–38. Springer, Berlin, 1990.
V. Bo[ž]{}in. Note on harmonic maps. , 19:1081–1085, 1999.
T. H. Colding and W. P. Minicozzi, II. , volume 4 of [*Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{}. New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York, 1999.
T. H. Colding and W. P. Minicozzi, II. The [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au conjectures for embedded surfaces. , 167(1):211–243, 2008.
T. H. Colding and W. P. Minicozzi, II. , volume 121 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011.
P. Collin. Topologie et courbure des surfaces minimales proprement plongées de [$\bold R^3$]{}. , 145(1):1–31, 1997.
P. Collin, R. Kusner, W. H. Meeks, III, and H. Rosenberg. The topology, geometry and conformal structure of properly embedded minimal surfaces. , 67(2):377–393, 2004.
U. Dierkes, S. Hildebrandt, A. Küster, and O. Wohlrab. , volume 296 of [ *Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
M. P. do Carmo. . Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
S. Donaldson. , volume 22 of [*Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.
A. Dor. A domain in [${\bf C}^m$]{} not containing any proper image of the unit disc. , 222(4):615–625, 1996.
J. Douglas. One-sided minimal surfaces with a given boundary. , 34(4):731–756, 1932.
B. Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Holomorphic curves in complex spaces. , 139(2):203–253, 2007.
B. Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek and F. Forstneri[č]{}. The [P]{}oletsky-[R]{}osay theorem on singular complex spaces. , 61(4):1407–1423, 2012.
B. Drinovec Drnov[š]{}ek and F. Forstneri[č]{}. Minimal hulls of compact sets in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{}. , 368(10):7477–7506, 2016.
H. M. Farkas and I. Kra. , volume 71 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1992.
L. Ferrer, F. Mart[í]{}n, and W. H. Meeks, III. Existence of proper minimal surfaces of arbitrary topological type. , 231(1):378–413, 2012.
H. Florack. Reguläre und meromorphe [F]{}unktionen auf nicht geschlossenen [R]{}iemannschen [F]{}lächen. , 1948(1):34, 1948.
J. E. [Forn[æ]{}ss]{}, F. [Forstneri[č]{}]{}, and E. F. [Wold]{}. . , Feb. 2018. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03924>.
O. Forster. Plongements des variétés de [S]{}tein. , 45:170–184, 1970.
O. Forster. , volume 81 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981. Translated from the German by Bruce Gilligan.
F. Forstneri[č]{}. Manifolds of holomorphic mappings from strongly pseudoconvex domains. , 11(1):113–126, 2007.
F. Forstneri[č]{}. Oka manifolds: from [O]{}ka to [S]{}tein and back. , 22(4):747–809, 2013. With an appendix by Finnur L[á]{}russon.
F. Forstneri[č]{}. . , Mar. 2017. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08594>. [*J. Anal. Math.*]{}, to appear.
F. Forstneri[č]{}. , volume 56 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge*]{}. Berlin: Springer, 2017.
F. Forstneri[č]{} and J. Globevnik. Proper holomorphic discs in [$\mathbb C^2$]{}. , 8(3):257–274, 2001.
F. Forstneri[č]{} and F. L[á]{}russon. Survey of [O]{}ka theory. , 17A:11–38, 2011.
F. Forstneri[č]{} and F. L[á]{}russon. . , Feb. 2016. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01529>. [*Comm. Anal. Geom.*]{}, 27(2) (2019), to appear.
F. Forstneri[č]{} and E. F. Wold. Bordered [R]{}iemann surfaces in [$\mathbb C^2$]{}. , 91(1):100–114, 2009.
F. Forstneri[č]{} and E. F. Wold. Embeddings of infinitely connected planar domains into [${\mathbb
C}^2$]{}. , 6(2):499–514, 2013.
H. Fujimoto. On the [G]{}auss map of a complete minimal surface in [${\bf R}^{m}$]{}. , 35(2):279–288, 1983.
H. Fujimoto. On the number of exceptional values of the [G]{}auss maps of minimal surfaces. , 40(2):235–247, 1988.
H. Fujimoto. Modified defect relations for the [G]{}auss map of minimal surfaces. [II]{}. , 31(2):365–385, 1990.
J. Globevnik. A complete complex hypersurface in the ball of [$\mathbb{C}^N$]{}. , 182(3):1067–1091, 2015.
H. Grauert. Holomorphe [F]{}unktionen mit [W]{}erten in komplexen [L]{}ieschen [G]{}ruppen. , 133:450–472, 1957.
H. Grauert. Analytische [F]{}aserungen über holomorph-vollständigen [R]{}äumen. , 135:263–273, 1958.
H. Grauert and R. Remmert. , volume 236 of [*Grundlehren Math. Wiss.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979. Translated from the German by Alan Huckleberry.
A. Grigoryan. Analytic and geometric background of recurrence and non-explosion of the [B]{}rownian motion on [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 36(2):135–249, 1999.
M. Gromov. , volume 9 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
M. Gromov. Oka’s principle for holomorphic sections of elliptic bundles. , 2(4):851–897, 1989.
M. Gromov. Geometric, algebraic, and analytic descendants of [N]{}ash isometric embedding theorems. , 54(2):173–245, 2017.
M. L. Gromov. Convex integration of differential relations. [I]{}. , 37:329–343, 1973.
R. C. Gunning and H. Rossi. . AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2009. Reprint of the 1965 original.
D. Hoffman and W. H. Meeks, III. The strong halfspace theorem for minimal surfaces. , 101(2):373–377, 1990.
D. A. Hoffman and R. Osserman. The geometry of the generalized [G]{}auss map. , 28(236):iii+105, 1980.
L. H[ö]{}rmander. , volume 7 of [*North-Holland Mathematical Library*]{}. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, third edition, 1990.
P. W. Jones. A complete bounded complex submanifold of [${\bf C}^{3}$]{}. , 76(2):305–306, 1979.
L. P. d. M. Jorge and F. Xavier. A complete minimal surface in [$\mathbb{R}^{3}$]{} between two parallel planes. , 112(1):203–206, 1980.
S. Kobayashi and J. Eells Jr. . Nippon Hyoronsha Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 1966.
F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Exotic minimal surfaces. , 24(2):988–1006, 2014.
F. J. L[ó]{}pez. Uniform approximation by complete minimal surfaces of finite total curvature in [$\Bbb{R}^3$]{}. , 366(12):6201–6227, 2014.
F. J. L[ó]{}pez and J. P[é]{}rez. Parabolicity and [G]{}auss map of minimal surfaces. , 52(4):1017–1026, 2003.
F. J. L[ó]{}pez and A. Ros. On embedded complete minimal surfaces of genus zero. , 33(1):293–300, 1991.
F. Mart[í]{}n, W. H. Meeks, III, and N. Nadirashvili. Bounded domains which are universal for minimal surfaces. , 129(2):455–461, 2007.
F. Mart[í]{}n and S. Morales. On the asymptotic behavior of a complete bounded minimal surface in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{}. , 356(10):3985–3994, 2004.
F. Mart[í]{}n and S. Morales. Complete proper minimal surfaces in convex bodies of [$\mathbb R^3$]{}. , 128(3):559–593, 2005.
F. Mart[í]{}n and S. Morales. Complete proper minimal surfaces in convex bodies of [$\mathbb R^3$]{}. [II]{}. [T]{}he behavior of the limit set. , 81(3):699–725, 2006.
W. H. Meeks, III. The classification of complete minimal surfaces in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{} with total curvature greater than [$-8\pi $]{}. , 48(3):523–535, 1981.
W. H. Meeks, III and J. P[é]{}rez. Conformal properties in classical minimal surface theory. In [*Surveys in differential geometry. [V]{}ol. [IX]{}*]{}, Surv. Differ. Geom., IX, pages 275–335. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2004.
W. H. Meeks, III and J. P[é]{}rez. , volume 60 of [ *University Lecture Series*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012.
W. H. Meeks, III, J. P[é]{}rez, and A. Ros. The embedded [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au conjectures for finite genus. Preprint http://www.ugr.es/local/jperez/papers/papers.htm.
W. H. Meeks, III, J. P[é]{}rez, and A. Ros. Properly embedded minimal planar domains. , 181(2):473–546, 2015.
W. H. Meeks, III and H. Rosenberg. The uniqueness of the helicoid. , 161(2):727–758, 2005.
S. Morales. On the existence of a proper minimal surface in [$\mathbb{R}^3$]{} with a conformal type of disk. , 13(6):1281–1301, 2003.
N. Nadirashvili. Hadamard’s and [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au’s conjectures on negatively curved and minimal surfaces. , 126(3):457–465, 1996.
J. Nash. isometric imbeddings. , 60:383–396, 1954.
J. Nash. The imbedding problem for [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 63:20–63, 1956.
J. C. C. Nitsche. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. Introduction, fundamentals, geometry and basic boundary value problems, Translated from the German by Jerry M. Feinberg, with a German foreword.
R. Osserman. Global properties of minimal surfaces in [$E^{3}$]{} and [$E^{n}$]{}. , 80:340–364, 1964.
R. Osserman. Minimal surfaces, [G]{}auss maps, total curvature, eigenvalue estimates, and stability. In [*The [C]{}hern [S]{}ymposium 1979 ([P]{}roc. [I]{}nternat. [S]{}ympos., [B]{}erkeley, [C]{}alif., 1979)*]{}, pages 199–227. Springer, New York-Berlin, 1980.
R. Osserman. . Dover Publications Inc., New York, second edition, 1986.
R. Osserman and M. Ru. An estimate for the [G]{}auss curvature of minimal surfaces in [${\bf
R}^m$]{} whose [G]{}auss map omits a set of hyperplanes. , 46(3):578–593, 1997.
J. Pérez. A new golden age of minimal surfaces. , 64(4):347–358, 2017.
T. Rad[ó]{}. On [P]{}lateau’s problem. , 31(3):457–469, 1930.
A. Ros. The [G]{}auss map of minimal surfaces. In [*Differential geometry, [V]{}alencia, 2001*]{}, pages 235–252. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2002.
M. Ru. On the [G]{}auss map of minimal surfaces immersed in [${\bf R}^n$]{}. , 34(2):411–423, 1991.
R. Schoen and S. T. Yau. . Conference Proceedings and Lecture Notes in Geometry and Topology, II. International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
D. Spring. . Modern Birkhäuser Classics. Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2010. Solutions to the $h$-principle in geometry and topology, Reprint of the 1998 edition \[MR1488424\].
E. L. Stout. Bounded holomorphic functions on finite [R]{}iemann surfaces. , 120:255–285, 1965.
K. [Weierstrass]{}. , 1876.
W. Wirtinger. Eine [D]{}eterminantenidentität und ihre [A]{}nwendung auf analytische [G]{}ebilde in euklidischer und [H]{}ermitescher [M]{}aßbestimmung. , 44(1):343–365, 1936.
P. Yang. Curvature of complex submanifolds of [$C^{n}$]{}. In [*Several complex variables ([P]{}roc. [S]{}ympos. [P]{}ure [M]{}ath., [V]{}ol. [XXX]{}, [P]{}art 2, [W]{}illiams [C]{}oll., [W]{}illiamstown, [M]{}ass., 1975)*]{}, pages 135–137. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1977.
S.-T. Yau. Review of geometry and analysis. In [*Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives*]{}, pages 353–401. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
Antonio Alarcón\
Departamento de Geometría y Topología e Instituto de Matemáticas (IEMath-GR), Universidad de Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, E–18071 Granada, Spain.\
e-mail: [[email protected]]{}
Franc Forstnerič\
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, and Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Jadranska 19, SI–1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.\
e-mail: [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The techniques of laser cooling combined with atom interferometry make possible the realization of very sensitive and accurate inertial sensors like gyroscopes or accelerometers. Besides earth-based developments, the use of these techniques in space should provide extremely high sensitivity for research in fundamental physics, Earth’s observation and exploration of the solar system.'
author:
- 'A. Landragin, F. Pereira Dos Santos'
title: |
Accelerometer using atomic waves for space\
applications
---
\[1999/12/01 v1.4c Il Nuovo Cimento\]
Introduction
============
Inertial sensors are useful devices in both science and industry. Higher precision sensors could find scientific applications in the areas of general relativity [@chow], geodesy and geology. There are also important applications of such devices in the field of navigation, surveying and analysis of earth structures. Matter-wave interferometry was envisaged for its potential to be an extremely sensitive probe for inertial forces [@clauser]. In 1991, atom interference techniques have been used in proof-of-principle work to measure rotations [@Borde91] and accelerations [@chu]. In the following years, many theoretical and experimental works have been performed to investigate this new kind of inertial sensors [@atinter]. Some of the recent works have shown very promising results leading to a sensitivity comparable to other kinds of sensors, as well as for rotation [@todd] as for acceleration [@achim] and possibility of realizing a full inertial base within the same device [@canuel]. The most developed atom-interferometer inertial sensors are today atomic state interferometers [@Borde:1989] which use two-photon velocity selective Raman transitions [@Kas91a; @Mol92] to manipulate atoms while keeping them in long-lived ground states.
Atom interferometry is nowadays one of the most promising candidates for ultra-precise and ultra-accurate measurement of gravito-inertial forces on ground or for space [@APB]. From performances on ground, one can expect unprecedented sensitivity in space, leading to many mission proposals since 2000 [@Hyper]. This technology is now mature enough that several groups are developing instruments for practical experiments: in the field navigation [@applic-gradio], or fundamental physics (gradiometer for the measurement of G [@gradio], gravimeter for the watt balance experiment [@wattb], interferometer for the measurement of fine structure constant thanks to $h/m$ [@hsurm]). Moreover, the realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of a dilute gas of trapped atoms in a single quantum state [@Anderson95; @Davis95; @Bradley95] has produced the matter-wave analog of a laser in optics [@Mewes97; @Anderson98; @Hagley99; @Bloch99] and open new possibilities. Alike the revolution brought by lasers in optical interferometry [@chow; @Ste95; @Stedman97], it is expected that the use of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms will bring the science of atom optics, and in particular atom interferometry, to an unprecedented level of accuracy [@Bouyer:1997; @Gupta:2002]. In addition, BEC-based coherent atom interferometry would reach its full potential in space-based applications where micro-gravity will allow the atomic interferometers to reach their best performance. Applications of accelerometer in space concern fundamental physics, like testing the equivalence principle by comparing the free fall of two different atomic species [@mwxg], and more generally testing all aspects of gravity as in [@SAGAS], which aims at testing the laws of gravity at large scale, as well for fundamental physics as for exploration of the solar system.
In the following part, we investigate the sources of noise and systematic effects for such atom interferometers, thanks to the results obtained with the gravimeter under development in our laboratory. This setup is based on same concepts than previous works [@achim]: atomic source realized with a magneto-optical traps and manipulation of the atomic wavepackets with Raman transitions. In our experiment, we have studied in details the influence of any perturbations on the sensitivity of the sensor. Reducing there impacts on the noise of the instrument, we finally reach an excellent sensitivity of $1.4\times10^{-8}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$, despite a rather short interrogation time ($100 \;{\rm ms}$ only). We think this experiment is a good benchmarck to oversee the performances of best space accelerometers based on same technologies. Performances in space environment will be derived, taking into account the specifications of the environment and the much longer interrogation time.
Experimental setup {#expsetup}
==================
The principle of our gravimeter is based on the coherent splitting of matter-waves by the use of two-photon Raman transitions [@Kasevich91]. These transitions couple the two hyperfine levels $F=1$ and $F=2$ of the $^5S_{1/2}$ ground state of the $^{87}$Rb atom. An intense beam of slow atoms is first produced by a 2D-MOT. Out of this beam $10^7$ atoms are loaded within 50 ms into a 3D-MOT and subsequently cooled in a far detuned (-25 $\Gamma$) optical molasses. The lasers are then switched off adiabatically to release the atoms into free fall at a final temperature of $2.5~\mu\textrm{K}$. Both lasers used for cooling and repumping are then detuned from the atomic transitions by about 1 GHz to generate the two off-resonant Raman beams. For this we have developed a compact and agile laser system that allows us to rapidly change the operating frequencies of these lasers, as described in [@Cheinet06]. Before entering the interferometer, atoms are selected in a narrow vertical velocity distribution ($\sigma_v \leq v_r = 5.9$ [mm/s]{}) in the $\left|F=1,
m_F=0\right\rangle$ state, using a combination of microwave and optical Raman pulses.
The interferometer is created by using a sequence of three pulses ($\pi/2-\pi-\pi/2$), which split, redirect and recombine the atomic wave packets. Thanks to the relationship between external and internal state [@Borde:1989], the interferometer phase shift can easily be deduced from a fluorescence measurement of the populations of each of the two states. Indeed, at the output of the interferometer, the transition probability $P$ from one hyperfine state to the other is given by the well-known relation for a two wave interferometer: $P=\frac{1}{2}\left(1 +
C\cos\Delta\Phi\right)$, where $C$ is the interferometer contrast, and $\Delta\Phi$ the difference of the atomic phases accumulated along the two paths. The difference in the phases accumulated along the two paths depends on the acceleration $\vec{a}$ experienced by the atoms. It can be written as [@Kasevich91] $\Delta\Phi=\phi(0)-2\phi(T)+\phi(2T)=-\vec{k}_{eff} \cdot
\vec{a}T^{2}$, where $\phi(0,T,2T)$ is the difference of the phases of the lasers, at the location of the center of the atomic wavepackets, for each of the three pulses [@Borde03]. Here $\vec{k}_{eff}=\vec{k}_{1}-\vec{k}_{2}$ is the effective wave vector (with $|\vec{k}_{eff}|=k_1+k_2$ for counter-propagating beams), and $T$ is the time interval between two consecutive pulses.
The Raman light sources are two extended cavity diode lasers based on the design of [@Baillard06], which are amplified by two independent tapered amplifiers. Their frequency difference is phase locked onto a low phase noise microwave reference source. The two overlapped beams are injected in a polarization maintaining fiber, and guided towards the vacuum chamber. We obtain counter-propagating beams by placing a mirror and a quarterwave plate at the bottom of the experiment. Four beams are actually sent onto the atoms, out of which only two will drive the counter-propagating Raman transitions, due to conservation of angular momentum and the Doppler shift induced by the free fall of the atoms.
Experimental setups, based on the same principle, can be realized for space experiments. They will benefit from the technical developments realized in the frame of the PHARAO atomic clock [@pharao] for the space ACES project.
Sensitivity of the interferometer
=================================
Sensitivity function
--------------------
The sensitivity function characterizes the influence of fluctuations in the Raman lasers phase difference $\phi$ onto the transition probability [@Dick87], and thus on the interferometer phase. This function is defined by :
$$\label{eq} \ g(t)=2 \lim_{\delta \phi\rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta
P(\delta \phi,t)}{\delta \phi }.\$$
where $\delta \phi$ is a jump on the Raman phase difference $\phi$, which occurs at time t during the interferometer sequence, and induces a change of $\delta P(\delta
\phi,t)$ in the transition probability.
The expression of the sensitivity function can easily be derived when considering that the Raman pulses are infinitesimally short. In that case, the interferometer phase $\Phi$ is given by [@chu]: $\Phi=\phi_1-2\phi_2+\phi_3$, where $\phi_1$,$\phi_2$,$\phi_3$ are the the Raman laser phase differences at the three laser interactions, taken at the position of the center of the atomic wavepacket [@Borde03]. Usually, the interferometer is operated at mid fringe ($\Phi=\pi/2$), in order to maximize the sensitivity to interferometer phase fluctuations. If the phase step $\delta
\phi$ occurs for instance between the first and the second pulses, the interferometric phase changes by $\delta\Phi=-\delta\phi$, and the transition probability by $\delta P=-cos(\pi/2+\delta \Phi)/2
\sim -\delta \phi/2$ in the limit of an infinitesimal phase step. Thus, in between the first two pulses, the sensitivity function is -1. The same way, one finds for the sensitivity function between the last two pulses : +1.
In the more general case of finite duration Raman laser pulses, the sensitivity function will depend on the time evolution of the atomic state during the pulses. This function is calculated in [@Cheinet07] considering laser waves as plane waves and quantizing atomic motion in the direction parallel to the laser beams, in the case of a constant Rabi frequency (square pulses) and resonance condition fulfilled. We calculated the change in the transition probability for a infinitesimally small phase jump at any time t during the interferometer, and deduce $g(t)$.
The sensitivity function is an odd function, whose expression is given here for $t>0$: $$\label{biggeq} g(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sin(\Omega_R t) & 0<t<\tau_R \\
1 & \tau_R <t<T+\tau_R\\
-\sin(\Omega_R (T-t)) & T+\tau_R<t<T+2\tau_R\\
\end{array}\right.$$ where we choose the time origin at the middle of the second Raman pulse and where $\Omega_R/2\pi$ is the Rabi frequency.
Using this function, we can now evaluate the fluctuations of the interferometric phase $\Phi$ for an arbitrary Raman phase noise $\phi (t)$ on the lasers $$\delta\Phi=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}g(t)d\phi(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}g(t)\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt}dt.$$
Influence of the phase noise onto the sensitivity of the interferometer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The sensitivity of the interferometer is characterized by the Allan variance of the interferometer phase fluctuations, $\sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)$, defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\Phi}^{2}(\tau)&=&\frac{1}{2}\langle(\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k+1}-\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k})^{2}\rangle \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left\{
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}(\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k+1}-\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k})^{2}\right\}.\label{eq:variance_allan}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k}$ is the average value of $\delta
\Phi$ over the interval $[t_{k},t_{k+1}]$ of duration $\tau$. The Allan variance is equal, within a factor of two, to the variance of the differences in the successive average values $\bar{\delta
\Phi}_{k}$ of the interferometric phase. As the interferometer is operated sequentially at a rate $f_c=1/T_{\rm{c}}$, $\tau$ is a multiple of $T_c$ : $\tau=m T_c$.
In order to evaluate correctly the stability of the interferometer phase $\Phi$, it is necessary to take into account that the measurement is pulsed. The sensitivity of the interferometer is limited by an aliasing phenomenon, similar to the Dick effect for atomic clocks[@Dick87]: only the phase noise at multiples of the cycling frequency contribute to the Allan variance, weighted by the Fourier components of the transfer function. For large averaging times $\tau$, the Allan variance of the interferometric phase is given by $$\label{Dick} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={1\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2
S_{\phi}({2\pi n f_{\rm{c}}})
\label{eq:dick}$$ where $S_{\phi}(\omega)$ is the power spectral density of the Raman phase, and $H(\omega)$ is the transfer function, given by $H(\omega)=\omega G(\omega)$, where $G$ is the Fourier transform of the sensitivity function. $$G(\omega)= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{-i\omega t}g(t)dt
\label{eq:G1}$$
At low frequency ($\omega<<\Omega_R$), $G$ can be approximated by $$G(\omega)=-\frac{4i}{\omega}\sin^2[\omega (T+2\tau_R)/2] \label{eq:G4}$$ The transfer function $|H^{2}|$ has two important features. First, it presents oscillations at a frequency given by $1/(T+2\tau_R)$, leading to zeros at frequencies given by $f_k=\frac{k}{T+2\tau_R}$. The second is a low pass first order filtering due to the finite duration of the Raman pulses.
For white phase noise $S_{\phi}^0$, and to first order in $\tau_R/T$, the phase stability is given by: $$\label{whiteeq1} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)=\frac{\pi \Omega}{2}
S_{\phi}^0\frac{T_c}{\tau}$$ where $\Omega$ is the Rabi frequency.
This illustrates the filtering of the transfer function: the shorter the pulse duration $\tau_R$, the greater the interferometer noise.
The 100 MHz source oscillator {#sec:1}
-----------------------------
To reduce the noise of the interferometer, the frequency difference between the Raman beams needs to be locked to a very stable microwave oscillator, whose frequency is close to the hyperfine transition frequency ($\nu_{mw}=6.834$ GHz for $^{87}$Rb). The reference frequency will be delivered by a frequency chain, which transposes in the microwave domain the low phase noise of an RF oscillator, typically a quartz oscillator. When this transposition is performed without degradation, the phase noise power spectral density of the RF oscillator, of frequency $\nu_{rf}$, is multiplied by $(\nu_{mw}/\nu_{rf})^2$.
No single quartz oscillator fulfills the requirements of ultra low phase noise over a sufficiently large frequency range. We present in figure \[fig:specquartz\] the specifications for different high stability quartz : a Premium 10 MHz-SC from Wenzel, a BVA OCXO 8607-L from Oscilloquartz, and a Premium 100 MHz-SC quartz from Wenzel. The phase noise spectral density is displayed at the frequency of 100 MHz, so that one can compare the different quartz oscillators.
![Specifications for the phase noise spectral density of different quartz oscillators, transposed at 100 MHz. The phase noise of the source developed for the Pharao project is also displayed as a solid black line.\[fig:specquartz\]](SpecQuartz.eps)
A 100 MHz source for a space interferometer could be realized by combining two quartz oscillators. A 100 MHz quartz would be locked onto one of the above mentioned high stability 10 MHz reference oscillators. The bandwidth of this lock will correspond to the frequency below which the phase noise of the reference quartz is lower than the noise of the 100 MHz quartz.
The phase noise properties of such a combined source can be seen in figure \[fig:specquartz\], where we display as a solid line the phase noise spectral density of the 100 MHz source developed by THALES for the PHARAO space clock project. This combined source has been optimized for mimimal phase noise at low frequency, where it reaches a level of noise lower than any commercially available quartz. An atomic clock is indeed mostly limited by the lower frequency part of the frequency spectrum, so the requirements on the level of phase noise at higher frequency ($f>1$kHz) is less stringent than for an atom interferometer. A medium performance 100 MHz oscillator is thus sufficient.
Using a simple model for the phase lock loop, we calculated the phase noise spectral density of the different combined sources we can realize by locking the Premium 100 MHz-SC either on the Premium 10 MHz-SC (Source 1), or on the BVA (source 2), or even on the Pharao source (source 3). We then estimated the impact on the interferometer of the phase noise of the 100 MHz source, assuming we are able to transpose the performance of the source at 6.8 GHz without degradation. We calculated using \[eq:dick\] the Allan standard deviation of the interferometric phase fluctuations for the different configurations and for various interferometer parameters. The results are presented in table \[tb:noise\].
--------------- -------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
[**$T_c$**]{} [**$2T$**]{} [**$\tau_R$**]{} [**$\sigma_{\Phi}$($T_c$)**]{} [**$\sigma_{\Phi}$($T_c$)**]{} [**$\sigma_{\Phi}$($T_c$)**]{}
[**(s)**]{} [**(s)**]{} [**($\mu$s)**]{} [**(mrad)**]{} [**(mrad)**]{} [**(mrad)**]{}
0.25 0.1 10 1.2 3.5 2.2
3 2 10 21 6.5 4.4
15 10 10 110 37 19
--------------- -------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
: Contribution of the 100 MHz source phase noise to the interferometrer phase fluctuations. The calculation has been performed for a Rb interferometer, for each of the three different sources and for various parameters of the interferometer. First case corresponds to the usual parameters of our gravimeter, and second (resp. third) case corresponds to typical values for space experiments with a MOT atomic source (resp. ultra-cold source).[]{data-label="tb:noise"}
For short interrogation times (such as $2T=100$ ms, which is the maximum interrogation time of our cold gravimeter), Source 1 behaves better, whereas for large interrogation times, where the dominant contribution to the noise comes from the lower decades (0.1-10 Hz), Source 2 and 3 are better. We assumed here that for any of these sources, the phase noise below 1 Hz is well described as flicker noise, for which the spectral density scales as $S_{\phi}(f)= S_{\phi}(1\rm{Hz})/f^3$. If the phase noise would behave as pure flicker noise over the whole frequency spectrum, the Allan standard deviation of the interferometer phase would scale as $T$. This is roughly the behavior we notice in the table for long interrogation times.
The sensitivity of the interferometer for acceleration scales as $T^2$, so that the sensitivity to acceleration gets better when the interrogation time gets larger. For example, for $2T= 10 $s and $T_c=15$ s (resp. $2T=2$ s and $T_c=3$ s), the phase noise of source 3 would limit the sensitivity to acceleration of the interferometer to $1.8\times10^{-10}\rm{m.s}^{-2}$ (resp. $4.7\times10^{-10}\rm{m.s}^{-2}$) at 1 s for $^{87}Rb$.
The frequency chain {#sec:3}
-------------------
The microwave signal is generated by multiplication of the 100 MHz source. An example of the generation of the microwave reference can be found in [@Nyman06]. The contribution to the interferometer noise of this system was found to be 0.6 mrad per shot for $\tau_R=10 \mu$ s, $2T=10$ s and $T_c=15$ s, which is negligible with respect to the contribution from the 100 MHz source.
Propagation in the fiber
------------------------
In most of the experiment, the Raman lasers are generated by two independent laser sources. The two beams are mixed using a polarizing beam splitter cube, so that they have orthogonal polarizations. A small fraction of the total power can be sent to one of the two exit ports of the cube, where a fast photodetector detects the beat frequency, in order to phase lock the lasers. Both beams are finally guided towards the atoms with a polarization maintaining fiber. Since the Raman beams have orthogonal polarization, fiber length fluctuations induce phase fluctuations, due to the birefringence of the medium. The phase noise induced by the propagation in the fiber can be measured by comparing the beat signal measured after the fiber with the one we use for the phase lock.
![Contribution of the propagation in the optical fiber to the Raman phase noise. Grey curve displays the noise in the case of a polarization maintaining fiber and two orthogonal polarizations for the two Raman lasers. Black curve displays the noise in the case of a polarizing fiber and two parallel polarizations for the two Raman lasers.\[DSPFibre\]](phase-fibre.eps)
Figure \[DSPFibre\] displays the power spectral density of the phase noise induced by the propagation, which is dominated by low frequency noise due to acoustic noise and thermal fluctuations. This source of noise can be reduced by shielding the fiber from the air flow of the air conditioning, surrounding it with some packaging foam. An alternative technique consists in using identical linear polarizations for the Raman beams. This can be achieved using a polarizer after the mixing, by generating the Raman lasers by phase modulatuion of a single laser, or by injecting with two independent lasers a power amplifier. In this case, the noise is efficiently suppressed, as shown in figure \[DSPFibre\], down to a level where it is negligible.
Detection noise
---------------
Quantum projection noise limit constitutes the intrinsic limit of sensitivity and scales as $1/\surd{N}$, where N is the number of detected atoms per shot. Typical values are below 1 mrad for MOT sources and 3 mrad for ultra cold atomic sources. Thus for long interrogation times, as for space applications, the dominant source of phase noise is expected to be due to the stability of the 100 MHz source.
The case of parasitic vibrations\[sec:vibrations\]
==================================================
The same formalism can be used to evaluate the degradation of the sensitivity to inertial forces caused by vibrations of the retroreflecting mirror.
The sensitivity of the interferometer is then given by $$\label{Vibeq} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={k_{eff}^2\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2
S_{z}(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})$$ where $S_{z}(\omega)$ is the power spectral density of position noise. Introducing the power spectral density of acceleration noise $S_{a}(\omega)$, the previous equation can be written
$$\label{Vibeq2} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={k_{eff}^2\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2}{(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})^4}
S_{a}(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})$$
It is important to note here that the acceleration noise is efficiently filtered by the transfer function for acceleration, which decreases as $1/f^4$.
In the case of white acceleration noise $S_{a}$, and to first order in $\tau_R/T$, the limit on the sensitivity of the interferometer is given by :
$$\label{whiteeq} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)=\frac{k_{eff}^2
T^4}{2}\left(\frac{2T_{\rm{c}}}{3T}-1\right)\frac{S_{a}}{\tau}\$$
To put this into numbers, we now calculate the requirements on the acceleration noise of the retroreflecting mirror in order to reach a sensitivity of $\times10^{-10}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}}$ at 1 s. For negligible dead time ($Tc\simeq2T)$, the amplitude noise should lie below $2.5\times10^{-10}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$.
Systematic effects
==================
Regarding the targeted ultra-high accuracies for atom inertial sensors, many environmental parameters have to be controlled with great precision. An important tool, that allows us to suppress many of the remaining systematic phase shifts, relies on the fact that we can distinguish two classes of systematic effects.
Phase shifts that are independent of the direction of $\overrightarrow{k_{eff}}$ and others that change sign when reversing $\overrightarrow{k_{eff}}$. This allows us to separate and distinguish their influence on the atomic signal in constantly repeated $k_\uparrow - k_\downarrow$ measurements. Assuming that the trajectories of the atoms remain constant, the half difference $\frac{1}{2}\triangle_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ of the measured interferometer phase $\Delta\Phi_{int}$ of a consecutive $k_\uparrow - k_\downarrow$ measurement will contain only phase terms depending on $\overrightarrow{k_{eff}}$. Whereas $\overrightarrow{k_{eff}}$ independent phase terms are contained in the half sum $\frac{1}{2}{\sum}_{\uparrow \downarrow}$:
$$\frac{1}{2}\triangle_{\uparrow \downarrow}= - \cos \theta
|\overrightarrow{k}_{eff}| \cdot |\overrightarrow{g}| \cdot
T^2+\Delta \Phi_{LS2}+ \Delta \Phi_{Coriolis}+\Delta
\Phi_{Aberr}+...
\label{eq2}$$
$$\frac{1}{2}{\sum}_{\uparrow \downarrow}=\Delta \Phi_{RF}+\Delta
\Phi_{LS1}+\Delta \Phi_{gradB}+...
\label{eq1}$$
k-independent Phase Shifts
--------------------------
Three major contributions to large phase shifts in the interferometer, that can be rejected from the $k$-dependent acceleration signal, $-\overrightarrow{k_{eff}} \cdot
\overrightarrow{g} \, {T}^2$, arise from the presence of magnetic field gradients, 1-photon light shifts [@weiss1994] and RF-phase shifts (see equ. (\[eq1\])).
We have experimentally demonstrated this rejection on our cold atom gravimeter. To test the rejection of k-independent phase shifts from the actual atomic signal, we have performed differential measurements with 4 configurations (two sets of parameters and $k_\uparrow -
k_\downarrow$ each). The difference in their half-sums $\Delta
(\frac{1}{2}\sum)$ gives us the additionally introduced phase shift. The difference in their half-differences $\Delta
(\frac{1}{2}\triangle)$ shows the remaining phase error, that is not rejected by the $k_\uparrow - k_\downarrow$ measurement.
With this method, we demonstrated rejection efficiencies typically better than 99%, limited by the resolution of the measurement (in the case of the RF and 1-photon light shift), and by the imperfect overlap between the atomic trajectories for the $k_\uparrow - k_\downarrow$ interferometers (in the case of the magnetic field gradient). For a space interferometer, the influence of the magnetic field gradients are expected to be reduced with respect to the case of ground experiment, as i) atoms travel along shorter distances, and ii) the two separated wave-packets experience the same phase shifts, as they alternately travel along identical trajectories.
k-dependent Phase Shifts
------------------------
As shown above, large systematic error contributions can be removed from the atomic signal by systematic $k_{\uparrow}$-$k_{\downarrow}$ measurements. The remaining phase shifts in equation (\[eq2\]) are due to effects that are inherently sensitive to the direction of $k$.
The first term in equ. (\[eq2\]) represents the actual atomic signal due to the acceleration of the atoms. The atomic transition wavelength, which is determining $k_{eff}$, is known to better than 1 kHz [@ye1996].
Three major sources of phase errors add onto this acceleration induced phase shift. Similar to the 1-photon light shift, the Eigen-energies of the atomic states are modified in higher order terms by 2-photon transitions of the Raman beams themselves (LS2). This 2-photon light shift introduces a phase shift similar to this of the usual 1-photon light shift, but where the shift of the resonance transition is ${\delta\nu_{AC}}^{(LS2)}={\Omega_{eff}}^2/\delta_{Doppler}$, and $\delta_{Doppler}=k_{eff} \cdot v$ is the Doppler-detuning of the stimulated Raman transition from resonance.
Term 3 and 4 in equ.(\[eq2\]) are phase terms that both depend on the transverse velocities of the atoms and are difficult to clearly distinguish. Any residual offset velocity $v_T$ perpendicular to $\overrightarrow{k_{eff}}$ will lead to phase errors due to Coriolis forces and imperfect plane wave fronts of the Raman beams (aberrations) [@Fils05]. As indicated in figure \[fig:all\](e), a finite $v_T$ will lead to a finite area spanned by the interferometer and thus will make it sensitive to rotations.
Contrary to that, phase shifts due to aberrations in the phase fronts of the Raman beams scale with the temperature $T_{atoms}$ of the atomic ensemble, depending on the shape of distortion in the wave fronts. For a in first order parabolic curvature of the wave front $\Delta \Phi=c \cdot r^2$, we obtain $\Delta\Phi_{Aberr}=c \,(v_T^2+2\,k_B\,T_{atoms}/m)T^2$. Here, the interferometer is only sensitive to perturbations introduced in the retro-reflected beam path, which is non-common to both Raman laser beams. In case of a pure curvature of the retro-reflected phase fronts, $\Delta a=10^{-10}$ m/s$^2$ would require $c=17$ rad/m$^2$, which corresponds to a phase front radius of $R=240$ km, or a flatness of $\approx \lambda/1500$ over a beam diameter of 10 mm. This flatness is difficult to reach, especially with retardation plates.
Irregularly shaped phase distortions, as introduced by mirror and $\lambda/4$ plate, can average out and the requirement for the surface flatness is less stringent. To deduce the effect on the atomic signal, the wave front distortion introduced by the individual optical elements have to be measured with a Shack-Hartmann sensor or ZYGO interferometer, at the level of $\approx \lambda/1000$ or better. The collected phase shifts along the classical trajectories of the atoms can then be calculated. Measurements of the phase shift of the interferometer versus initial position and velocity, and versus temperatures can be useful to study this systematic effect, and correct for it.
In space, Coriolis acceleration could also be an issue, depending on the details of the mission. One should though keep in mind that this bias is not intrinsic to the device, but is a part of the signal and is related to the actual trajectory of the satellite. Wavefront aberrations appear as a very important systematic effect, which depends on a non trivial way with the experimental parameters (size and temperature of the atomic cloud and interaction time). To overcome this problem, extremely high flatness optics are required.
Conclusion
==========
Thanks to a careful study and optimization of all sources of noise and systematics on our gravimeter, we can evaluate the sensitivity and the accuracy for a space accelerometer based on classical cold atom sources and stimulated Raman transition to manipulate the atomic wavepackets. As proposed in [@SAGAS], such a accelerometer might be developed easily taking advantage of the similarities with the atomic clock prototype PHARAO for which key components have already been realized and tested on ground for the Engineer Model [@pharao]. Short term sensitivity should not be better than state of the art classic proof mass accelerometers [@onera], but an atom interferometer should reach a much better long term stability and accuracy, without the need of spinning the satellite. Moreover, the main sources of noise and systematics cancel in a differential measurement, as in the cases of gradiometers [@maleki] or gyroscopes.
Finally, the use of ultra-cold atoms (like BEC) will take full advantage of the space environment, by allowing to increase the measurement time and reducing the systematics (the effect of wavefront distortion for example) [@mwxg]. Such experiments are more complicated and still need to demonstrate their possibilities on ground. This is why several projects are currently developed to improve the knowledge and technology for zero-g environment: the QUANTUS project [@quantus] carry on in Germany, which study the realization of BEC in the free falling Bremen tower, the Frech project ICE [@Nyman06], which tests the realization of an atom interferometer in the zero-g airplane of CNES, or the ESA project “Atom Interferometry Sensors for Space Applications”. All these developments will soon give the possibilitiy of using such a device in fundamental physics experiments or in other applications in the field of Earth observation, navigation or exploration of the solar system.
We would like to thank all our collaborators of the “Inertial Sensors Team” of SYRTE laboratory for their contributions to the experimental results. We also supports the Institut Francilien pour la Recherche sur les Atomes Froids (IFRAF), the European Union (FINAQS), the Délégation Générale pour l’Arrmement and the Centre Nationale d’Etudes Spatiales for their financial supports.
[0]{}
.
, [**151**]{}, 262 (1988).
.
.
, (Academic Press, 1997).
;
;
.
.
.
.
Special Issue: , ; .
, in , European Space Agency.
Private communications Kasevich M.A., Stanford University and Bresson A., ONERA.
; .
.
; .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Proposal to Cosmic vision 2007: .
Submitted to publication to [*Experimental Astronomy*]{}, arXiv: 0711.0304.
.
.
.
.
.
, (1987) 133.
accepted for publication to [*IEEE Trans. on Instrum. Meas*]{}, e-print, arxiv/physics/0510197.
.
.
.
.
http://www.oscilloquartz.com/ http://www.wenzel.com/
.
.
.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Different models with nonabelian homogeneous condensate fields are considered in the one-loop approximation. Effective action in a model of gluodynamics in curved space is calculated. Free energy and its minimum in a (2+1)-dimensional model of QCD are investigated. Photon polarization operator (PO) is obtained.'
---
= 17 cm = -2.23 cm = 23.15 cm = -2.74 cm \#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
=1.8pt
**Radiative Effects in Gauge Models with Homogeneous\
Condensate and Curved Space-Time**
V. Ch. Zhukovsky, V. V. Khudyakov, I. V. Mamsurov\
[*Physical Faculty, Moscow State University,\
119899, Moscow, Russia*]{}
Introduction
=============
Despite considerable efforts that have been undertaken in the recent years there is no consistent theory of the QCD vacuum state at present. Quark [@Gell-Mann] and gluon condensates were for the first time investigated in the framework of the sum-rule method by M.Shifman et al. [@shifman] and then basing upon some simple models of the gluon background field (instantons [@Shuryak; @Reinhardt], Savvidy vacuum [@savvidy]). Nonperturbative approaches were developed also by Dosch and Simonov [@Simonov] (cluster expansion of the vacuum field method). Active investigation of various radiative effects in non-Abelian external fields has been initiated in this connection [@[3_5]].
On the other hand many problems of elementary particle physics have thermodynamical aspects. Relevant to this are problems of phase transitions in gauge theories at finite temperature and non-zero chemical potential [@[6]], the question of possible stabilization of the classical Yang-Mills field configurations on account of temperature effects [@[7]; @Eb_Vsh_Zhuk], the problem of the particle energy radiative shift and modifications of the particle electromagnetic properties on account of finite temperature and density effects [@[8_9]], and a number of other problems. The chromomagnetic field configuration formed by nonabelian potentials turned out to be stable with respect to the decay into pairs of real particles [@Brown; @Agaev]. In this case substantially nonperturbative dependence of such objects, as the photon PO, on the vacuum field was obtained.
Recently much attention has been paid to the effects of topology [@deser] in forming the vacuum condensate, as well as to the non-analytic dependence of the observables on the intensity of the gluon condensate [@Ebert_Zh]. The study of radiative effects in the 3-dimensional theories, carried out recently by the MSU group [@Kostya; @Kolya] demonstrated importance of the so called Chern-Simons topological term for regularization of infrared divergences in calculating higher loop diagrams even in the case when background fields are present.
One-loop effective action for gauge fields in curved space-time
=================================================================
We investigate here a model of chromomagnetic vacuum in the space-time continuum of nonzero curvature. Let us consider SU(2) gluodynamics in [**S**]{}$^2\times$[**R**]{}$^2$ space-time, which is a direct product of a plane and a sphere of radius $\rho.$ Generating functional can be written in the form Z\[, j\]= da\^a\_dd { -d\^4x ([L]{} +ja) }, \[nq1\] where potential $A^a_\mu= \overline{A}^a_\mu+ a^a_\mu,\;$ $\overline{A}^a_\mu$ is the background, $a^a_\mu$ are quantum fluctuations, $
{\cal L}= (F^a_{\mu\nu})^2/4 + (\overline{D}^{ab}_\mu a^\mu_b)^2/(2\xi)
+ \overline{\chi}_a (\overline{D}^2)_{ab}\chi_b\:.\:
$ Here $F^a_{\mu\nu}= \nabla_\mu A^a_\nu- \nabla_\nu A^a_\mu - ig(T^a)^{bc}
A^b_\mu A^c_\nu \;$ is the field tensor, $\;$ $\overline{D}^{ab}_\mu =
\delta^{ab}\nabla_\mu - ig(T^c)^{ab} \overline{A}^c_\mu $ is the background derivative and $\chi_a$ are ghost fields. Using $Z=\exp(\Gamma),\;$ one obtains effective action $\Gamma$ in the one-loop approximation $
\Gamma^{(1)}[\overline{A}]=
\frac12 \mathop{\rm Tr}\ln \overline{\Theta}^{ab}_{\mu\nu} -
\mathop{\rm Tr}\ln (-\overline{D}^2 )^{ab}
$ with the first and second terms as gluon and ghost contributions respectively.
A model condensate abelian field can be chosen in the form $\overline{A}^a_\mu = n^a\overline{A}_\mu,\;$ $\overline{F}^a_{\mu\nu}=n^a \overline{F}_{\mu\nu},\;$ $n^a=\mathop{\rm const},\;$ $n^a n^a = 1. $ Then, for $\xi = 1,$ upon diagonalizing $\overline{\Theta}^{ab}_{\mu\nu}$ one obtains $\overline{\Theta}^a_{\mu\nu} = - g_{\mu\nu}
(\nabla_\lambda - ig\nu^a \overline{A}_\lambda)^2 + ig\nu^a
\overline{F}_{\mu\nu} - R_{\mu\nu}. $ Here $\nu^a= \{1,1,0\}\; (a=1,2,3)$ are eigenvalues of matrix $n^cT^c.$
Consider large values of parameter $\chi^a= \omega^a\rho^2 \gg 1 \: $ ($\omega^a=gH|\nu^a|).$ Define $p=[\sqrt{\chi}]$ as the integer part, $\vep= \sqrt{\chi}-\rho$ as the fractional part. Then in homogeneous chromomagnetic background field $H$ we obtain: \^[(1)]{}\[\]= -(gH)\^2 (1-2p); ={
[ccc]{} -&,& 1/2
. , where $\Omega$ is the 4-volume. Since $2\al/\rho<1,$ we have $\mathop{\rm Im} \Gamma^{(1)} \ne 0.$ After regularization the real part of the effective action with account for the tachyonic mode contribution reads: \^[R(1)]{}\[\]=(gH)\^2( (-12 )- ), where $\gamma$ is the Euler’s constant.
For small values of $\chi$ one obtains $
\mathop{\rm Im}\Gamma^{(1)}[\overline{A}]=-\Omega/(4\pi\rho^4),
$ and \^[(1)]{}\[\]=(gH)\^2 ( -- \^2 gH ). It should be emphasized that the imaginary part of the effective action, $\mathop{\rm Im} \Gamma^{(1)},$ never disappears in this model and, in contrast to [@eli], no stabilization occurs.
Free energy in (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) model of QCD with vacuum condensate
============================================================================
Consider an SU(2) model of QCD in (2+1)-dimensional space-time at finite temperature. The one-loop euclidean effective action \^[(1)]{}=-\_r(q\_4\^2+ \_r\^2(G))+ \_[j=1]{}\^[N\_f]{} \_k(p\_4\^2+\_k\^2(Q\_j)) \[ea\]is expressed in terms of one-particle boson $\vep_r(G)$ and fermion $\vep_k(Q_j)$ spectra with quarks of color $a$ and flavor $j=\overline{1,N_f}.$ Introducing finite temperature $T=1/\beta$ and generating functional $Z$ at $T\ne 0$ in the conventional way, we define the effective potential as $V= -T\ln Z/L^2 =\Gamma^{(1)} L^{-3}.$ Here $L^3=\beta L^2 $ stands for the of 3-dimensional space-time volume. Separating the background field energy density $V^{(0)}=(\overline{F }^a_{\mu\nu})^2/4$ and the one-loop quantum correction $v=v^G+v^Q,$ where $v^G$ and $v^Q$ are the quark and gluon contributions respectively, we have $V=V^{(0)}+v.$ Uniform vacuum condensate fields can be defined by gauge potential $\overline{A}^a_\mu=\delta_{\mu 2}\delta_{a3}Hx_1 +
\delta_{\mu4}\delta_{a3}A_0 = \delta_{a3}\overline{A}_\mu\:.$ Chromomagnetic field $H=\mathop{\rm const}$ and $A_0$-condensate are directed along third color axis. The gluon energy spectrum with only physical degrees of freedom taken into account (for zero chemical potential) is $
\vep(G)= \sqrt{2gH(n-1/2)}+gA_0 -i\epsilon, \; n=0,2,3,4,
\ldots \,;
$ $\epsilon>0.$ Here $n=0$ corresponds to the tachyonic mode.
Substituting the energy spectrum in (\[ea\]) with account for the degeneracy of the energy spectrum we obtain the gluon contribution to the effective potential, which is periodical in $gA_0$ with period $2\pi/\beta.$ Only those gauge transformations are admissible, for which ${\bf Z}_2$ symmetry is conserved $A_0\to A'_0 =A_0+ 2\pi n/(\beta g)\;$ $(n\in {\bf Z}).$ It should be noted that $v^G$ is real for $\sqrt{gH}< gA_0 <2\pi T-\sqrt{gH}.$ At $gA_0=\sqrt{gH}$ the effective potential has a singularity due to the tachyonic mode contribution. The divergence is cured by account for radiative correction $\Delta\vep\sim \al_s=g^2/4\pi$ in the tachyonic energy $\vep^2_{tach}=-gH-2i\al_s\sqrt{gH}.$ Temperature contribution can be separated as $v^G= v^G_{T=0}+ v^G_T. $ Here $v^G_{T=0}$ coincides with Trottier’s result [@trot]. The effective potential reaches its extremum (minimum) value at $ \sqrt{gH_0} \approx 0.218 g^2. $ For $H\to 0$ the temperature part reads .v\^G\_T|\_[H=0]{} - ( (3)+ ). In [@trot] condensate $H$ was found to evaporate for $T>T_{cr}.$ However, the tachyonic mode was neglected there. For convenience we introduce dimensionless variables $x=\beta \sqrt{gH},\, y=\beta gA_0. $ Then the form of $V$ is demonstrated by the function $U(x,y)= x^4 (T/g^2)^4+ u(x,y).$ For $T<T_{cr}\sim g^2$ the temperature contribution is small and $U(x,y)$ attains a global minimum at $x=x_{min}$ and $y=y_{min}.$ The second kind phase transitions in $U(x,y)$ occur with $y_{min}=\pi$ and $y_{min}=0$ interchanging. For $T>T_{cr}$ the values of $y_{min}$ and $x_{min}$ decrease from $\pi$ to $0$ with growing temperature.
Polyakov loop is defined as ${\cal P}={\cal T}\exp\left[ i\int_0^\beta\!dt A_0^a \lambda^a/2 \right].$ If in the fundamental representation $\mathop{\rm Tr}_F({\cal P})=0, $ then there exists a confinement phase. In our case $\mathop{\rm Tr}_F({\cal P})= 2\cos(\beta gA_0/2).$ Therefore $\mathop{\rm Tr}_F({\cal P})=0$ is satisfied at $\beta gA_0=\pi.$
The quark contribution to the effective potential possesses a trivial global minimum only. However, the quark contribution is much smaller than the gluon one. Thus, quarks do not change the qualitative result given by gluons.
We emphasize that the tachyonic modes are responsible for instability, signaled by $\mathop{\rm Im} v\ne 0. $ Higher order corrections help to cure the singularity at $gA_0=\sqrt{gH}, $ which is due to zero modes in the energy spectrum. For $T<T_{cr}$ there arise a set of regions of confinement and deconfinement. This is explained by the oscillating contribution of tachyonic modes to the effective potential.
Photon PO in U(1)$\times$SU(2) model with non-abelian vacuum condensate
=========================================================================
Spinor electrodynamics of “quarks” with charge $e$ and mass $m$ interacting with SU(2) gauge field is described by the Lagrangian =-F\_F\^ -G\^a\_G\_a\^ +(i\^D\_-m) + e\_A\^. Here $G^a_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu G^a_\nu- \partial_\nu G^a_\mu
+f^{abc}G^b_\mu G^c_\nu,\;$ and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu- iG_\mu.$ Photon PO in the momentum representation can be written in the one-loop approximation as \_(q,q’)=ie\^2\^4(q+q’) d\^4p . \[e41\]Here $S(P)=1/(\gamma P-m)$ is the quark Green’s function, $P_\mu=p_\mu+G_\mu$. Performing UV finite integration in (\[e41\]) the explicit expression for PO has been obtained. For $q\to 0,$ in the lowest order in $G_\mu$ the antisymmetric part of PO takes the form $ \displaystyle
\Pi^A_{\mu\nu}=\frac{5}{6\pi^2} \frac{e^2}{m^2} \mathop{\rm tr}\left[
G_\mu G_\nu (q_\al G^\al) \right].
$ In the case of the non-abelian spherically symmetric condensate $G^1_1=G^2_2=G^3_3=\sqrt{\lambda},\;$ $G^a_0=0,\;$ $H^a_i=\delta^a_i \lambda \quad (i=1,2,3)$ the photon topological mass $\Theta_{ind}=\Pi^A(0)\;$ (with $\Pi^A_{\mu\nu}(q)=i\vep_{\mu\nu\al}q^\al \Pi^A(q^2)$) takes the value [@E_Zh] $ \displaystyle
\Theta_{ind}(\lambda)=\frac{5}{24\pi^2}\frac{e^2}{m^2} \lambda^{3/2}.
$ The nonzero antisymmetric part of PO leads to the effect of rotation of the photon polarization plane.
For large Euclidean momentum $Q^2=-q^2 $ one can improve the well known perturbative expression for symmetric part of PO by accounting for its nonanalytical dependence on the background field. To this end the effective quark mass is introduced: $m_*^2=m^2+3\lambda/4. $ Upon subtracting vacuum contribution one obtains a pure background field contribution $ \Pi^S_{\mu\nu}(q) = e^2/(8\pi^2)(Q^2g_{\mu\nu}-Q_\mu Q_\nu)\Pi(Q), $ where (Q)= -4 (+ - ). This result can be applied to describe radiative corrections to deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering $ l(p)+h(P)\to l(p')+X(P') $ with consideration for the model uniform chromomagnetic vacuum field. Let $q=p-p'$ stand for the momentum transferred. Then the amplitude of this process is calculated to be $T=T_0 [1-\alpha(Q)\Pi(Q^2)/(2\pi)], $ where $ \alpha(Q)^{-1}=\alpha^{-1}-1/(3\pi)\ln{(Q^2/m^2)} $ is the fine-structure constant improved by account for the renormalization group, $T_0$ is the tree level amplitude. Corresponding correction to the cross-section is included in the expression $ d\sigma=d\sigma_0(1-\alpha(Q) \Pi(Q^2) /\pi).$
[99]{} M. Gell-Mann, R. Oakes, B. Renner, . M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, V.I. Zakharov, ; A.I. Vainshtein, V.I. Zakharov, M.A. Shifman, . E.V. Shuryak, . H. Reinhardt, K. Langfeld, . G.K. Savvidy, ;\
S.G. Matinyan, G.K. Savvidy, . H.G. Dosch, Yu.A. Simonov, . I.M. Ternov, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, A.V. Borisov, [*Quantum processes in a strong external field (in Russian)*]{}, Moscow, 1989. A.O. Starinets, A.S. Vshivtsev, V.Ch. Zhukovskii, ; V.P. Barashev, A.S. Vshivtsev, V.Ch. Zhukovskii, . A. Cabo, A.E. Shabad, . D. Ebert, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, A.S. Vshivtsev, . I.M. Ternov, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, P.G. Midodashvili, P.A. Eminov, ;\
V.Ch. Zhukovsky, T.L. Shoniya, P.A. Eminov, . L.S. Brown, W.I. Weisberger, . Sh.S. Agaev, A.S. Vshivtsev, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, O.F. Semyenov, . S. Deser, R. Jackiw, S. Templeton . D. Ebert, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, *Mod. Phys. Lett. **12 (1997) 2567; K.V. Zhukovsky, P.A. Eminov, ; ; ;\
A.V. Borisov, K.V. Zhukovsky, . V.Ch. Zhukovsky, N.A. Peskov, A.Yu. Afinogenov, . E. Elizalde, S.D. Odintsov, A. Romeo, . H.D. Trottier, . D. Ebert, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, [*Generation of a QCD-induced Chern-Simons like term in QED*]{}, Preprint HU-EP-97/87, 1997 (To appear in [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} A), hep-th/9712016.***
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study sequential programs that are instruction sequences with direct and indirect jump instructions. The intuition is that indirect jump instructions are jump instructions where the position of the instruction to jump to is the content of some memory cell. We consider several kinds of indirect jump instructions. For each kind, we define the meaning of programs with indirect jump instructions of that kind by means of a translation into programs without indirect jump instructions. For each kind, the intended behaviour of a program with indirect jump instructions of that kind under execution is the behaviour of the translated program under execution on interaction with some memory device.\
[*Keywords:*]{} instruction sequence, indirect jump instruction, projectionsemantics, program algebra, thread algebra.\
[*1998 ACM Computing Classification:*]{} D.3.1, D.3.3, F.1.1, F.3.2, F.3.3.
author:
- 'J.A. Bergstra'
- 'C.A. Middelburg'
bibliography:
- 'TA.bib'
title: 'Instruction Sequences with Indirect Jumps [^1]'
---
Introduction {#sect-intro}
============
We take the view that sequential programs are in essence sequences of instructions. Although finite state programs with direct and indirect jump instructions are as expressive as finite state programs with direct jump instructions only, indirect jump instructions are widely used. For example, return instructions, in common use to implement recursive method calls in programming language such as Java [@GJSB00a] and C\# [@HWG03a], are indirect jump instructions. Therefore, we consider a theoretical understanding of both direct jump instructions and indirect jump instructions highly relevant to programming. In [@BL02a], sequential programs that are instruction sequences with direct jump instructions are studied. In this paper, we study sequential programs that are instruction sequences with both direct jump instructions and indirect jump instructions.
We believe that interaction with components of an execution environment, in particular memory devices, is inherent in the behaviour of programs under execution. Intuitively, indirect jump instructions are jump instructions where the position of the instruction to jump to is the content of some memory cell. In this paper, we consider several kinds of indirect jump instructions, including return instructions. For each kind, we define the meaning of programs with indirect jump instructions of that kind by means of a translation into programs without indirect jump instructions. For each kind, the intended behaviour of a program with indirect jump instructions of that kind under execution is the behaviour of the translated program under execution on interaction with some memory device. We also describe the memory devices concerned, to wit register files and stacks.
The approach to define the meaning of programs mentioned above is introduced under the name projection semantics in [@BL02a]. Projection semantics explains the meaning of programs in terms of known programs instead of more or less sophisticated mathematical objects that represent behaviours. The main advantage of projection semantics is that it does not require a lot of mathematical background. In the present case, another advantage of projection semantics is that it follows immediately that indirect jump instructions of the kinds considered can be eliminated from programs in the presence of an appropriate memory device. We will study sequential programs that are instruction sequences with direct and indirect jump instructions in the setting in which projection semantics has been developed so far: the setting of program algebra and basic thread algebra.[^2]
Program algebra is an algebra of deterministic sequential programs based on the idea that such programs are in essence sequences of instructions. Basic thread algebra is a form of process algebra which is tailored to the description of the behaviour of deterministic sequential programs under execution. A hierarchy of program notations rooted in program algebra is introduced in [@BL02a]. In this paper, we embroider on two program notations that belong to this hierarchy. The program notations in question, called and , are close to existing assembly languages. The main difference between them is that has relative jump instructions and has absolute jump instructions.
A thread proceeds by doing steps in a sequential fashion. A thread may do certain steps only for the sake of having itself affected by some service. In [@BP02a], the use mechanism is introduced to allow for such interaction between threads and services. The interaction between behaviours of programs under execution and some memory device referred to above is an interaction of this kind. In this paper, we will use a slightly adapted form of the use mechanism, called thread-service composition, to have behaviours of programs under execution affected by services.
This paper is organized as follows. First, we review basic thread algebra, program algebra, and the program notations and (Sections \[sect-BTA\], \[sect-PGA\], and \[sect-PGLC-PGLD\]). Next, we extend basic thread algebra with thread-service composition and introduce a state-based approach to describe services (Sections \[sect-TAtsc\] and \[sect-service-descr\]). Following this, we give a state-based description of register file services and introduce variants of the program notations and with indirect jump instructions (Sections \[sect-reg-file\], \[sect-PGLDij\], and \[sect-PGLCij\]). We also introduce a variant of one of those program notations with double indirect jump instructions (Section \[sect-PGLDdij\]). After that, we give a state-based description of stack services and introduce a variant of the program notation with returning jump instructions and return instructions (Sections \[sect-stack\] and \[sect-PGLDrj\]). Finally, we make some concluding remarks (Section \[sect-concl\]).
Basic Thread Algebra {#sect-BTA}
====================
In this section, we review (Basic Thread Algebra), a form of process algebra which is tailored to the description of the behaviour of deterministic sequential programs under execution. The behaviours concerned are called *threads*.
In , it is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *basic actions* $\BAct$. The intuition is that each basic action performed by a thread is taken as a command to be processed by a service provided by the execution environment of the thread. The processing of a command may involve a change of state of the service concerned. At completion of the processing of the command, the service produces a reply value. This reply is either $\True$ or $\False$ and is returned to the thread concerned.
Although is one-sorted, we make this sort explicit. The reason for this is that we will extend with an additional sort in Section \[sect-TAtsc\].
The algebraic theory has one sort: the sort $\Thr$ of *threads*. To build terms of sort $\Thr$, has the following constants and operators:
the *deadlock* constant $\const{\DeadEnd}{\Thr}$;
the *termination* constant $\const{\Stop}{\Thr}$;
for each $a \in \BAct$, the binary *postconditional composition* operator$\funct{\pcc{\ph}{a}{\ph}}{\Thr \x \Thr}{\Thr}$.
Terms of sort $\Thr$ are built as usual (see e.g. [@ST99a; @Wir90a]). Throughout the paper, we assume that there are infinitely many variables of sort $\Thr$, including $x,y,z$.
We use infix notation for postconditional composition. We introduce *action prefixing* as an abbreviation: $a \bapf p$, where $p$ is a term of sort $\Thr$, abbreviates $\pcc{p}{a}{p}$.
Let $p$ and $q$ be closed terms of sort $\Thr$ and $a \in \BAct$. Then $\pcc{p}{a}{q}$ will perform action $a$, and after that proceed as $p$ if the processing of $a$ leads to the reply $\True$ (called a positive reply), and proceed as $q$ if the processing of $a$ leads to the reply $\False$ (called a negative reply).
Each closed term of sort $\Thr$ denotes a finite thread, i.e. a thread of which the length of the sequences of actions that it can perform is bounded. Guarded recursive specifications give rise to infinite threads.
A *guarded recursive specification* over is a set of recursion equations $E = \set{X = t_X \where X \in V}$, where $V$ is a set of variables of sort $\Thr$ and each $t_X$ is a term of the form $\DeadEnd$, $\Stop$ or $\pcc{t}{a}{t'}$ with $t$ and $t'$ terms of sort $\Thr$ that contain only variables from $V$. We write $\vars(E)$ for the set of all variables that occur on the left-hand side of an equation in $E$. We are only interested in models of in which guarded recursive specifications have unique solutions, such as the projective limit model of presented in [@BB03a]. A thread that is the solution of a finite guarded recursive specification over is called a *finite-state* thread.
We extend with guarded recursion by adding constants for solutions of guarded recursive specifications and axioms concerning these additional constants. For each guarded recursive specification $E$ and each $X \in \vars(E)$, we add a constant of sort $\Thr$ standing for the unique solution of $E$ for $X$ to the constants of . The constant standing for the unique solution of $E$ for $X$ is denoted by $\rec{X}{E}$. Moreover, we add the axioms for guarded recursion given in Table \[axioms-rec\] to ,
= & X = t\_X E &\
E X = & X (E) &
where we write $\rec{t_X}{E}$ for $t_X$ with, for all $Y \in \vars(E)$, all occurrences of $Y$ in $t_X$ replaced by $\rec{Y}{E}$. In this table, $X$, $t_X$ and $E$ stand for an arbitrary variable of sort $\Thr$, an arbitrary term of sort $\Thr$ and an arbitrary guarded recursive specification over , respectively. Side conditions are added to restrict the variables, terms and guarded recursive specifications for which $X$, $t_X$ and $E$ stand. The equations $\rec{X}{E} = \rec{t_X}{E}$ for a fixed $E$ express that the constants $\rec{X}{E}$ make up a solution of $E$. The conditional equations $E \Implies X = \rec{X}{E}$ express that this solution is the only one.
We will write + for extended with the constants for solutions of guarded recursive specifications and axioms RDP and RSP.
In [@BM05c], we show that the threads considered in + can be viewed as processes that are definable over ACP [@Fok00].
Program Algebra {#sect-PGA}
===============
In this section, we review (ProGram Algebra), an algebra of sequential programs based on the idea that sequential programs are in essence sequences of instructions. provides a program notation for finite-state threads.
In , it is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary finite set $\BInstr$ of *basic instructions*. has the following *primitive instructions*:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *forward jump instruction* $\fjmp{l}$;
a *termination instruction* $\halt$.
We write $\PInstr$ for the set of all primitive instructions.
The intuition is that the execution of a basic instruction $a$ may modify a state and produces $\True$ or $\False$ at its completion. In the case of a positive test instruction $\ptst{a}$, basic instruction $a$ is executed and execution proceeds with the next primitive instruction if $\True$ is produced and otherwise the next primitive instruction is skipped and execution proceeds with the primitive instruction following the skipped one. In the case where $\True$ is produced and there is not at least one subsequent primitive instruction and in the case where $\False$ is produced and there are not at least two subsequent primitive instructions, deadlock occurs. In the case of a negative test instruction $\ntst{a}$, the role of the value produced is reversed. In the case of a plain basic instruction $a$, the value produced is disregarded: execution always proceeds as if $\True$ is produced. The effect of a forward jump instruction $\fjmp{l}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th next instruction of the program concerned. If $l$ equals $0$ or the $l$-th next instruction does not exist, then $\fjmp{l}$ results in deadlock. The effect of the termination instruction $\halt$ is that execution terminates.
has the following constants and operators:
for each $u \in \PInstr$, an *instruction* constant $u$;
the binary *concatenation* operator $\ph \conc \ph$;
the unary *repetition* operator $\ph\rep$.
Terms are built as usual. Throughout the paper, we assume that there are infinitely many variables, including $x,y,z$.
We use infix notation for concatenation and postfix notation for repetition.
Closed terms are considered to denote programs. The intuition is that a program is in essence a non-empty, finite or infinite sequence of primitive instructions. These sequences are called *single pass instruction sequences* because has been designed to enable single pass execution of instruction sequences: each instruction can be dropped after it has been executed. Programs are considered to be equal if they represent the same single pass instruction sequence. The axioms for instruction sequence equivalence are given in Table \[axioms-PGA\].
(x y) z = x (y z) &\
(x\^n)= x&\
xy = x&\
(x y)= x (y x)&
In this table, $n$ stands for an arbitrary natural number greater than $0$. For each $n > 0$, the term $x^n$ is defined by induction on $n$ as follows: $x^1 = x$ and $x^{n+1} = x \conc x^n$. The *unfolding* equation $x\rep = x \conc x\rep$ is derivable. Each closed term is derivably equal to a term in *canonical form*, i.e. a term of the form $P$ or $P \conc Q\rep$, where $P$ and $Q$ are closed terms that do not contain the repetition operator.
Each closed term is considered to denote a program of which the behaviour is a finite-state thread, taking the set $\BInstr$ of basic instructions for the set $\BAct$ of actions. The *thread extraction* operator $\extr{\ph}$ assigns a thread to each program. The thread extraction operator is defined by the equations given in Table \[axioms-thread-extr\] (for $a \in \BInstr$, $l \in \Nat$ and $u \in \PInstr$)
= a\
= a\
= a\
=\
= a\
=
=\
=\
=\
=\
=\
=\
=
and the rule given in Table \[rule-thread-extr\].
x y =
This rule is expressed in terms of the *structural congruence* predicate $\ph \scongr \ph$, which is defined by the formulas given in Table \[axioms-scongr\] (for $n,m,l \in \Nat$ and $u_1,\ldots,u_n,v_1,\ldots,v_{m+1} \in \PInstr$).
u\_1 …u\_n u\_1 …u\_n\
u\_1 …u\_n u\_1 …u\_n\
( u\_1 …u\_n)( u\_1 …u\_n)\
u\_1 …u\_n (v\_1 …v\_[m+1]{})\
u\_1 …u\_n (v\_1 …v\_[m+1]{})\
x x\
x\_1 y\_1 x\_2 y\_2 x\_1 x\_2 y\_1 y\_2
The equations given in Table \[axioms-thread-extr\] do not cover the case where there is a cyclic chain of forward jumps. Programs are structural congruent if they are the same after removing all chains of forward jumps in favour of single jumps. Because a cyclic chain of forward jumps corresponds to $\fjmp{0}$, the rule from Table \[rule-thread-extr\] can be read as follows: if $x$ starts with a cyclic chain of forward jumps, then $\extr{x}$ equals $\DeadEnd$. It is easy to see that the thread extraction operator assigns the same thread to structurally congruent programs. Therefore, the rule from Table \[rule-thread-extr\] can be replaced by the following generalization: $x \scongr y \Implies \extr{x} = \extr{y}$.
Let $E$ be a finite guarded recursive specification over , and let $P_X$ be a closed term for each $X \in \vars(E)$. Let $E'$ be the set of equations that results from replacing in $E$ all occurrences of $X$ by $\extr{P_X}$ for each $X \in \vars(E)$. If $E'$ can be obtained by applications of axioms PGA1–PGA4, the defining equations for the thread extraction operator and the rule for cyclic jump chains, then $\extr{P_X}$ is the solution of $E$ for $X$. Such a finite guarded recursive specification can always be found. Thus, the behaviour of each closed term, is a thread that is definable by a finite guarded recursive specification over . Moreover, each finite guarded recursive specification over can be translated to a closed term of which the behaviour is the solution of the finite guarded recursive specification concerned. Closed terms are loosely called *programs*. programs in which the repetition operator do not occur are called *finite* programs.
The Program Notations and {#sect-PGLC-PGLD}
===========================
In this section, we review two program notations which are rooted in . These program notations, called and PGLD, belong to a hierarchy of program notations introduced in [@BL02a].
Both and are close to existing assembly languages. The main difference between them is that has relative jump instructions and has absolute jump instructions. and have no explicit termination instruction.
In and , like in , it is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary set of *basic instructions* $\BInstr$. Again, the intuition is that the execution of a basic instruction $a$ may modify a state and produces $\True$ or $\False$ at its completion.
has the following primitive instructions:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct forward jump instruction* $\fjmp{l}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct backward jump instruction* $\bjmp{l}$.
programs have the form $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, and the negative test instructions are as in , except that termination instead of deadlock occurs in the case where there are insufficient subsequent primitive instructions. The effect of a direct forward jump instruction $\fjmp{l}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th next instruction of the program concerned. If $l$ equals $0$, then deadlock occurs. If the $l$-th next instruction does not exist, then termination occurs. The effect of a direct backward jump instruction $\bjmp{l}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th previous instruction of the program concerned. If $l$ equals $0$, then deadlock occurs. If the $l$-th previous instruction does not exist, then termination occurs.
We define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pglcpga$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) = (\_1(u\_1) …\_k(u\_k) ),
where the auxiliary functions $\psi_j$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of are defined as follows ($1 \leq j \leq k$):
\_j() & = & & j + l k,\
\_j() & = & & j + l > k,\
\_j() & = & & l < j,\
\_j() & = & & l j,\
\_j(u) & = & u & u .
The idea is that each backward jump can be replaced by a forward jump if the entire program is repeated. To enforce termination of the program after execution of its last instruction if the last instruction is a plain basic instruction, a positive test instruction or a negative test instruction, $\halt \conc \halt$ is appended to $\psi_1(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi_k(u_k)$.
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pglcpga(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of $P$ is the behaviour of $\pglcpga(P)$. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLC$, is $\extr{\pglcpga(P)}$.
has the following primitive instructions:
- for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
- for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
- for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
- for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct absolute jump instruction* $\ajmp{l}$.
programs have the form $u_1;\ldots;u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, and the negative test instructions are as in . The effect of a direct absolute jump instruction $\ajmp{l}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th instruction of the program concerned. If $\ajmp{l}$ is itself the $l$-th instruction, then deadlock occurs. If $l$ equals $0$ or $l$ is greater than the length of the program, then termination occurs.
We define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pgldpglc$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) = \_1(u\_1) …\_k(u\_k),
where the auxiliary functions $\psi_j$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of are defined as follows ($1 \leq j \leq k$):
\_j() & = & & l j,\
\_j() & = & & l < j,\
\_j(u) & = & u & u .
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pgldpglc(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of $P$ is the behaviour of $\pgldpglc(P)$. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLD$, is $\extr{\pgldpglc(P)}_\sPGLC$.
We use the phrase *projection semantics* to refer to the approach to semantics followed in this section. The meaning functions $\pglcpga$ and $\pgldpglc$ are called *projections*.
and are very simple program notations. The hierarchy of program notations introduced in [@BL02a] also includes a program notation, called , that supports structured programming by offering conditional and loop constructs instead of (unstructured) jumps. Each program can be translated into a semantically equivalent program by means of a number of projections.
Interaction of Threads with Services {#sect-TAtsc}
====================================
A thread may perform certain actions only for the sake of getting reply values returned by a service and that way having itself affected by that service. In this section, we introduce thread-service composition, which allows for threads to be affected by services in this way. We will only use thread-service composition to have program behaviours affected by a service. Thread-service composition is a slightly adapted form of the use mechanism introduced in [@BP02a].
We consider only deterministic services. This will do in the case that we address: services that keep private data for a program. The services concerned are para-target services by the classification given in [@BM07a].
It is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *foci* $\Foci$ and a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *methods* $\Meth$. Each focus plays the role of a name of a service provided by the execution environment that can be requested to process a command. Each method plays the role of a command proper. For the set $\BAct$ of actions, we take the set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci, m \in \Meth}$. Performing an action $f.m$ is taken as making a request to the service named $f$ to process command $m$.
We introduce yet another sort: the sort $\Serv$ of *services*. However, we will not introduce constants and operators to build terms of this sort. $\Serv$ is a parameter of theories with thread-service composition. $\Serv$ is considered to stand for the set of all services. It is assumed that each service can be represented by a function $\funct{H}{\neseqof{\Meth}}{\set{\True,\False,\Blocked}}$ with the property that $H(\alpha) = \Blocked \Implies H(\alpha \concat \seq{m}) = \Blocked$ for all $\alpha \in \neseqof{\Meth}$ and $m \in \Meth$. This function is called the *reply* function of the service. Given a reply function $H$ and a method $m \in \Meth$, the *derived* reply function of $H$ after processing $m$, written $\derive{m}H$, is defined by $\derive{m}H(\alpha) = H(\seq{m} \concat \alpha)$.
The connection between a reply function $H$ and the service represented by it can be understood as follows:
if $H(\seq{m}) = \True$, the request to process command $m$ is accepted by the service, the reply is positive and the service proceeds as $\derive{m}H$;
if $H(\seq{m}) = \False$, the request to process command $m$ is accepted by the service, the reply is negative and the service proceeds as $\derive{m}H$;
if $H(\seq{m}) = \Blocked$, the request to process command $m$ is not accepted by the service.
Henceforth, we will identify a reply function with the service represented by it.
For each $f \in \Foci$, we introduce the binary *thread-service composition* operator $\funct{\use{\ph}{f}{\ph}}{\Thr \x \Serv}{\Thr}$. Intuitively, $\use{p}{f}{H}$ is the thread that results from processing all actions performed by thread $p$ that are of the form $f.m$ by service $H$. Service $H$ affects thread $p$ by means of the reply values produced at completion of the processing of the actions performed by $p$. The actions processed by $H$ are no longer observable.
The axioms for the thread-service composition operator are given in Table \[axioms-tsc\].
= & &\
= & &\
= & f g &\
= & H() = &\
= & H() = &\
= & H() = &
In this table, $f$ stands for an arbitrary focus from $\Foci$, $m$ stands for an arbitrary method from $\Meth$. Axiom TSC3 expresses that actions of the form $g.m$, where $f \neq g$, are not processed. Axioms TSC4 and TSC5 express that a thread is affected by a service as described above when an action of the form $f.m$ performed by the thread is processed by the service. Axiom TSC6 expresses that deadlock takes place when an action to be processed is not accepted.
Let $T$ stand for either or +. Then we will write $T+\TSC$ for $T$, taking the set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci, m \in \Meth}$ for $\BAct$, extended with the thread-service composition operators and the axioms from Table \[axioms-tsc\].
In [@BM05c], we show that the services considered here can be viewed as processes that are definable over an extension of with conditionals introduced in [@BM05a].
State-Based Description of Services {#sect-service-descr}
===================================
In this section, we introduce the state-based approach to describe families of services that will be used later on. This approach is similar to the approach to describe state machines introduced in [@BP02a].
In this approach, a family of services is described by
- a set of states $S$;
- an effect function $\funct{\eff}{\Meth \x S}{S}$;
- a yield function $\funct{\yld}{\Meth \x S}{\set{\True,\False,\Blocked}}$;
satisfying the following condition:
.
The set $S$ contains the states in which the services may be; and the functions $\eff$ and $\yld$ give, for each method $m$ and state $s$, the state and reply, respectively, that result from processing $m$ in state $s$.
We define, for each $s \in S$, a cumulative effect function $\funct{\ceff_s}{\seqof{\Meth}}{S}$ in terms of $s$ and $\eff$ as follows:
\_s() = s,\
\_s() = (m,\_s()).
We define, for each $s \in S$, a service $\funct{H_s}{\neseqof{\Meth}}{\set{\True,\False,\Blocked}}$ in terms of $\ceff_s$ and $\yld$ as follows:
H\_s() = (m,\_s()).
$H_s$ is called the service with *initial state* $s$ described by $S$, $\eff$ and $\yld$. We say that $\set{H_s \where s \in S}$ is the *family of services* described by $S$, $\eff$ and $\yld$.
For each $s \in S$, $H_s$ is a service indeed: the condition imposed on $S$, $\eff$ and $\yld$ implies that $H_s(\alpha) = \Blocked \Implies
H_s(\alpha \concat \seq{m}) = \Blocked$ for all $\alpha \in \neseqof{\Meth}$ and $m \in \Meth$. It is worth mentioning that $H_s(\seq{m}) = \yld(m,s)$ and $\derive{m} H_s = H_{\eff(m,s)}$.
Register File Services {#sect-reg-file}
======================
In this section, we give a state-based description of the very simple family of services that constitute a register file of which the registers can contain natural numbers up to some bound. This register file will be used in Sections \[sect-PGLDij\]–\[sect-PGLDdij\] to describe the behaviour of programs in variants of and with indirect jump instructions.
It is assumed that a fixed but arbitrary number $\maxr$ has been given, which is considered the number of registers available. It is also assumed that a fixed but arbitrary number $\maxn$ has been given, which is considered the greatest natural number that can be contained in a register.
The register file services accept the following methods:
- for each $i \in [0,\maxr]$ and $n \in [0,\maxn]$, a *register set method* $\setr{:}i{:}n$;
- for each $i \in [0,\maxr]$ and $n \in [0,\maxn]$, a *register test method* $\eqr{:}i{:}n$.
We write $\Meth_\rf$ for the set $\set{\setr{:}i{:}n,\eqr{:}i{:}n \where
i \in [0,\maxr] \And n \in [0,\maxn]}$. It is assumed that $\Meth_\rf \subseteq \Meth$.
The methods accepted by register file services can be explained as follows:
- $\setr{:}i{:}n$: the contents of register $i$ becomes $n$ and the reply is $\True$;
- $\eqr{:}i{:}n$: if the contents of register $i$ equals $n$, then nothing changes and the reply is $\True$; otherwise nothing changes and the reply is $\False$.
Let $\funct{s}{[1,\maxr]}{[0,\maxn]}$. Then we write $\RF_s$ for the service with initial state $s$ described by $S = (\mapof{[1,\maxr]}{[0,\maxn]}) \union \set{\undef}$, where $\undef \not\in \mapof{[1,\maxr]}{[0,\maxn]}$,and the functions $\eff$ and $\yld$ defined as follows ($n \in [0,\maxn]$, $\funct{\rho}{[1,\maxr]}{[0,\maxn]}$):[^3]
(i[:]{}n,) = ,\
(i[:]{}n,) = ,\
(m,) = & m \_,\
(m,) = , (i[:]{}n,) = ,\
(i[:]{}n,) = & (i) = n,\
(i[:]{}n,) = & (i) n,\
(m,) = & m \_,\
(m,) = .
We write $\RF_\mathrm{init}$ for $\RF_{\maplet{1}{0} \owr \ldots \owr \maplet{I}{0}}$.
with Indirect Jumps {#sect-PGLDij}
====================
In this section, we introduce a variant of with indirect jump instructions. This variant is called .
In , it is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *foci* $\Foci$ with $\rf \in \Foci$ and a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *methods* $\Meth$. Moreover, we adopt the assumptions made about register file services in Section \[sect-reg-file\]. The set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci, m \in \Meth}$ is taken as the set $\BInstr$ of basic instructions.
has the following primitive instructions:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct absolute jump instruction* $\ajmp{l}$;
for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, an *indirect absolute jump instruction* $\iajmp{i}$.
programs have the form $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, the negative test instructions, and the direct absolute jump instructions are as in . The effect of an indirect absolute jump instruction $\iajmp{i}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th instruction of the program concerned, where $l$ is the content of register $i$. If $\iajmp{i}$ is itself the $l$-th instruction, then deadlock occurs. If $l$ equals $0$ or $l$ is greater than the length of the program, termination occurs.
Recall that the content of register $i$ can be set to $l$ by means of the basic instruction $\rf.\setr{:}i{:}l$. Initially, its content is $0$.
Like before, we define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pgldijpgld$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) =\
(u\_1) …(u\_k)\
…\
\
… ,
where $n = \min(k,\maxn)$ and the auxiliary function $\psi$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of is defined as follows:
() & = & & l k,\
() & = & & l > k,\
() & = & ,\
(u) & = & u & u ,
and for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$:
l\_i & = & k + 3 + (2 (k,) + 1) (i - 1).
The idea is that each indirect absolute jump can be replaced by a direct absolute jump to the beginning of the instruction sequence
… ,
where $i$ is the register concerned and $n = \min(k,\maxn)$. The execution of this instruction sequence leads to the intended jump after the content of the register concerned has been found by a linear search. To enforce termination of the program after execution of its last instruction if the last instruction is a plain basic instruction, a positive test instruction or a negative test instruction, $\ajmp{0} \conc \ajmp{0}$ is appended to $\psi(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi(u_k)$. Because the length of the translated program is greater than $k$, care is taken that there are no direct absolute jumps to instructions with a position greater than $k$. Obviously, the linear search for the content of a register can be replaced by a binary search.
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pgldijpgld(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of $P$ is the behaviour of $\pgldijpgld(P)$ on interaction with a register file. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLDij$, is $\use{\extr{\pgldijpgld(P)}_\sPGLD}{\rf}{\RF_\mathrm{init}}$.
More than one instruction is needed in to obtain the effect of a single indirect absolute jump instruction. The projection $\pgldijpgld$ deals with that in such a way that there is no need for the unit instruction operator introduced in [@Pon02a] or the distinction between first-level instructions and second-level instructions introduced in [@BB06a].
with Indirect Jumps {#sect-PGLCij}
====================
In this section, we introduce a variant of with indirect jump instructions. This variant is called .
In , the same assumptions are made as in . Like in , the set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci, m \in \Meth}$ is taken as the set $\BInstr$ of basic instructions.
has the following primitive instructions:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct forward jump instruction* $\fjmp{l}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct backward jump instruction* $\bjmp{l}$;
for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, an *indirect forward jump instruction* $\ifjmp{i}$;
for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, an *indirect backward jump instruction* $\ibjmp{i}$.
programs have the form $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, the negative test instructions, the direct forward jump instructions, and the direct backward jump instructions are as in . The effect of an indirect forward jump instruction $\ifjmp{i}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th next instruction of the program concerned, where $l$ is the content of register $i$. If $l$ equals $0$, then deadlock occurs. If the $l$-th next instruction does not exist, then termination occurs. The effect of an indirect backward jump instruction $\ibjmp{i}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th previous instruction of the program concerned, where $l$ is the content of register $i$. If $l$ equals $0$, then deadlock occurs. If the $l$-th previous instruction does not exist, then termination occurs.
We define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pglcijpglc$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) =\
\_1(u\_1) …\_k(u\_k)\
…\
\
… …\
\
…
…\
\
… …\
\
… ,
where the auxiliary functions $\psi_j$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of is defined as follows ($1 \leq j \leq k$):
\_j() & = & & j + l k,\
\_j() & = & & j + l > k,\
\_j() & = & ,\
\_j() & = & ,\
\_j() & = & ,\
\_j(u) & = & u & u ,
and for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, $j \in [1,k]$, and $h \in [0,\maxn]$:
l\_[i,j]{} & = & k+3 + 2 (+1) (k (i-1) + (j-1)),\
\_[i,j]{} & = & k+3 + 2 (+1) (k (+ i-1) + (j-1)), l’\_[i,j,h]{} & = & l\_[i,j]{} + 2 h + 1 - (j + h) & j + h k,\
l’\_[i,j,h]{} & = & k+3 + 2 (+1) k & j + h > k, ’\_[i,j,h]{} & = & \_[i,j]{} + 2 h + 1 - (j - h) & j - h 0,\
’\_[i,j,h]{} & = & k+3 + 4 (+1) k & j - h < 0.
Like in the case of indirect absolute jumps, the idea is that each indirect forward jump and each indirect backward jump can be replaced by a direct forward jump to the beginning of an instruction sequence whose execution leads to the intended jump after the content of the register concerned has been found by a linear search. However, the direct backward jump instructions occurring in that instruction sequence now depend upon the position of the indirect jump concerned in $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$. To enforce termination of the program after execution of its last instruction if the last instruction is a plain basic instruction, a positive test instruction or a negative test instruction, $\bjmp{k+1} \conc \bjmp{k+2}$ is appended to $\psi_1(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi_k(u_k)$. Because the length of the translated program is greater than $k$, care is taken that there are no direct forward jumps to instructions with a position greater than $k$.
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pglcijpglc(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of $P$ is the behaviour of $\pglcijpglc(P)$ on interaction with a register file. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLCij$, is $\use{\extr{\pglcijpglc(P)}_\sPGLC}{\rf}{\RF_\mathrm{init}}$.
The projection $\pglcijpglc$ yields needlessly long programs because it does not take into account the fact that there is at most one indirect jump instruction at each position in a program being projected. Taking this fact into account would lead to a projection with a much more complicated definition.
with Double Indirect Jumps {#sect-PGLDdij}
===========================
In this section, we introduce a variant of with double indirect jump instructions. This variant is called .
In , the same assumptions are made as in . Like in , the set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci, m \in \Meth}$ is taken as the set $\BInstr$ of basic instructions.
has the following primitive instructions:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *direct absolute jump instruction* $\ajmp{l}$;
for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, an *indirect absolute jump instruction* $\iajmp{i}$;
for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$, a *double indirect absolute jump instruction* $\diajmp{i}$.
programs have the form $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, the negative test instructions, the direct absolute jump instructions, and the indirect absolute jump instruction are as in . The effect of a double indirect absolute jump instruction $\diajmp{i}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th instruction of the program concerned, where $l$ is the content of register $i'$, where $i'$ is the content of register $i$. If $\diajmp{i}$ is itself the $l$-th instruction, then deadlock occurs. If $l$ equals $0$ or $l$ is greater than the length of the program, termination occurs.
Like before, we define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pglddijpgldij$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) =\
(u\_1) …(u\_k)\
…\
\
… ,
where $n = \min(\maxr,\maxn)$ and the auxiliary function $\psi$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of is defined as follows:
() & = & & l k,\
() & = & & l > k,\
() & = & ,\
() & = & ,\
(u) & = & u & u ,
and for each $i \in [1,\maxr]$:
l\_i & = & + 1 + (2 (,) + 1) (i - 1).
The idea is that each double indirect absolute jump can be replaced by an indirect absolute jump to the beginning of the instruction sequence
… ,
where $i$ is the register concerned and $n = \min(\maxr,\maxn)$. The execution of this instruction sequence leads to the intended jump after the content of the register concerned has been found by a linear search. To enforce termination of the program after execution of its last instruction if the last instruction is a plain basic instruction, a positive test instruction or a negative test instruction, $\ajmp{0} \conc \ajmp{0}$ is appended to $\psi(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi(u_k)$. Because the length of the translated program is greater than $k$, care is taken that there are no direct absolute jumps to instructions with a position greater than $k$. To deal properly with indirect absolute jumps to instructions with a position greater than $k$, the instruction $\ajmp{0}$ is appended to $\psi(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi(u_k) \conc \ajmp{0} \conc \ajmp{0}$ a sufficient number of times.
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pglddijpgldij(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of program $P$ is the behaviour of $\pglddijpgldij(P)$. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLDdij$, is $\extr{\pglddijpgldij(P)}_\sPGLDij$.
The projection $\pglddijpgldij$ uses indirect absolute jumps to obtain the effect of a double indirect absolute jump in the same way as the projection $\pgldijpgld$ uses direct absolute jumps to obtain the effect of an indirect absolute jump. Likewise, indirect relative jumps can be used in that way to obtain the effect of a double indirect relative jump. Moreover, double indirect jumps can be used in that way to obtain the effect of a triple indirect jump, and so on.
Stack Services {#sect-stack}
==============
In this section, we give a state-based description of the very simple family of services that constitute a bounded stack of which the elements are natural numbers up to some bound. This stack will be used in Section \[sect-PGLDrj\] to describe the behaviour of programs in a variant of with returning jump instructions and return instructions.
It is assumed that a fixed but arbitrary number $\maxs$ has been given, which is considered the greatest length of the stack. It is also assumed that a fixed but arbitrary number $\maxn$ has been given, which is considered the greatest natural number that can be an element of the stack.
The stack services accept the following methods:
- for each $n \in [0,\maxn]$, a *stack push method* $\push{:}n$;
- for each $n \in [0,\maxn]$, a *stack top test method* $\topeq{:}n$;
- a *stack pop method* $\pop$.
We write $\Meth_\st$ for the set $\set{\push{:}n,\topeq{:}n \where n \in [0,\maxn]} \union \set{\pop}$. It is assumed that $\Meth_\st \subseteq \Meth$.
The methods of stack services can be explained as follows:
- $\push{:}n$: if the length of the stack is less than $\maxs$, then the number $n$ is put on top of the stack and the reply is $\True$; otherwise nothing changes and the reply is $\False$;
- $\topeq{:}n$: if the stack is not empty and the number on top of the stack is $n$, then nothing changes and the reply is $\True$; otherwise nothing changes and the reply is $\False$;
- $\pop$: if the stack is not empty, then the number on top of the stack is removed from the stack and the reply is $\True$; otherwise nothing changes and the reply is $\False$.
Let $s \in \seqof{[0,\maxn]}$ be such that $\len(s) \leq \maxs$. Then we write $\St_s$ for the service with initial state $s$ described by $S =
\set{\sigma \in \seqof{[0,\maxn]} \where \len(\sigma) \leq \maxs} \union
\set{\undef}$, where $\undef \not\in
\set{\sigma \in \seqof{[0,\maxn]} \where \len(\sigma) \leq \maxs}$, and the functions $\eff$ and $\yld$ defined as follows ($n,n' \in [0,\maxn]$, $\sigma \in \seqof{[0,\maxn]}$):[^4]
(n,) = & () < ,\
(n,) = & () ,\
(n,) = ,\
(, ) = ,\
(,) = ,\
(m,) = & m \_,\
(m,) = ,
(n,) = & () < ,\
(n,) = & () ,\
(n, ) = & n = n’,\
(n, ) = & n n’,\
(n,) = ,\
(, ) = ,\
(,) = ,\
(m,) = & m \_,\
(m,) = .
We write $\St_\mathrm{init}$ for $\St_\emptyseq$.
with Returning Jumps and Returns {#sect-PGLDrj}
=================================
In this section, we introduce a variant of with returning jump instructions and return instructions. This variant is called .
In , like in , it is assumed that there is a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *foci* $\Foci$ with $\st \in \Foci$ and a fixed but arbitrary finite set of *methods* $\Meth$. Moreover, we adopt the assumptions made about stack services in Section \[sect-stack\]. The set $\set{f.m \where f \in \Foci \diff \set{\st}, m \in \Meth}$ is taken as the set $\BInstr$ of basic instructions.
has the following primitive instructions:
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *plain basic instruction* $a$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *positive test instruction* $\ptst{a}$;
for each $a \in \BInstr$, a *negative test instruction* $\ntst{a}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, an *absolute jump instruction* $\ajmp{l}$;
for each $l \in \Nat$, a *returning absolute jump instruction* $\arjmp{l}$;
an *absolute return instruction* $\return$.
programs have the form $u_1 \conc \ldots \conc u_k$, where $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are primitive instructions of .
The plain basic instructions, the positive test instructions, the negative test instructions, and the absolute jump instructions are as in . The effect of a returning absolute jump instruction $\arjmp{l}$ is that execution proceeds with the $l$-th instruction of the program concerned, but execution returns to the next primitive instruction on encountering a return instruction. If $\arjmp{l}$ is itself the $l$-th instruction, then deadlock occurs. If $l$ equals $0$ or $l$ is greater than the length of the program, termination occurs. The effect of a return instruction $\return$ is that execution proceeds with the instruction immediately following the last executed returning absolute jump instruction to which a return has not yet taken place.
Like before, we define the meaning of programs by means of a function $\pgldrjpgld$ from the set of all programs to the set of all programs. This function is defined by
(u\_1 …u\_k) =\
\_1(u\_1) …\_k(u\_k)\
…\
\
…\
.\
\
.\
,
where $n = \min(k,\maxn)$ and the auxiliary functions $\psi_j$ from the set of all primitive instructions of to the set of all primitive instructions of is defined as follows ($1 \leq j \leq k$):
\_j() & = & & l k,\
\_j() & = & & l > k,\
\_j() & = & ,\
\_j() & = & ,\
\_j(u) & = & u & u ,
and for each $j \in [1,k]$, $l \in \Nat$, and $h \in [1,\min(k,\maxn)]$:
l\_[j,l]{} & = & k + 3 + 3 k ((j - 1) + (l - 1)) & l k j ,\
l\_[j,l]{} & = & j & l k j > ,\
l\_[j,l]{} & = & 0 & l > k, l’ & = & k + 3 + 3 k (k,), l” & = & l’ + 4 (k,), l”\_h & = & l’ + 4 h.
The first idea is that each returning absolute jump can be replaced by an absolute jump to the beginning of the instruction sequence
,
where $j$ is the position of the returning absolute jump instruction concerned and $l$ is the position of the instruction to jump to. The execution of this instruction sequence leads to the intended jump after the return position has been put on the stack. In the case of stack overflow, deadlock occurs. The second idea is that each return can be replaced by an absolute jump to the beginning of the instruction sequence
.\
\
.\
,
where $n = \min(k,\maxn)$. The execution of this instruction sequence leads to the intended jump after the position on the top of the stack has been found by a linear search and has been removed from the stack. In the case of an empty stack, deadlock occurs. To enforce termination of the program after execution of its last instruction if the last instruction is a plain basic instruction, a positive test instruction or a negative test instruction, $\ajmp{0} \conc \ajmp{0}$ is appended to $\psi_1(u_1) \conc \ldots \conc \psi_k(u_k)$. Because the length of the translated program is greater than $k$, care is taken that there are no non-returning or returning absolute jumps to instructions with a position greater than $k$.
Let $P$ be a program. Then $\pgldrjpgld(P)$ represents the meaning of $P$ as a program. The intended behaviour of $P$ is the behaviour of $\pgldrjpgld(P)$ on interaction with a stack. That is, the *behaviour* of $P$, written $\extr{P}_\sPGLDrj$, is $\use{\extr{\pgldrjpgld(P)}_\sPGLD}{\st}{\St_\mathrm{init}}$.
According to the definition of the behaviour of programs given above, the execution of a returning jump instruction leads to deadlock in the case where its position cannot be pushed on the stack and the execution of a return instruction leads to deadlock in the case where there is no position to be popped from the stack. In the latter case, the return instruction is wrongly used. In the former case, however, the returning jump instruction is not wrongly used, but the finiteness of the stack comes into play. This shows that the definition of the behaviour of programs given here takes into account the finiteness of the execution environment of programs.
Conclusions {#sect-concl}
===========
We have studied sequential programs that are instruction sequences with direct and indirect jump instructions. We have considered several kinds of indirect jumps, including return instructions. For each kind, we have defined the meaning of programs with indirect jump instructions of that kind by means of a translation into programs without indirect jump instructions. Each translation determines, together with some memory device (a register file or a stack), the behaviour of the programs concerned under execution.
The increase in the length of a program as a result of translation can be reduced by taking into account which indirect jump instructions actually occur in the program. The increase in the number of steps needed by a program as a result of translation can be reduced by replacing linear searching by binary searching or another more efficient kind of searching. One option for future work is to look for bounds on the increase in length and the increase in number of steps.
In [@BM06b], we have modelled and analysed micro-architectures with pipelined instruction processing in the setting of program algebra, basic thread algebra, and Maurer computers [@Mau66a; @Mau06a]. In that work, which we consider a preparatory step in the development of a formal approach to design new micro-architectures, indirect jump instructions were not taken into account. Another option for future work is to look at the effect of indirect jump instructions on pipelined instruction processing.
[^1]: This research was partly carried out in the framework of the Jacquard-project Symbiosis, which is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
[^2]: In [@BL02a], basic thread algebra is introduced under the name basic polarized process algebra. Prompted by the development of thread algebra [@BM04c], which is a design on top of it, basic polarized process algebra has been renamed to basic thread algebra.
[^3]: We use the following notation for functions: $f \owr g$ for the function $h$ with $\dom(h) = \dom(f) \union \dom(g)$ such that for all $d \in \dom(h)$, $h(d) = f(d)$ if $d \not\in \dom(g)$ and $h(d) = g(d)$ otherwise; and $\maplet{d}{r}$ for the function $f$ with $\dom(f) = \set{d}$ such that $f(d) = r$.
[^4]: We write $\seqof{D}$ for the set of all finite sequences with elements from set $D$. We use the following notation for finite sequences: $\emptyseq$ for the empty sequence, $\seq{d}$ for the sequence having $d$ as sole element, $\sigma \concat \sigma'$ for the concatenation of finite sequences $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$, and $\len(\sigma)$ for the length of finite sequence $\sigma$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a new way to quantify the restrictiveness of an economic model, based on how well the model fits simulated, hypothetical data sets. The data sets are drawn at random from a distribution that satisfies some application-dependent content restrictions (such as that people prefer more money to less). Models that can fit almost all hypothetical data well are not restrictive. To illustrate our approach, we evaluate the restrictiveness of two widely-used behavioral models, Cumulative Prospect Theory and the Poisson Cognitive Hierarchy Model, and explain how restrictiveness reveals new insights about them.'
author:
- 'Drew Fudenberg[^1] Wayne Gao [^2]Annie Liang[^3]'
title: |
How Flexible is that Functional Form?\
Quantifying the Restrictiveness of Theories[^4]
---
łø ŁØ¶ \#1[|\#1|]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[.\#1|]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1\#1\#1
Introduction
============
If a parametric model fits the available data well, is it because the model captures structure that is specific to the observed data, or because the model is so flexible that it would fit almost all conceivable data?
This paper provides a quantitative measure of model restrictiveness that can distinguish between the two explanations above and is easy to compute across a variety of applications. We test the restrictiveness of a model by simulating hypothetical data sets and seeing how well the model can fit this data. A restrictive model performs poorly on most of the hypothetical data, while an unrestrictive model approximates almost all conceivable data.
What the analyst views as conceivable reflects their ex-ante knowledge or intuition. For example, the analyst might think that everyone prefers more money to less, or that players are less likely to choose strictly dominated actions. To measure restrictiveness, we propose that the analyst first stipulates some basic application-dependent restrictions on the data, and then generates random data sets that obey these properties. Our measure of restrictiveness, based on the model’s performance on this hypothetical data, tells us how much the model restricts behaviors beyond these background restrictions.
We complement the evaluation of restrictiveness, which is based solely on hypothetical data, with an evaluation of the model’s performance on actual data, using the measure of completeness proposed in @FKLM. If a model is very unrestrictive, then its completeness on the real data does not directly speak to its relevance. In contrast, a model that is simultaneously restrictive and complete encodes important structure.
Our restrictiveness measure can be computed from data without the guidance of analytical results regarding the model’s implications or empirical content, so it can be used in settings where there are no analytic results that describe the model’s implications.[^5] We provide estimators for restrictiveness and completeness, and characterize their asymptotic distributions and standard errors. We then apply our method and estimators to evaluate parametric models from two classic settings in experimental economics: predicting certainty equivalents for binary lotteries and predicting initial play in matrix games. In each of these domains, these measures reveal new insights about the models we examine.
In our first application, we evaluate the restrictiveness of a popular three-parameter specification of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), using a set of binary lotteries from @Bruhin. In addition to the reported certainty equivalents, we generate many hypothetical data sets of certainty equivalents (restricted to satisfy first-order stochastic dominance). We find that while the CPT is nearly complete, it is not very restrictive, because it is also able to fit the hypothetical certainty equivalent data quite well, even though it has only three free parameters. This highlights an important difference between restrictiveness and notions of complexity based on parameter counts (see Section \[sec:related\] for further comparison). CPT’s relatively low restrictiveness is important to keep in mind when interpreting its striking predictive performance on real data.
To investigate the role of the parameters in CPT, we next compare the initial three-parameter specification of CPT to alternative specifications from the literature that have fewer parameters. We find that using only the two nonlinear probability weighting parameters approximates the performance of the three-parameter specification on actual data, while being substantially more restrictive. These results point to the importance of the nonlinear probability weighting parameters in CPT.
Our second application is to the prediction of initial play in $3\times 3$ matrix games from @FudenbergLiang. We evaluate the restrictiveness of the Poisson Cognitive Hierarchy Model (PCHM) [@CamererHoChong04] by generating hypothetical distributions of play and evaluating how well the PCHM fits the hypothetical data. We find that in contrast to CPT, the PCHM is very restrictive: Most hypothetical distributions are poorly fit by the PCHM for any parameter values. In contrast, the PCHM’s performance on the actual data is substantially better than its performance on the hypothetical data. These findings suggest that the PCHM precisely isolates a systematic regularity in real behavior. We next compare the PCHM with two alternative models: *logit level-1*, which models the distribution of play as a logistic best reply to the uniform distribution, and *logit PCHM*, which allows for logistic best replies in the PCHM [@LeytonBrownWright]. We find that logit level-1 not only fits the actual data better than the PCHM, but is also more restrictive. Moreover, logit level-1 performs almost as well as the more complex logit PCHM on the actual data, and is substantially more restrictive.
Our measure of restrictiveness provides a new perspective on the problem of how richly to parameterize a model. Minimizing cross-validated prediction error can help, as overparameterized models can overfit to training data and perform poorly on test data. But cross-validation—like other techniques for guarding against overfitting—tends to favor increasingly flexible models given increasingly large data sets. In contrast, our approach supposes an intrinsic preference for more parsimonious models. As we show, models with a small number of parameters, such as the four-parameter specification of CPT that we examine, can allow for a large range of behaviors; models with the same number of parameters (PCHM versus logit level-1) can differ substantially in their restrictiveness. Understanding the range of behaviors permitted by these models explains how much a model’s success on real data is due to flexibility and how much is due to specifically tracking regularities present in the data.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
[@Koopmans] defined a model to be *observationally restrictive* if the distributions of observables it allows are a proper subset of the distributions that would otherwise be possible. Their definition is with respect to an ambient family of outcome distributions; when this ambient family consists of every distribution, a non-restrictive theory cannot be refuted from data.[^6]
@Selten subsequently proposed measuring the restrictiveness of a model by the fraction of possible data sets that it can exactly explain. To compute this measure, the analyst needs to know which data sets are consistent with the model, which can be a demanding criterion. This criterion is satisfied in some cases, e.g. evaluating whether individual choices from budget sets are consistent with maximization of a utility function [@BeattyCrawford] and whether individual choices between certain pairs of lotteries are consistent with expected utility, or one of its generalizations [@Hey; @HarlessCamerer]. However we do not know which distributions of initial play are consistent with PCHM, so it is difficult to compute a measure such as @Selten’s for this parametric model.
In contrast, our proposed measure of restrictiveness is based on approximate rather than exact fit to a model, and we compute the model’s fit numerically. In this respect, our approach is closer to revealed preference papers that measure the distribution of the Afriat index. @Choietal and @Polisson relax the implications of expected utility maximization using Afriat’s “efficiency index” as an analog of our loss function. They then compare the distribution of the efficiency indices of the actual subjects with the distribution of efficiency indices in randomly generated data. Our approach is designed to evaluate parametric models, while GARP is nonparametric, but can be seen as a way of extending a similar idea to other problem domains and “loss functions.”
Our use of simulated data to evaluate restrictiveness is similar in spirit to the use of simulated data to evaluate the power of a hypothesis test, as in @Bronars’s numerical evaluation of a test of GARP proposed by @Varian, but it is not linked to hypothesis testing. We also provide statistical estimators for our proposed measures and standard errors for these estimates. These results tell us, for example, how many hypothetical data sets need to be generated in order to achieve a given level of approximation to our measure of restrictiveness.
Our work complements the representation theorems of decision theory, which describe the empirical content of different models. Currently, there are no representation theorems for many parametric economic models (including commonly-used parameterizations of Cumulative Prospect Theory and the Poisson Cognitive Hierarchy Model). For example, although there are theorems that characterize which data are consistent with a general Cumulative Prospect Theory specification [@Quiggin; @Yaari], we know of no representation theorems for the popular functional form we use here. Moreover, even if a representation theorem is available, it can be computationally challenging to determine whether a given data set is consistent with the characterization.[^7]
Our paper is also related to the vast literature in statistics and econometrics on model selection, which dates back to @cox1961tests [@cox1962further]. Unlike classic measures, including AIC and BIC, restrictiveness is not based on observed data, and it is not designed to guard against overfitting. Instead, it proposes a practical procedure for evaluating the restrictiveness of a parametric modeling class within a class of permissible models.[^8] Similarly, although VC dimension—which provides another measure for the “span" of a model—is related to our restrictiveness measure at a high level, it is generally nontrivial to determine the VC dimension of any given model.[^9] In contrast, our metric is (by design) easy to compute. Finally, to derive standard errors for our estimator for completeness, the paper utilizes a recent development in the statistics literature [@austern2020asymptotics] on the asymptotic theory of the cross-validation risk estimator.
Approach
========
Preliminaries {#sec:Prelim}
-------------
Let $X$ be an observable (random) *feature vector* taking values in a finite set $\mathcal{X}$, and $Y$ be an observable random *outcome variable* taking values in a finite-dimensional set $\mathcal{Y}$. We use $P^{*}$ to denote the joint distribution of $(X,Y)$, $P_{X}^{*}$ to denote the marginal distribution of $X$ and $P_{Y\mid X}^{*}$ to denote the conditional distribution of $Y$ given $X$. We assume that the marginal $P_{X}^{*}$ is known to the analyst, while the conditional distribution is not.[^10]
The analyst wants to learn a function of the conditional distribution, $s(P_{Y\mid X=x}^{*})\in S$, where $S$ is finite-dimensional. We call any function $f:{\cal {X}\to{\cal {S}}}$ a *predictive mapping*, or simply *mapping*, and denote the *true mapping* $f^{*}$ by $f^{*}(x):=s(P_{Y\mid X=x}^{*})$. The set of all possible mappings is denoted by $\mathcal{F}$.
We focus on two leading cases of this problem whose structure makes our methods easier to explain; Section \[sec:Extend\] explains how to extend our approach to more general problems.
#### Prediction of a Conditional Expectation.
When the statistic of interest is $\mathbb{E}_{P^{*}}[Y\mid X]$, the analyst’s objective is to learn the average outcome for each realization of $X$. To evaluate the error of predicting $f(x)$ when the realized outcome is $y$, we use squared loss $
l\left(f,(x,y)\right):=\left(y-f(x)\right)^{2}$. The *expected error* of a mapping $f$ is then $
e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right) =\E_{P^{*}}\left[\left(Y-f(X)\right)^{2}\right],
$ which is minimized by the true mapping $f^{*}\left(x\right)=\E_{P^{*}}\left[\rest YX=x\right]$. We show in Appendix \[app:Decomposition\] that the difference between the error $e_{P^*}(f)$ of an arbitrary mapping $f\in \mathcal{F}$ and the best possible error $e_{P^*}(f^*)$ is $$d_{MSE}(f,f^*):=e_{P^*}(f) - e_{P^*}(f^*):=\E_{P_{X}^{*}}\left[\left(f^*\left(X\right)-f\left(X\right)\right)^{2}\right],\label{d:MSE}$$ i.e. the expected mean-squared difference between the predicted outcomes.
Our first application, predicting the average reported certainty equivalent for binary lotteries, is an example of this case. Each lottery is described as a tuple $x=(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)$, and the feature space $\mathcal{X}$ consists of the 50 tuples associated with lotteries in a data set from @Bruhin. The outcome space of certainty equivalents is $\mathcal{Y}=\mathbb{R}$, and we seek to predict the population average of certainty equivalents for each lottery $x\in\mathcal{X}$. A predictive mapping for this problem specifies an average certainty equivalent for each of the 50 binary lotteries.
#### Prediction of a Conditional Distribution.
Here the statistic of interest is $P_{Y\mid X}^{*}$, so the analyst’s objective is to learn the conditional distribution itself. To evaluate the error of predicting the distribution $f(x)$ when the realized outcome is $y$, we use the negative (conditional) log-likelihood $
l\left(f,(x,y)\right):=-\log f\left(\rest yx\right)
$. The expected error of mapping $f$ is $
e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right)=\E_{P^{*}}\left[-\log f\left(\rest YX\right)\right],
$ which is minimized by the true conditional distribution $f^{*}(x)=P_{Y|X}^{*}(x)$. As we show in Appendix \[app:Decomposition\], the difference between the error of an arbitrary mapping $f\in \mathcal{F}$, $e_{P^*}(f)$ and the best possible error, $e_{P^*}(f^*)$, is $$d_{KL}(f,f^*):=e_{P^*}(f)-e_{P^*}(f^*):=\E_{P_{X}^{*}}\left[\sum_{y}f\left(\rest yx\right)\left[\log f\left(\rest yx\right)-\log f^{*}\left(\rest yx\right)\right]\right],\label{d:KL}$$ i.e. the expected Kullback-Liebler divergence between $f$ and the true distribution.
Our second application, predicting initial play in in matrix games, is an example of this case. Here the feature space $\mathcal{X}$ consists of the 466 unique $3\times3$ matrix games from @FudenbergLiang, each described as a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{18}$. The outcome space is $\mathcal{Y}=\{a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}\}$ (the set of row player actions) and the analyst seeks to predict the conditional distribution over $\mathcal{Y}$ for each game, interpreted as choices made by a population of subjects for the same game. Thus, $S=\Delta(\mathcal{Y})$, the set of all distributions over row player actions. A predictive mapping is any function $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow S$ taking the 466 games into predicted distributions of play.
Restrictiveness
---------------
Our goal is to evaluate the restrictiveness of parametric models $\mathcal{F}_{\T}=\{f_{\t}\}_{\t\in\T}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$, where the permitted mappings $f_{\theta}$ are indexed by a finite dimensional parameter $\theta$ and $\Theta$ is a compact set. If the model $\mathcal{F}_\T$ contains a mapping that can approximate the predictions of the true mapping $f^*$, then $\inf_{f\in \mathcal{F}_\T} e_{P^*}(f)$ also approximates the true mapping’s error, $e_{P^*}(f)$. Given enough data, such a model will predict about as well as possible, but a good fit to the data could be because the model includes the “right" regularities, or because it is simply flexible enough to accommodate any pattern of behavior (i.e. $\mathcal{F}_\T$ includes most mappings).
Our strategy to determine the restrictiveness of a model is to generate random mappings $f$ from a primitive distribution $\mu$. In our applications below, we choose $\mu$ to be uniform over a set $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ of “permissible mappings," which encodes prior knowledge or intuition about the setting. For example, when predicting certainty equivalents for lotteries, we may assume that people prefer more money to less.
We treat both $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\mu$ as primitives. In a sense, their role is analogous to the choice of what alternatives to consider when computing the power of a statistical test. In both cases, the right choice is guided by intuition and prior knowledge, and not derived from formal considerations.[^11] For this reason, it can be instructive to compute restrictiveness with respect to different choices of $\mu$—including those that have support on different permissible sets $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$—as we do in Appendix \[app:CPT\_Alt\].
We then evaluate how well the generated mappings can be approximated using the model $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$. When predicting conditional expectations, we define $d: \mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ to extend $d_{MSE}$ (as given in (\[d:MSE\])) to $$d_{MSE}(f,f'):=\E_{P_{X}^{*}}\left[\left(f'\left(X\right)-f\left(X\right)\right)^{2}\right].$$ When predicting a conditional distribution, we define $d$ to extend $d_{KL}$ (as given in (\[d:KL\])) to $$d_{KL}(f,f'):\E_{P_{X}^{*}}\left[\sum_{y}f\left(\rest yx\right)\left[\log f\left(\rest yx\right)-\log f^{'}\left(\rest yx\right)\right]\right].$$ Since our subsequent statements hold for both of these functions, we simply use the notation $d$, understanding that it means $d_{MSE}$ for predicting the conditional expectation, and $d_{KL}$ for predicting the conditional distribution.
The model’s approximation error to a generated mapping $f$ is then $
d(\mathcal{F}_{\T},f):=\inf_{\t\in\T}d(f_\t,f).$ We normalize this raw error relative to a benchmark *naive mapping* $f_{\text{naive}} \in \mathcal{F}_\T$ chosen to suit the problem. We interpret the naive mapping as a lower bound that any sensible model should outperform. For example, in our application to predicting initial play in games, we define the naive mapping to predict a uniform distribution of play in every game. Normalizing relative to a naive benchmark returns a unit-free measure of approximation, which is easier to interpret. (See further discussion in \[sec:discuss\].)
The *$f$-discrepancy* of model $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$ is $$\delta_{f}:=\frac{d(\mathcal{F}_{\T},f)}{d(f_{naive},f)}.$$
Since $f_{naive}$ is assumed to be an element of $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$, the $f$-discrepancy of $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$ is bounded above by $1$, and since $d$ is nonnegative, the $f$-discrepancy is also bounded below by zero. Thus, the $f$-discrepancy in any problem must fall between 0 and 1. Large values of $\delta_f$ imply that the model does not approximate $f$ much better than the naive mapping does. Since the naive mapping itself has no free parameters and therefore does not have the flexibility accommodate most mappings, concentration of the distribution of $\delta_f$ around large values implies that the model rules out many kinds of regularities.
The *restrictiveness* of model $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$ is its average $f$-discrepancy.
\[def:r\] The *restrictiveness* of model $\mathcal{F}_{\Theta}$ is $r:=\E_{\mu}\left[\delta_{f}\right].$
If $\mathcal{F}_{\Theta}=\mathcal{F}_{M}$ (so that the model is completely unrestrictive), then $r=0$ for every choice of $\mu$ with support on $\mathcal{F}_M$.
Completeness
------------
While restrictive models are desirable, a restrictive model is not particularly useful if it fails to predict real data. We would like models to embody regularities that are present in actual behavior, and rule out conceivable regularities that are not. We thus evaluate models from the dual perspectives of how restrictive they are and how well they predict actual data. The latter can be measured using the $f^*$-discrepancy of the model, where $f^*$ is the true mapping. This measure is tightly linked to the notion of *completeness* introduced in @FKLM.
\[def:Completeness\] The *completeness* of model $\mathcal{F}_{\T}$ is $$\kappa^{*}:=\frac{e_{P^{*}}(f_{\text{naive}})-e_{P^{*}}(\cF_\T)}{e_{P^{*}}(f_{\text{naive}})-e_{P^{*}}(f^{*})},$$ where $e_{P^*} (\cF_\T):= \inf_{\t\in\T} e_{P^*}(f_\t)$.
Completeness is the complement of the $f^*$-discrepancy, since $$\label{eq:relationship}
\kappa^* = 1- \frac{ e_{P^*} (\cF_\T)- e_{P^*}(f^*)}{e_{P^*}(f_{\text{naive}}) - e_{P^*}(f^*)}= 1- \frac{d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f^*)}{d(f_{\text{naive}},f^*)} = 1-\d_{f^{*}}.$$
A model’s completeness can be interpreted as the ratio of the reduction in error achieved by the model (relative to the naive baseline), compared to the largest achievable reduction. By construction, the measure $\kappa^*$ is scale-free and lies within the unit interval. A large $\kappa^{*}$ suggests that the model is able to approximate the real data well: at the extremes, a model with $\kappa^{*}=1$ matches the true mapping $f^{*}$ exactly, while a model with $\kappa^{*}=0$ is no better at matching $f^{*}$ than the naive model. We will report both restrictiveness $r$ and completeness $\kappa^*$ for each of the models that we consider.
Discussion of Measures {#sec:discuss}
----------------------
#### An alternative “area" measure.
Selten’s *area measure* of model flexibility is $a:=\mu(\cF_{\T})$, where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure, i.e. the fraction of possible mappings that are exactly consistent with the model. Our measure of restrictiveness differs both by normalization with respect to the performance of a naive model, and by measuring how well the model $\cF_{\T}$ *approximates* a randomly drawn mapping $f$ in $\cF_{\cM}$, which allows us to quantify the degree of error. A model that does not include most mappings from $\cF_{\cM}$ would be considered highly restrictive under the Selten measure, but would have low restrictiveness by our measure if it approximated most mappings very well.
#### Role of the normalization.
We define restrictiveness to be the average value of $d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f)/d(f_{\text{naive}},f)$, rather than its un-normalized counterpart $d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f)$. Normalizing relative to a naive mapping has several advantages compared to the unit-dependent raw error $d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f)$: If we were to scale up the payoffs in the binary lotteries in our first application, then $d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f)$ would mechanically scale up as well, even though the flexibility of the model has not changed, which makes it hard to say what constitutes a “large" value of $d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f)$. Normalizing relative to the naive error returns a unitless quantity that is easier to interpret, and can more easily be compared across problems that use different error metrics.
#### Sensitivity to $\mu$.
We might prefer that the restrictiveness measure does not respond too sensitively to small changes in $\mu$. We demonstrate now that it does not. For any two measures $\mu,\mu'\in\Delta(\mathcal{F})$, $$\label{eq:bound}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu}\left[\delta_{f}\right]-\mathbb{E}_{\mu'}\left[\delta_{f}\right]\leq\int\delta_{f}\cdot\vert d\mu-d\mu'\vert\leq2\cdot d_{TV}(\mu,\mu'),$$ where $d_{TV}$ is the total variation distance. Thus for any two measures that are close in total variation distance, the corresponding restrictiveness measures must also be close. We complement this theoretical bound with a numerical sensitivity check in Section \[sec:CPTr\], where we evaluate restrictiveness with respect to beta distributions that are close to our specification that $\mu$ is uniform. The resulting variation in restrictiveness is quite small.
#### Combining $\kappa^{*}$ and $r$.
Ideal models have high $\kappa^{*}$, so they approximate the real data well, but also high restrictiveness $r$, so they rule out regularities that could have been present but are not. These two criteria generate a partial order on models; there are many ways to complete it. One possibility is to use a lexicographic ordering, where models are ordered first by $\kappa^{*}$ and then by $r$. Another is to impose a functional form that combines $\kappa^{*}$ and restrictiveness $r$, such as $r-(1-\kappa^{*})=\mathbb{E}_{\mu}[\delta_{f}]-\delta_{f^{*}}$.[^12] Yet another possibility is to use the probability that the model fits the actual data better than it fits a randomly generated data set, namely the quantile of $\delta_{f^{*}}$ under the distribution of $f$-discrepancies. In the present paper, we report $\kappa^{*}$ and $r$ separately, and leave it to the analyst’s discretion whether or how to combine these two metrics.
#### Point-Identified and Set-Identified Models.
Note that $f$-discrepancy, restrictiveness, and completeness are well-defined regardless of whether the parametric model $\cF_\T$ is point-identified or set-identified. This is because the definitions of $d(\cF_\T,f)$, restrictiveness, and $e_{P^*}(\cF_\T)$ do not rely on the uniqueness of the minimizers. In other words, we evaluate the parametric model $\cF_\T$ with $d$ and $e_{P^*}$, so our measures do not differentiate point-identified models from set-identified models that yield the same $d(\cF_\T,f)$ and $e_{P^*}(\cF_\T)$.
Estimates and Test Statistics
=============================
We now discuss how to implement our approach in practice.
Computing Restrictiveness $r$
-----------------------------
We provide an algorithm for computing $r$: Sample $M$ times from the distribution $\mu$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\cM}$, and for each sampled $f_{m}\in{\cal F}_{\cM}$, compute $\d_m:= \frac{d(\mathcal{F}_\T,f_m)}{d(f_{\text{naive}},f_m)}.$ The sample mean $\ol{\d}_{M}:=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\d_{m}$ is an estimator for restrictiveness. In principle, the number of simulations we run, $M$, can be taken as large as we want, so $\ol{\d}$ can be made arbitrarily close to $r$ by the Law of Large Numbers. Moreover, the approximation error under a given finite $M$ can be quantified using standard statistical inference methods. We focus on the case where the distribution of $\d_m$ is nondegenerate.
\[ass:nondegen\] The distribution of $\d_m$ is non-degenerate.
Assumption \[ass:nondegen\] is a very mild condition that can be easily verified, as it is sufficient for any two $\d_m$ and $\d_m'$ to be distinct.
The sample variance is $$\label{eq:seRestrict}
\hat{\s}_{ \d}^{2}:=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\left(\d_{m}-\ol{\d}_{M}\right)^{2},$$ and the standard Central Limit Theorem gives the following result.
Under Assumption \[ass:nondegen\], $$\frac{\sqrt{M}\left(\ol{\d}_{M}-r\right)}{\hat{\s}_{ \d}}\dto\cN\left(0,1\right).$$ The $\left(1-\a\right)$-th confidence interval for $r$ is given by $$\left[\ol{\d}_{M}-q_{1-\a/2}\cd\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\hat{\s}_{ \d},\ \ol{\d}_{M}-q_{\a/2}\cd\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\hat{\s}_{ \d}\right],$$ where $\hat{\sigma}_{\d}$ is given in (\[eq:seRestrict\]).
One-sided hypothesis tests on $r$, e.g. for the null that $r=0$ so the model is completely unrestrictive, can also be carried out in standard ways. We again note that the confidence intervals here simply measure the approximation error of $r$ based on a finite number of simulations and do not reflect randomness in experimental data.
Estimating Completeness $\kappa^*$ {#sec:estimateComplete}
----------------------------------
In this section, we show how to estimate completeness, $\kappa^*$.
Suppose that the analyst has access to a finite sample of data $\left\{ Z_{i}:=\left(X_{i},Y_{i}\right)\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ drawn from the unknown true distribution $P^{*}$. To estimate completeness,
we use $K$-fold cross-validation to estimate the out-of-sample prediction error of the model. (In our applications, we take the standard choice of $K=10$.) Specifically, we randomly divide ${\bf Z}_{N}$ into $K$ (approximately) equal-sized groups. To simplify notation, assume that $J_{N}=\frac{N}{K}$ is an integer. Let $k\left(i\right)$ denote the group number of observation $Z_{i}$, and for each group $k=1,...,K$, define $$\hat{f}^{-k} :=\arg\min_{f\in{\cal F}}\frac{1}{N-J_{N}}\sum_{k\left(i\right)\neq k}l(f,Z_i)$$ to be the mapping from $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}$ that minimizes error for prediction of observations outside of group $k$. This estimated mapping is used for prediction of the $k$-th test set, and $$\hat{e}_{k} :=\frac{1}{J_{N}}\sum_{k\left(i\right)=k}l\left(\hat{f}^{-k},Z_i\right)$$ is its out-of-sample error on the $k$-th test set. Then, $$CV\left({\cal F}\right) :=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\hat{e}_{k}$$ is the average test error across the $K$ folds. This is an estimator for the unobservable expected error of the best mapping from class $\mathcal{F}$.
Setting $\widetilde{F}$ to be $\mathcal{F}_\T$, $\mathcal{F}$, or $\mathcal{F}_{\text{naive}}= \{f_{\text{naive}}\}$, we can compute $CV\left(\mathcal{F}_\T\right)$, $CV\left({\cal F} \right)$ and $CV\left(\mathcal{F}_{\text{naive}}\right)$ from the data, leading to the following estimator for $\kappa^{*}$: $$\hat{\kappa}^*=\frac{CV\left(\mathcal{F}_\T\right)-CV\left({\cal F}\right)}{CV\left(\mathcal{F}_{naive}\right)-CV\left({\cal F}\right)}.$$ It is crucial that the denominator in $\hat{\kappa}^*$ does not vanish asymptotically, so we impose the following assumption:
\[assu:naive\] $e\left(f_{\text{naive}}\right)-e\left(f^{*}\right)>0$.
This assumption is quite weak, as it simply says that the naive mapping performs strictly worse in expectation than the best mapping. Under additional technical conditions, we show, by applying and adapting Proposition 5 in [@austern2020asymptotics], that $\hat{\d}^{*}$ is asymptotically normal. See Appendix \[sec:asym\_CV\] for details.
To obtain the standard error, we use a variance estimator adapted from Proposition 1 in [@austern2020asymptotics]. Specifically, for the $k$-th test set, let $f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}}$ and $\hat{f}^{-k}$ be the estimated mappings from models $\mathcal{F}_\T$ and $\mathcal{F}$, respectively. The difference in their test errors on observation $Z_i$ is $\Delta(Z_i) = l(f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}}, Z_i) - l(\hat{f}^{-k},Z_i)$, and the average difference across all observations in test fold $k$ is $$\overline{\Delta}_k = \frac{1}{J_N} \sum_{k(i)=k} \Delta(Z_i).$$ The sample variance of the difference in test errors is $$\hat{\s}^2_{\overline{\Delta},k} = \frac{1}{J_N-1} \sum_{k(i)=k} \left(\Delta(Z_i) - \overline{\Delta}_k \right)^2.$$ Based on this, we define the following variance estimator for $\hat{\kappa}^*$: $$\label{eq:sekappa}
\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^*}^{2} :=\frac{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\hat{\s}_{\D,k}^{2}}{\left[CV\left(f_{\text{naive}}\right)-CV\left({\cal F}\right)\right]^{2}}.$$ We establish the asymptotic distribution of our proposed estimators via the following theorem.
\[ANorm\_kstar\] Under Assumption \[assu:naive\] and some regularity conditions,[^13] $$\frac{\sqrt{N}\left(\hat{\kappa}^*-\kappa^*\right)}{\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^*}}\dto\cN\left(0,1\right).$$ Consequently, the $\left(1-\a\right)$ two-sided confidence interval for $\kappa^{*}$ is given by $$\left[\hat{\kappa}^*-q_{1-\a/2}\cd\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^*},\ \hat{\kappa}^*-q_{\a/2}\cd\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^*}\right],$$ where $\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^*}$ is given in .
Application 1: Certainty Equivalents \[sec:App\_CE\]
====================================================
Setting
-------
Our first application is to predicting certainty equivalents for a set of 25 binary lotteries from @Bruhin. Each lottery is described as a tuple $x=(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)$, where $\overline{z}>\underline{z} \geq 0$ are the two possible prizes, and $p$ is the probability of the larger prize $\overline{z}$. (See Appendix \[app:loss\] for our analysis of the @Bruhin lotteries in the loss domain, which is qualitatively very similar.) The feature space $\mathcal{X}$ consists of the 25 tuples associated with lotteries in the @Bruhin data. The outcome space is $\mathcal{Y}=\mathbb{R}$. Each observation in the data is a pair consisting of a lottery and a reported certainty equivalent by a given subject. Note that the variation in $Y$ for fixed $X$ reflects the fact that different subjects report different certainty equivalents for the same lottery. (In Appendix \[sec:SubjectHeterogeneity\], we discuss how to extend our approach to allow for subject-level heterogeneity.
We seek to predict the average of the certainty equivalents (over subjects) reported for each lottery. A mapping for this problem is any function $f: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ from the 25 lotteries to predicted average certainty equivalents. We define $d(f,f')$ to be the expected mean-squared distance between the two mappings’ predictions, as in (\[d:MSE\]).
The economic model that we evaluate is a three-parameter version of *Cumulative Prospect Theory* indexed by $\theta=(\alpha,\gamma,\eta) \in \mathbb{R}_+\times \mathbb{R}_+\times \mathbb{R}_+$, which predicts $$f_\theta(\overline{z}, \underline{z},p) = w(p)v(\overline{z}) + (1-w(p)) v(\underline{z})$$ where $$\label{eq:utility}
v(z)= z^{\alpha}$$ is a value function for money, and $$\label{eq:w}
w(p)= \frac{\eta p^\gamma}{\eta p^\gamma + (1-p)^\gamma}$$ is a probability weighting function.[^14] We specify $\cF_{\T}$ as the set of all such functions $f_{\t}$, and refer to this model simply as CPT. As a naive benchmark, we consider the function $f_{\text{naive}}$ that maps each lottery into its expected value, corresponding to $\alpha=\gamma=\eta=1$ in CPT.
CPT is 95% complete for predicting this data,[^15] so the model achieves almost all of the possible improvement in prediction accuracy over the naive baseline.[^16] (Equivalently, the estimated $f^*$-discrepancy of this model is 0.05.) One explanation is that CPT is a very good model of risk preferences; another possibility is that the model is flexible enough to mimic most functions from binary lotteries to certainty equivalents. These explanations have very different implications for how to interpret CPT’s empirical success.
Restrictiveness {#sec:CPTr}
---------------
To distinguish between these explanations, we now compute CPT’s restrictiveness. Our primitive distribution $\mu$ is a uniform distribution over the set of all mappings satisfying the following criteria:[^17]
1. $\underline{z} \leq f(\overline{z},\underline{z},p) \leq \overline{z}$
2. if $\overline{z}\geq \overline{z}'$, $\underline{z}\geq \underline{z}'$, and $p\geq p'$ then $f(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)\geq f(\overline{z}',\underline{z}',p')$
3. if $\overline{z}\geq \underline{z}$, $p\geq p'$, then $f(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)\geq f(\overline{z},\underline{z},p')$
Constraint (1) requires that the certainty equivalent is within the range of the possible payoffs, while constraints (2) and (3) require $f$ to respect first-order stochastic dominance. Note that in the @Bruhin lottery data, there are many pairs of lotteries that can be compared via (2) and (3), so these conditions are not vacuous.
Below we plot the distribution of $f$-discrepancies for 100 random mappings $f$.
![Distribution of $f$-discrepancies for 100 randomly generated mappings $f$[]{data-label="fig:NormDistance"}](f-discrepancy-CPT.pdf)
The restrictiveness of the model (i.e. the average $f$-discrepancy) is $0.29$, so on average CPT’s approximation error is less than a third of the error of the naive (expected-value) mapping. Thus CPT is quite flexible, as it rules out very few regularities that are not already restricted by first-order stochastic dominance.
CPT’s restrictiveness suggests an explanation of its completeness that is intermediate to the two explanations proposed above: CPT is quite flexible, as its average completeness is 71% on the hypothetical data, but it is even more complete on the real data (95%). Taking both measures into account via a composite such as the difference $(r-\delta_{f^*})$, CPT’s high completeness on real data somewhat compensates for its moderately high completeness on hypothetical data, so we conclude that it encodes some—but not very much—structure beyond first-order stochastic dominance.
The restrictiveness measure depends on the choice of distribution $\mu$, which we chose to be uniform. The uniform distribution is the same as $\mbox{beta}(1,1)$, so to test the sensitivity of the restrictiveness measure we consider nearby $\mbox{beta}(a,b)$ distributions, with parameters $(a,b)$ sampled from a uniform distribution over $[0.9,1.1]\times [0.9,1.1]$. For each $(a,b)$ pair, we generate certainty equivalents from a $\mbox{beta}(a,b)$ distribution over the prize range, again keeping only those functions $f$ that satisfy FOSD. Over 100 such distributions $\mbox{beta}(a,b)$, the average restrictiveness is 0.30, with a min value of 0.17 and a max value of 0.41. Thus our finding that CPT is quite flexible is robust to these perturbations in $\mu$.[^18]
Next, in Appendix \[app:CPT\_Alt\], we compute the restrictiveness of the model with respect to a different background constraint, dropping the FOSD restrictions in (2) and (3) while keeping the range restriction in (1). We would expect the restrictiveness of CPT to increase in this case, since (for all parameter values) CPT obeys first-order stochastic dominance. We find however that the restrictiveness of CPT relative to this larger permissible set, 0.35, is only slightly higher than the restrictiveness of 0.29 that we find for the main specification of $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$.[^19] This reinforces our finding that CPT is not very restrictive.
Our analysis so far leaves open the possibility that the flexibility of the 4-parameter CPT model is specific to the domain of binary lotteries. In Appendix \[app:three\], we evaluate the restrictiveness of CPT on a set of 3-outcome lotteries from @BernheimSprenger. We find that CPT is indeed more restrictive on this domain, but still quite flexible: Its restrictiveness on these lotteries is $0.50$. In particular, CPT is much less restrictive than the models of initial play that we study in Section \[games\].
Comparing Models
----------------
One way to evaluate the value of additional parameters is to compare the increase in completeness that they permit, relative to the decrease in restrictiveness. As an illustration, we compare the three-parameter specification of CPT with more restrictive special cases that have been studied in the literature: $\eta=1$, as in @CPT, $\alpha=1$, which corresponds to a risk-neutral CPT agent whose utility function over money is $u(z)=z$ but exhibits nonlinear probability weighting, and $\eta=\gamma=1$, which corresponds to an Expected Utility decision-maker whose utility function is as given in (\[eq:utility\]). We refer to these models respectively as CPT$(\alpha,\gamma)$, CPT($\gamma, \eta)$, and CPT($\alpha$), where models are associated with their free parameters. We refer to the original three-parameter specification of CPT as CPT$(\alpha,\eta,\gamma)$. The distributions of $f$-discrepancies under these more restrictive models are shown in Figure \[fig:distrCompare\] below.
![Comparison of distributions of $f$-discrepancies.[]{data-label="fig:distrCompare"}](compare-model-parameters.pdf)
Less general specifications are always at least weakly more restrictive, but the restrictiveness of a model must be considered jointly with its ability to explain the actual data. Table \[tab:Risk\] reports restrictiveness and completeness for all four specifications of CPT, and Figure \[fig:Risk\] plots these measures.
\[tab:Risk\]
Free Parameters Completeness $\kappa^*$ $N$ Restrictiveness $r$ $M$
---------------------- ------------------------- ------ --------------------- ----- --
$\alpha,\gamma,\eta$ 0.95 8906 0.29 100
(0.01) (0.02)
$\alpha,\gamma$ 0.84 8906 0.43 100
(0.05) (0.02)
$\gamma,\eta$ 0.91 8906 0.49 100
(0.02) (0.01)
$\alpha$ 0.18 8906 0.81 100
(0.08) (0.02)
: Completeness and restrictiveness for each model in the certainty equivalent setting. $N$ is the number of observations in the data used to estimate $\kappa^*$. $M$ is the number of generated mappings from $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$ for computation of $r$.
\[fig:Risk\] 
We find that CPT($\eta,\gamma$), which uses only the nonlinear probability weighting parameters $\eta$ and $\gamma$, achieves a higher completeness than CPT$(\alpha,\gamma$), and does so despite being more restrictive. This suggests to us that it is a better model of risk preferences. Adding the risk-aversion parameter $\alpha$ to the nonlinear probability weighting parameters $\eta$ and $\gamma$ leads to only a slight improvement in completeness ($\kappa^*$ increases from 0.91 to 0.95), but results in a substantial drop in restrictiveness ($r$ falls from 0.49 to 0.29). This suggests that the probability weighting parameters $\eta$ and $\gamma$ are more useful than the utility curvature parameter $\alpha$. (These qualitative comparisons also hold when we consider lotteries on the loss domain, see Appendix \[app:loss\].) Our finding is consistent with previous studies which find that probability distortions play an important role in explaining field data [@SnowbergWolfers; @Donoghue], and adds a perspective on how much flexibility these parameters introduce. The model CPT-$(\alpha)$ is less complete, but more restrictive than CPT-($\eta,\gamma)$, so these two models cannot be directly ranked.
\[sec:App\_GameIP\]Application 2: The Distribution of Initial Play {#games}
==================================================================
Setting
-------
Our second application is to predicting the distribution of initial play in games. Here the feature space $\mathcal{X}$ consists of the 466 unique $3 \times 3$ matrix games from @FudenbergLiang,[^20] each described as a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{18}$. The outcome space is $\mathcal{Y}=\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ (the set of row player actions) and the analyst seeks to predict the conditional distribution over $\mathcal{Y}$ for each game, interpreted as choices made by a population of subjects for the same game. Thus, $S=\Delta(\mathcal{Y})$, the set of all distributions over row player actions. A mapping for this problem is any function $f: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow S$ taking the 466 games into predicted distributions of play. We define $d(f,f')$ to be the expected Kullback-Liebler divergence between the predicted distributions under $f$ and $f'$, as in (\[d:KL\]).
We define the naive mapping to predict the uniform distribution for every game: $f_{\text{naive}}(x)=(1/3,1/3,1/3)$ for every $x$. Additionally, we consider three economic models for this prediction task. The *Poisson Cognitive Hierarchy Model* (PCHM) of @CamererHoChong04 supposes that there is a distribution over players of differing levels of sophistication: The *level-0* player randomizes uniformly over his available actions, the *level-1* player best responds to level-0 play [@StahlWilson94; @StahlWilson95; @Nagel]; and for $k\geq 2$, level-$k$ players best respond to a perceived distribution $$p_{k}(h,\tau)=\frac{\pi_{\tau}(h)}{\sum_{l=0}^{k-1}\pi_{\tau}(l)}\qquad\forall\,\,h\in\mathbb{N}_{<k} \label{perceiveddistr}$$ over (lower) opponent levels, where $\pi_{\tau}$ is the Poisson distribution with rate parameter $\tau$. The parameter $\tau$ is the only free parameter of the model, and the naive mapping is nested as $\tau=0$.
We also evaluate a model that we call *logit level-1*, which has a single free parameter $\lambda\geq 0$. For each action $a_i$, the predicted frequency with which $a_i$ is played is $$\frac{\exp\left(\lambda \cdot u(a_i)\right)}{\sum_{i=1}^3 \exp\left(\lambda \cdot u(a_i)\right)}.$$ This model nests prediction of uniform play (our naive rule) as $\lambda = 0$, and predicts a degenerate distribution on the level-1 action when $\lambda$ is sufficiently large.
Finally, we consider a model that we call *logit PCHM* (see e.g. @LeytonBrownWright), which replaces the assumption of exact maximization in the PCHM with a logit best response. This model has two free parameters: $\lambda,\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$. The level-0 player chooses $g_0=(1/3,1/3,1/3)$, as in the PCHM. Recursively define for each $k\geq 1$ $$v_k(a_i) = \sum_{h=0}^{k-1} p_k(h,\tau) \left(\sum_{j=1}^3 g_{h}(j) u(a_i,a_j)\right)$$ to be the expected payoff of action $a_i$ against a player whose type is distributed according to $p_k(\cdot, \tau)$, where $p_k(h,\tau)$ is as defined in (\[perceiveddistr\]), and define $$g_k(a_i)= \frac{\exp(\lambda \cdot v_k(a_i))}{\sum_{j=1}^3 \exp(\lambda \cdot v_k(a_j))}$$ to be the distribution of level-$k$ play. We aggregate across levels using a Poisson distribution with rate parameter $\tau$.
The models PCHM, logit level-1, and logit PCHM turn out to be 43.6%, 72.7%, and 72.9% complete on the actual data. (Equivalently, their $f^*$-discrepancies are 0.564, 0.273, and 0.271.) Thus, as observed in a related study by @LeytonBrownWright, logit PCHM provides much better predictions of the distribution of play than the baseline PCHM does. Perhaps surprisingly, we find that almost all of this improvement is obtained by simply adding the logit parameter to the level-1 model, i.e. the further improvement from allowing for multiple levels of sophistication is negligible. The strong performance of logit level-1 for predicting initial play is consistent with the earlier result of @FudenbergLiang that the level-1 model provides a good prediction of the modal action. It is harder to predict the full distribution of play, so it is not obvious from the previous result that level-1 play with a logit noise parameter would perform so well for prediction of the distribution of play. The strong performance of level-1 for predicting modal play, combined with our new observation that logit level-1 does a good job predicting the distribution of play, suggests that initial play in many games is rather unstrategic.[^21]
Restrictiveness {#restrictiveness-1}
---------------
We turn now to evaluating the restrictiveness for these models. Compared to the case of preferences over binary lotteries, economic theory provides very little in the way of a priori restrictions on initial play.[^22] We thus define the permissible set $\mathcal{F}_M$ to include all mappings satisfying the following very weak conditions:
1. If an action is strictly dominated, then the frequency with which it is chosen does not exceed 1/3.[^23]
2. If an action is strictly dominant, then the frequency with which it is chosen is at least $1/3$.[^24]
For each of the PCHM, level-1$(\alpha)$, and logit PCHM, we generate 100 mappings $f$ from a uniform distribution $\mu$ over the set of permissible mappings $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$, and evaluate the $f$-discrepancies with respect to these mappings.[^25] The distributions of $f$-discrepancies are shown in the figure below.
We find that logit level-1’s restrictiveness is $0.930$, PCHM’s restrictiveness is $0.915$, and logit-PCHM’s restrictiveness is 0.822. Indeed, across all of these mappings and models, the $f$-discrepancy is always at least 0.72. Equivalently, the completenesses of these models across the simulated mappings is bounded above by 0.28. Since the completeness of these models on the actual data ranged from 0.436 to 0.729, each of these models is a much better predictor of the real data than of our hypothetical data sets.
Simply comparing the completeness of the PCHM, 0.436, against the completeness of CPT, 0.95, suggests that the PCHM is a “worse" model of initial play than CPT is of certainty equivalents for lotteries. The contrast in their restrictivenesses (0.915 vs. 0.27) tells us that while PCHM does not capture all of the observed behaviors, it more successfully rules out behaviors that we do not observe. These two perspectives are depicted in Figure \[fig:comparedomains\], where $\delta_{f^*}$ is smaller for CPT than for PCHM, implying that CPT better fits real data, but the distribution of $f$-discrepancies computed from simulated data is concentrated at substantially larger values for PCHM, so it is a more restrictive model.[^26]
![Comparison of distribution of $f$-discrepancies, and $\delta_{f^*}$, across the two applications.[]{data-label="fig:comparedomains"}](comparison.pdf)
Table \[tab:Games\] summarizes completeness and restrictiveness measures for all three models.
\[tab:Games\]
Completeness $\kappa^*$ $N$ Restrictiveness $r$ $M$
--------------- ------------------------- -------- --------------------- -----
PCHM 0.436 21,393 0.915 100
(0.017) (0.003)
logit level-1 0.727 21,393 0.930 100
(0.015) (0.005)
logit PCHM 0.729 21,393 0.822 100
(0.014) (0.003)
: $N$ is the number of observations in the data used to estimate $\kappa^*$. $M$ is the number of generated mappings from $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$ for computation of $r$.
From Table \[tab:Games\] we see that logit level-1 is more complete and also more restrictive than the PCHM. Logit level-1 is also substantially more restrictive than logit PCHM, at the cost of only a slight and statistically insignificant decrease in completeness. These observations suggest that logit level-1 may be a preferable model to the PCHM and logit PCHM for predicting initial play.[^27]
Application to General Prediction Problems {#sec:Extend}
==========================================
In the two leading cases we have analyzed in the main text (Section \[sec:Prelim\]), the function $d$ is derived from a primitive loss function $l$. We call the general property that permits this *decomposability*.
Consider an arbitrary loss function $l: \mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} $ and define $e_{P^*}(f) = \mathbb{E}_{P_X^*}[l(f,(X,Y))]$ to be the expected loss of mapping $f$. For any distribution $P$, let $f_P = \min_{f \in \mathcal{F}} e_{P}(f)$ denote the error-minimizing mapping under that distribution. Say that the problem is *decomposable* if there exists a function $d: \mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{eq:decompose}
d(f,f_P) = e_{P}(f) - e_{P}(f_P)$$ for every distribution $P$ (with fixed marginal distribution $P_X^*$). That is, $d(f,f_P)$ is the difference between the error of mapping $f$ and the error of the best mapping $f_P$.
In general, prediction problems need not be decomposable. For example, suppose the objective is to predict the conditional median, and the loss function is $l(f,(x,y)) = \vert y- f(x) \vert$ instead of squared loss. The expected error is then $e_{P^*}(f) = \mathbb{E}_{P_X^*} \vert Y - f(X) \vert $, and the error-minimizing function $f^*$ takes each $x$ into the median value of $Y$ at $x$. We might want to use $$\label{d:Absolute}
d(f,f') = \mathbb{E}_{P_X^*}(\vert f(X) - f'(X)\vert)$$ as a measure of how different the predictions are under $f$ and $f$’, but this function does not satisfy (\[eq:decompose\]). For the absolute value loss function, there is in fact no function $d: \mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that satisfies (\[eq:decompose\]), because the difference in errors cannot be determined from $f$ and $f^*$ alone, but depends on further properties of the conditional distribution $P^*$. (See Appendix \[app:LAD\] for more details.)
When the problem is decomposable, as in the cases analyzed in the main text, then our approach is applicable without change by setting $d$ to be the function satisfying (\[eq:decompose\]). If the problem is not decomposable, we take $d$ as a primitive, rather than deriving it from the loss function $l$. The key concepts of $f$-discrepancies and restrictiveness are defined as they are in the main text, using this primitive $d$. What we lose is the equivalence between the $1-\delta_{f^*}$ and completeness $\kappa^*$, as described in (\[eq:relationship\]). One can report restrictiveness $r$ (based on the primitive $d$) and completeness $\kappa^*$ (based on the primitive $l$), understanding that there is no inherent relationship between these concepts. Larger values of $r$ and $\kappa^*$ can still be interpreted as more restrictive and more complete models. A second alternative is to report $1-\delta_{f^*}$ instead of completeness. Since $\delta_{f^*}$ is derived from $d$, this second approach does not require specification of a loss function at all. A new estimation procedure for $\delta_{f^*}$ is needed, however, as our approach in Section \[sec:estimateComplete\] makes use of the relationship $\delta_{f^*}=1-\kappa^*$. We provide an alternative estimator for $\delta_{f^*}$ in Appendix \[app:AlternativeEstimator\] for this purpose.
Conclusion
==========
When a theory fits the data well, it matters whether this is because the theory captures important regularities in the data, or whether the theory is so flexible that it can explain any behavior at all. We provide a practical, algorithmic approach for evaluating the restrictiveness of a theory, and demonstrate that it reveals new insights into models from two economic domains. The method is easily applied to models from different domains.[^28]
We conclude with a few final comments.
#### Why prefer restrictive theories?
Completely unrestrictive theories, such as the theory of utility maximization with unrestricted dependence of preferences on the menu, can explain any data and so are vacuous. A theory is falsifiable if there is at least one potential observation that it couldn’t explain. We can view restrictiveness as a quantitative extension of the idea of falsifiability. Just as we prefer falsifiable theories to vacuous one, we prefer theories that are more restrictive, though this is not quite the same as “more falsifiable,” as it replaces the binary evaluation of whether or not a data set refutes the theory with a quantitative evaluation of how theory approximates the data.
#### Comparing the predictions of two models.
A common practice for distinguishing the empirical content of two models is to find instances where the models make different predictions. We do not compare models here, although our approach can be extended to compare the predictions of two models on the hypothetical data sets. Specifically, instead of evaluating the discrepancy between the estimated model and the best mapping, one could evaluate the discrepancy between the estimated models from two parametric families. The average discrepancy in this case would then represent an average disagreement between the two models on hypothetical data. We leave development of such concepts to future work.
[36]{}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Austern, M. and W. Zhou</span> (2020): “Asymptotics of Cross-Validation,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.11111*.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Barseghyan, L., F. Molinari, T. O’Donoghue, and J. C. Teitelbaum</span> (2013): “The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices,” *American Economic Review*, 103, 2499–2529.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Basu, P. and F. Echenique</span> (2020): “On the falsifiability and learnability of decision theories,” *Theoretical Economics*, forthcoming.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Beatty, T. and I. Crawford</span> (2011): “How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?” *American Economic Review*, 101, 2782–95.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bernheim, D. and C. Sprenger</span> (2020): “Direct Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory,” Working Paper.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bronars, S.</span> (1987): “The Power of Nonparametric Tests of Preference Maximization,” *Econometrica*, 55, 693–698.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bruhin, A., H. Fehr-Duda, and T. Epper</span> (2010): “Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion,” *Econometrica*, 78, 1375–1412.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camerer, C. F., T.-H. Ho, and J.-K. Chong</span> (2004): “A cognitive hierarchy model of games,” *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 119, 861–898.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chen, X. and A. Santos</span> (2018): “Overidentification in regular models,” *Econometrica*, 86, 1771–1817.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Choi, S., R. Fisman, D. Gale, and S. Kariv</span> (2007): “Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty,” *American Economic Review*, 97, 1–15.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Costa-Gomes, M., V. P. Crawford, and B. Broseta</span> (2001): “Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: An experimental study,” *Econometrica*, 69, 1193–1235.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cox, D. R.</span> (1961): “Tests of separate families of hypotheses,” in *Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability*, vol. 1, 105–123.
——— (1962): “Further results on tests of separate families of hypotheses,” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)*, 24, 406–424.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fudenberg, D., J. Kleinberg, A. Liang, and S. Mullainathan</span> (2019): “Measuring the Completeness of Theories,” Working Paper.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fudenberg, D. and A. Liang</span> (2019): “Predicting and Understanding Initial Play,” *American Economic Review*, 109, 4112–4141.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Goldreich, O. and S. Vadhan</span> (2007): “Special Issue On Worst-case Versus Average-case Complexity,” .
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Goldstein, W. M. and H. J. Einhorn</span> (1987): “Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena,” *Psychological review*, 94, 236–254.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hansen, L. P.</span> (1982): “Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators,” *Econometrica*, 50, 1029–1054.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Harless, D. and C. Camerer</span> (1994): “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” *Econometrica*, 62, 1251–1289.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hausman, J. A.</span> (1978): “Specification tests in econometrics,” *Econometrica*, 46, 1251–1271.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hey, J. D.</span> (1998): “An application of Selten’s measure of predictive success,” *Mathematical Social Sciences*, 35, 1–15.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Koopmans, T. and O. Reiersol</span> (1950): “The Identification of Structural Characteristics,” *The Annals of Mathematical Statistics*, 21, 165–181.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lattimore, P. K., J. R. Baker, and A. D. Witte</span> (1992): “The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination,” *Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization*, 17, 315–436.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nagel, R.</span> (1995): “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study,” *American Economic Review*, 85, 1313–1326.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Peysakhovich, A. and J. Naecker</span> (2017): “Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity,” *Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*, 133, 373–384.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Polisson, M., J. K.-H. Quah, and L. Renou</span> (2020): “Revealed Preferences over Risk and Uncertainty,” *American Economic Review*, 110, 1782–1820.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Quiggin, J.</span> (1982): “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” *Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*, 3, 323–343.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sargan, J. D.</span> (1958): “The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables,” *Econometrica*, 26, 393–415.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Selten, R.</span> (1991): “Properties for a Measure of Predictive Success,” *Mathematical Social Sciences*, 21, 153–167.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Snowberg, E. and J. Wolfers</span> (2010): “Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is It Risk-Love or Misperceptions?” *Journal of Political Economy*, 118, 723–746.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stahl, D. O. and P. W. Wilson</span> (1994): “Experimental evidence on players’ models of other players,” *Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*, 25, 309–327.
——— (1995): “On players’ models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence,” *Games and Economic Behavior*, 10, 218–254.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman</span> (1992): “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 5, 297–323.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Varian, H.</span> (1982): “The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis,” *Econometrica*, 50, 945–973.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wright, J. R. and K. Leyton-Brown</span> (2014): “Level-0 meta-models for predicting human behavior in games,” *Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation*, 857–874.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yaari, M.</span> (1987): “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk,” *Econometrica*, 55, 95–115.
Supplementary Material to Section \[sec:Prelim\] {#app:Decomposition}
=================================================
We now demonstrate the relationships in (\[d:MSE\]) and (\[d:KL\]).
*Mean-Squared Error.* Suppose $S=\mathcal{Y}=\mathbb{R}$ and the loss function is $l(f,(x,y))=(y-f(x))^2$. The following decomposition is standard: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{P^*}\left(f\right) & :=\E_{P^{*}}\left[\left(Y-f\left(X\right)\right)^{2}\right]\\
& =\E_{P^{*}}\left[\left(Y-f^{*}\left(X\right)\right)^{2}\right]+\E_{P^*}\left[\left(f\left(X\right)-f^*\left(X\right)\right)^2\right] =e_{P^*}\left(f^{*}\right)+d\left(f,f^{*}\right)\end{aligned}$$
*Negative Log-Likelihood.* Suppose $S=\Delta(\mathcal{Y})$ where $\mathcal{Y}$ is a finite set, and the loss function is $l(f,(x,y))=-\log f(y\mid x)$ for any mapping $f: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow S$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
d(f,f^*) & =\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}}f^{*}\left(x\right)\sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} f^{*}\left(\rest yx\right)\log\left(\frac{f^{*}\left(\rest yx\right)}{f\left(\rest yx\right)}\right)\\
& =\E_{P^*}\left[\log f^{*}\left(\rest yx\right)\right]-\E_{P^*}\left[\log f\left(\rest yx\right)\right] = -e_{P^*}(f^*)+e_{P^*}(f).\end{aligned}$$ So $e_{P^*}(f)= e_{P^*}(f^*) + d(f,f^*)$ as desired.
Supplementary Material for Application 1
========================================
Loss Domain Results {#app:loss}
-------------------
Below we repeat the analysis of Section \[sec:App\_CE\] for the 25 binary lotteries over the loss domain from @Bruhin. Again each lottery is denoted $(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)$ where $p$ is the probability of the first prize. The prizes satisfy $0\geq \overline{z}\geq \underline{z}$. We evaluate a 3-parameter version of CPT indexed to $\theta=(\beta,\gamma,\eta) \in \mathbb{R}_+\times \mathbb{R}_+\times \mathbb{R}_+$, where $$f_\theta(\overline{z}, \underline{z},p) = (1-w(1-p))\cdot v(\overline{z}) + w(1-p) \cdot v(\underline{z})$$ with $v(z)= -((-z)^{\beta})$ and $
w(p)= (\eta p^\gamma)/(\eta p^\gamma + (1-p)^\gamma)
$.
We report below the equivalent of Table \[tab:Risk\] for this domain. The qualitative findings are very similar to what we found in the main text. In particular, CPT’s restrictiveness is 0.35 (compare to our previous estimate of 0.29), so CPT is fairly unrestrictive on this set of loteries as well. Additionally, we again find that CPT-($\eta,\gamma)$ is simultaneously more complete and more restrictive than CPT-($\beta,\gamma)$, and that augmenting CPT-($\eta,\gamma$) with the utility curvature parameter $\beta$ only marginally improves completeness while substantially decreasing restrictiveness.
\[tab:Risk\]
Free Parameters Completeness $\kappa^*$ $N$ Restrictiveness $r$ $M$
--------------------- ------------------------- ------ --------------------- ----- --
$\beta,\gamma,\eta$ 0.86 8906 0.35 100
(0.05) (0.03)
$\beta,\gamma$ 0.65 8906 0.41 100
(0.05) (0.03)
$\gamma,\eta$ 0.85 8906 0.45 100
(0.05) (0.01)
$\beta$ 0.09 8906 0.63 100
(0.08) (0.03)
: Completeness and restrictiveness are reported for the new data set. $N$ is the number of observations in the data used to estimate $\kappa^*$. $M$ is the number of generated mappings from $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$ for computation of $r$.
Different Specification for the Permissible Set {#app:CPT_Alt}
-----------------------------------------------
Consider the alternative permissible set of mappings consisting of all functions $f: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $f(\overline{z},\underline{z},p)\in [\underline{z},\overline{z}]$. We sample 100 times from a uniform distribution over this set and report the distribution of $f$-discrepancies in the figure below:
The average discrepancy, 0.35, tells us that the model is more restrictive on this expanded domain of mappings, but not substantially so.[^29]
Parameter Estimates
-------------------
We report below the estimated parameters for each of the models that we consider. In the first column, we report the estimated parameters on the actual data. In the second, we report the average parameter estimates for across our generated mappings.
[cccccc]{} Free Parameters & Real Data & Generated Mappings\
$\alpha,\eta,\gamma$ & (1.02,0.6,0.5) & (1.08,0.71,0.41)\
$\alpha, \gamma$ & (0.98,1.01,0.50) & (1.03,0.33)\
$\eta,\gamma$ & (0.70,0.50) & (1.08,0.29)\
$\alpha$ & 0.98 & 1.03\
[cccccc]{} & Real Data & Generated Mappings\
PCHM & $\tau=0.5$ & $\tau=0.1$\
logit level-1 & $\lambda=0.02$& $\lambda=0.0018$\
logit PCHM & $(\tau,\lambda)=(1.4,0.11)$ & $(\tau,\lambda)=(1.05,0.02)$\
Three-Outcome Lotteries {#app:three}
-----------------------
We use a set of 18 three-outcome lotteries from @BernheimSprenger (listed below) and evaluate the restrictiveness of Cumulative Prospect Theory for predicting certainty equivalents for these lotteries.
$z_1$ $z_2$ $z_3$ $p_1$ $p_2$ $p_3$
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
34 24 18 0.1 0.3 0.6
34 24 18 0.4 0.3 0.3
34 24 18 0.6 0.3 0.1
32 24 18 0.1 0.3 0.6
32 24 18 0.4 0.3 0.3
32 24 18 0.6 0.3 0.1
30 24 18 0.1 0.3 0.6
30 24 18 0.4 0.3 0.3
30 24 18 0.6 0.3 0.1
24 23 18 0.3 0.1 0.6
24 23 18 0.3 0.4 0.3
24 23 18 0.3 0.6 0.1
24 21 18 0.3 0.1 0.6
24 21 18 0.3 0.4 0.3
24 21 18 0.3 0.6 0.1
24 19 18 0.3 0.1 0.6
24 19 18 0.3 0.4 0.3
24 19 18 0.3 0.6 0.1
The prizes satisfy $z_1 > z_2 > z_3 \geq 0$. On the domain of three-outcome lotteries, CPT predicts $$v(z_1) + w(p_2+p_3)(v(z_2)-v(z_1)) + w(p_3)(v(z_3)-v(z_2))$$ for each lottery $(z_1,z_2,z_3; p_1,p_2,p_3)$ [@CPT]. We use the functional forms for $v$ and $w$ given in the main text.
A predictive mapping $f$ is a map from these 18 lotteries into average certainty equivalents. The set of permissible mappings $\mathcal{F}_M$ is again defined to satisfy: (1) each certainty equivalent has to be in the range of the lottery outcomes, and (2) if a lottery first-order stochastically dominates another, then its certainty equivalent must be higher. We generate 100 random mappings from a uniform distribution over mappings satisfying these properties.
Below, we compare the distribution of $f$-discrepancies from Figure \[fig:distribution\] with the distribution of $f$-discrepancies that we find for these three-outcome lotteries.
![*Left:* Binary lotteries; *Right:* Three-outcome lotteries[]{data-label="fig:distribution"}](histogram-errorNorm-risk.png "fig:") ![*Left:* Binary lotteries; *Right:* Three-outcome lotteries[]{data-label="fig:distribution"}](histogram-errorNorm-risk-3.png "fig:")
The restrictiveness of CPT on this set of three-outcome lotteries is 0.496, with a standard error of 0.018. Thus CPT is about 1.5 times as restrictive as a model of certainty equivalents for three-outcome lotteries than as a model of certainty equivalents for binary lotteries. Besides imposing FOSD, CPT imposes rank dependence on the domain of three-outcome lotteries. (This restriction does not apply for binary lotteries.) This may explain part of the increase in restrictiveness. Even this higher restrictiveness, however, is substantially less than what we find for models of initial play.
Heterogeneous Risk Preferences {#sec:SubjectHeterogeneity}
------------------------------
Our analysis in the main text considered representative agent models. In some cases, the analyst may have auxiliary data on the subjects that can be used to improve predictions. We show now how completeness and restrictiveness can be evaluated in this case.
Specifically, we return to our first application and group subjects into three clusters identified by @Bruhin. We fit CPT for each cluster, allowing parameter values to vary across groups. Table \[tab:Heterogeneity\] reports completeness measures cluster by cluster.
\[tab:Heterogeneity\]
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
----------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Naive 39.90 150.10 99.94
(4.98) (7.24) (7.97)
CPT 30.74 43.87 69.62
(7.25) ( 4.72) (8.50)
Best Achievable Error 29.59 36.30 67.05
(7.36) (3.34) (8.02)
\[2mm\] Completeness 0.98 0.88 0.92
(0.02) (0.03) (0.03)
$N$ 674 1144 2641
: Completeness measures for each of three subject clusters.
The performance of the naive expected value rule, the best achievable performance, and the performance of CPT, all vary substantially across clusters. For example, the behavior of subjects in cluster 1 is roughly consistent with expected value (the error of the naive rule is 39.90), while the behavior of subjects in cluster 2 departs substantially from this benchmark (the error of the naive rule is 99.94). The best achievable prediction for these groups of subjects is also very different (ranging from 29.59 to 67.05), as is the completeness of CPT (ranging from 30.74 to 69.62).
The average completeness, weighted by proportion of observations in each cluster, is 0.91, which is very close to what we found for the representative agent model. This may seem surprising at first, since allowing for parameters to vary across subjects improves the accuracy of predictions. But the best mapping from the extended feature space $\mathcal{X}'=\mathcal{X}\times \{1,2,3\}$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ is more predictive than the best mapping considered previously. Thus what we find is that the completeness of CPT with three clusters, *relative to the best three-cluster mapping*, is comparable to the completeness of the representative-agent version of CPT, *relative to the best representative-agent mapping*.
Similarly, when measuring restrictiveness, we extend the set of permissible mappings to the domain $\mathcal{X}'$. Each generated pattern of behavior is thus a triple $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$ of mappings from the original $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$. We ask how well these tuples can be approximated using mappings $(g_1,g_2,g_3)$ from CPT. It is straightforward to see that the restrictiveness of the three-cluster CPT is identical to the restrictiveness of the representative-agent model.[^30]
Estimation of Completeness $\kappa^*$ {#sec:asym_CV}
=====================================
Preliminary Definitions
-----------------------
We now introduce some definitions and notation that will be useful in the derivation of the asymptotic distribution of the CV-based completeness estimator.
### Finite-Sample Out-of-Sample Error
Let ${\bf Z}_{N}:=\left(Z_{i}\right)_{i=1}^{N}$ be a random sample of observations in a given data set, and let $Z_{N+1}\sim P^{*}$ denote a random variable with the same distribution $P^{*}$ that is independent of ${\bf Z}_{N}$. For a given data set ${\bf Z}_{N}$ and a given model ${\cal F}$, we define the conditional out-of-sample error (given data set ${\bf Z}_{N}$) as $$e_{{\cal F}}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right):=\E\left[\rest{l\left(\hat{f}_{{\bf Z}_{N}}, Z_{N+1}\right)}{\bf Z}_{N}\right],$$ where $\hat{f}_{{\bf Z}_{N}}\in{\cal F}$ is an estimator, or an algorithm, that selects a mapping $\hat{f}_{{\bf Z}_{N}}$ within the model ${\cal F}$ based on data ${\bf Z}_{N}$. We also define the out-of-sample error, with expectation taken over different possible data sets ${\bf Z}_{N}$, as $$e_{{\cal F},N}:=\E\left[e_{{\cal F}}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right)\right].$$
From the definition of the K-fold cross-validation estimator, it can be easily shown that $\E\left[CV\left({\cal F}\right)\right]=e_{{\cal F},\frac{K-1}{K}N}$. As a result, the asymptotic distribution of $CV\left({\cal F}\right)-e_{{\cal F},\frac{K-1}{K}N}$ has been studied in the statistics and machine learning literature. Our analysis below will be based on the results in @austern2020asymptotics on the asymptotic distribution of $CV\left({\cal F}\right)-e_{{\cal F},\frac{K-1}{K}N}$.
### Joint Parametrization of $\protect\cF_{\protect\T}$ and ${\cal F}_{\protect\cM}$
Recall that the model $\mathcal{F}_\Theta$ is parametrized by $\theta \in \Theta$, and $f_\theta$ denotes a generic function in $\mathcal{F}_\T$. Motivated by the applications in this paper, we assume that ${\cal F_{M}}$ can be smoothly parameterized by a finite-dimensional parameter $\b\in{\cal B}_{\cM}\subseteq\R^{d_{{\cal M}}}$ and use the notation $f_{\left[\b\right]}\in{\cal F}_{\cM}$ to denote a generic function in ${\cal F}_{\cM}$. Since by assumption $f^* \in \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$, we can define a parameter $\b^{*}$ to represent it, i.e. $f_{\left[\b^{*}\right]}=f^{*}$.
For arbitrary parameters $\theta$ and $\beta$, write $$l_{\T}\left(\t, Z_{i}\right):= l \left( f_\t, Z_i\right), \quad l_{\cal B} \left(\b, Z_{i}\right):= l\left(f_{[\b]}, Z_i\right).$$ We define the estimation mappings in $\mathcal{F}_\T$ and $\mathcal{F}_\cM$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\theta}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right) & :=\arg\min_{\theta\in\Theta}\frac{1}{N}\sum l_{\T}\left(\t, Z_i\right),\\
\hat{\b}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right) & :=\arg\min_{\b\in {\cal B}_\cM}\frac{1}{N}\sum l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b, Z_i\right).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\a:=\left(\t^{'},\b^{'}\right)^{'}$ denote the concatenation of the parameters $\t \in \cF_\T$ and $\b \in \cal{B}_\cM$, $\a^{*}:=\left(\t^{*'},\b^{*'}\right)^{'}$ to be the parameters associated with the best mappings in $\mathcal{F}_\T$ and $\mathcal{F}_\cM$, and also define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\a}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right) & :=\left(\hat{\t}^{'}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right),\hat{\b}^{'}\left({\bf Z}_{N}\right)\right)^{'}\\
& =\arg\min_{\theta\in\Theta,\b\in{\cal B}_{\cM}}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[l_{\T}\left(\t, Z_i\right)+l_{{\cal {\cal B}}}\left(\b, Z_i\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ to be an estimator for $\a^*$. Finally, define $$\begin{aligned}
\D l\left(\t,\b; Z_i\right) & :=l\left(f_{\t}, Z_i\right)-l\left(f_{[\b]}, Z_i\right)=l_{\T}\left(\t, Z_i\right)-l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b, Z_i\right).\end{aligned}$$
Assumptions and Lemmas Based on @austern2020asymptotics
-------------------------------------------------------
\[assu:CVasymp\]
1. $l_{\T}\left(\t, z\right)$ and $l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b, z\right)$ are twice differentiable and strictly convex in $\t$ and $\b$.
2. $\E\left[\sup_{\t\in\T}l_{\T}^{4}\left(\t, Z_i\right)\right]<\infty$ and $\E\left[\sup_{\b\in{\cal B}}l_{{\cal B}}^{4}\left(\b, Z_i\right)\right]<\infty$.
3. There exist open neighborhoods ${\cal O}_{\t^{*}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\b^{*}}$ of $\t^{*}$and $\b^{*}$ in $\T$ and ${\cal B}$ such that
1. $\E\left[\sup_{\t\in{\cal O}_{\t^{*}}}\norm{\Dif_{\t}l_{\T}\left(\t,Z_i\right)}^{16}\right]<\infty$, $\E\left[\sup_{\b\in{\cal O}_{\b^{*}}}\norm{\Dif_{\b}l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b,Z_i\right)}^{16}\right]<\infty.$
2. $\E\left[\sup_{\t\in{\cal O}_{\t^{*}}}\norm{\Dif_{\t}^{2}l_{\T}\left(\t,Z_i\right)}^{16}\right]<\infty$, $\E\left[\sup_{\b\in{\cal O}_{\b^{*}}}\norm{\Dif_{\b}l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b,Z_i\right)}^{16}\right]<\infty.$
3. there exists $c>0$ such that $\l_{min}\left(\Dif_{\t}^{2}l_{\T}\left(\t,Z_i\right)\right)\geq c$, $\l_{min}\left(\Dif_{\b}^{2}l_{{\cal B}}\left(\b,Z_i\right)\right)\geq c$ a.s. uniformly on ${\cal O}_{\t^{*}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\b^{*}}$.
\[lem:asym\_norm\_CV\]Under Assumption \[assu:CVasymp\]: $$\sqrt{N}\left[CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-\left(e_{\cF_{\T},\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right)\right]\dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(\D l\left(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*};Z_i\right)\right)\right).$$
Proposition 5 of @austern2020asymptotics establishes the asymptotic normality of cross-validation risk estimator and its asymptotic variance under parametric settings where the loss function used for training is the same as the loss function used for evaluation. Applying Proposition 5 of @austern2020asymptotics under Assumption \[assu:CVasymp\] to $\t,\b$ and $\a=\left(\t,\b\right)$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{N}\left(CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-e_{\cF_{\T},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right) & \dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*}},Z_i\right)\right)\right),\\
\sqrt{N}\left(CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right) & \dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f^{*},Z_i\right)\right)\right),\\
\sqrt{N}\left(CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)+CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-e_{\cF_{\T},\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right) & \dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*}},Z_i\right)+l\left(f^{*},Z_i\right)\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using the equality $\textup{Var}\left(X+Y\right)+\textup{Var}\left(X-Y\right)=2\textup{Var}\left(X\right)+2\textup{Var}\left(Y\right)$, we then deduce that $$\sqrt{N}\left[CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-\left(e_{\cF_{\T},\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right)\right]\dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(\D l\left(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*};Z_{i}\right)\right)\right).$$
\[lem:asym\_var\_CV\]Under Assumption \[assu:CVasymp\], $$\hat{\s}_{\D}^{2}\pto \textup{Var}\left(\D l\left(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*};Z_{i}\right)\right).$$
Applying Proposition 1 of @austern2020asymptotics under Assumption \[assu:CVasymp\] to $\t,\b$ and $\a=\left(\t,\b\right)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)}^{2} & :=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{1}{J_{N}-1}\sum_{k\left(i\right)=k}\left(l\left(f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}},Z_{i}\right)-\frac{1}{J_{N}}\sum_{k\left(j\right)=k}l\left(f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}},Z_{j}\right)\right)^{2}\\
& \pto \textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*}},Z_i\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)}^{2} & :=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{1}{J_{N}-1}\sum_{k\left(i\right)=k}\left(l\left(f_{\left[\hat{\b}^{-k}\right]},Z_{i}\right)-\frac{1}{J_{N}}\sum_{k\left(j\right)=k}l\left(f_{\left[\hat{\b}^{-k}\right]},Z_{j}\right)\right)^{2}\\
& \pto \textup{Var}\left(l\left(f^{*},Z_i\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)+CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)}^{2}\\
:= & \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{1}{J_{N}-1} \cd \sum_{k\left(i\right)=k}\\
&\left(l\left(f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}},Z_i\right)+l\left(f_{\left[\hat{\b}^{-k}\right]},Z_{i}\right)-\frac{1}{J_{N}}\sum_{k\left(j\right)=k}\left[l\left(f_{\left[\hat{\b}^{-k}\right]},Z_{j}\right)+l\left(f_{\hat{\t}^{-k}},Z_{i}\right)\right]\right)^{2}\\
\pto & \textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*}},Z_{i}\right)+l\left(f^{*},Z_{i}\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ Hence: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\s}_{\D}^{2} & =2\hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)}^{2}+2\hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)}^{2}-\hat{\s}_{CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)+CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)}^{2}\\
& \pto2\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*}},Z_{i}\right)\right)+2\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f^{*},Z_{i}\right)\right)-2\textup{Var}\left(l\left(f_{\t^{*},Z_{i}}\right)+l\left(f^{*},Z_{i}\right)\right)\\
& =\textup{Var}\left(\D l\left(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*};Z_{i}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Asymptotic Normality of $\hat{\kappa}^{*}$
---------------------------------------------------
Lemma \[lem:asym\_norm\_CV\] characterizes the limit distribution of $$\sqrt{N}\left[CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-\left(e_{{\cal F}_{\T},\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}\right)\right]$$ which we now show is also the limit distribution of $$\sqrt{N}\left[CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-\left(e_{{\cal F}_{\T}}-e_{\cF_{\cM}}\right)\right].$$ To see this, notice that $$\begin{aligned}
e_{\T,\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{{\cal F}_{\T}} & =\E\left[l_{\T}\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)},Z_{i}\right)-l_{\T}\left(\t^{*},Z_{i}\right)\right]\\
& =\E\left[\Dif l_{\T}\left(\t^{*},Z_{i}\right)\cd\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)+\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)^{'}\Dif^{2}l_{\T}\left(\tilde{\t},Z_{i}\right)\cd\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)\right]\\
& =0+\E\left[\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)^{'}\Dif^{2}l_{\T}\left(\tilde{\t},Z_{i}\right)\cd\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)\right]\\
& =\frac{1}{N-J_{N}}\E\left[\sqrt{N-J_{N}}\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)^{'}\Dif^{2}l_{\T}\left(\tilde{\t},Z_{i}\right)\cd\sqrt{N-J_{N}}\left(\hat{\t}^{-k\left(i\right)}-\t^{*}\right)\right]\\
& =c\frac{1}{N-J_{N}}+o\left(\frac{1}{N-J_{N}}\right) =c\frac{K}{K-1}\cd\frac{1}{N}+o\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)\end{aligned}$$ since $J_N = N/K$, and hence $$\sqrt{N}\left(e_{\T,\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\T}\right)=o_{p}\left(1\right).$$ Similarly, $\sqrt{N}\left(e_{\cF_{\cM},\frac{K-1}{K}N}-e_{\cF_{\cM}}\right)=o_{p}\left(1\right)$.
Hence: $$\sqrt{N}\left[CV\left(\cF_{\T}\right)-CV\left(\cF_{\cM}\right)-\left(e_{{\cal F}_{\T}}-e_{\cF_{\cM}}\right)\right]\dto\cN\left(0,\textup{Var}\left(\D l\left(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*};Z_{i}\right)\right)\right).$$ Then, by Lemma \[lem:asym\_var\_CV\], Assumption \[assu:naive\] and the continuous mapping theorem, we have $$\frac{\sqrt{N}\left(\hat{\kappa}^{*}-\kappa^{*}\right)}{\hat{\s}_{\hat{\kappa}^{*}}}\dto\cN\left(0,1\right).$$
Supplementary Material to Section \[sec:Extend\]
================================================
\[subsec:EstimateDelta\]Alternative Estimator of $f^*$-Discrepancy {#app:AlternativeEstimator}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We now discuss an alternative estimator for $f^*$-discrepancy $$\d_{f^*}=\frac{d(f_{\t^{*}},f^{*})}{d(f_{\text{naive}},f^{*})}$$ when the decomposability condition does not hold.
We again work with the parameterization of $\cF_\cM$ via $\b\in \mathcal{B}$. Suppose that we have access to an estimator $\hat{\b}$ of $\b^*$ that is consistent and asymptotically normal: $$\sqrt{N}\left(\hat{\b}-\b^{*}\right)\dto\cN\left({\bf 0},\Sigma\right).$$ Given that $\t^{*}=\arg\min_{\t\in\T}d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\b^{*}]}\right)$, we can construct an estimator of $\t^{*}$ as $$\hat{\t}:=\hat{\t}\left(\hat{\b}\right):=\arg\min_{\t\in\T}d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right),$$ with which we can obtain the following estimator of $\d_{f^{*}}$ $$\hat{\d}_{f^*}:=\frac{d\left(f_{\hat{\t}(\hat{\b})},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right)}{d\left(f_{\text{naive}},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right)} = \frac{\min_{\t\in\T}d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right)}{d\left(f_{\text{naive}},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right)}.$$
We impose the following joint assumption on the dissimilarity function $d$ and the parameterization of $\cF_\T$ and $\cF_\cM$.
\[assu:jointdiff\] Define $\ol d\left(\t,\b\right):=d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\b]}\right)$. Suppose that:
(a) $\ol{d}$ is joint differentiable with respect to $(\t,\b)$ in a neighborhood of $(\t^*,\b^*)$.
(b) $\psi^{*}:=\rest{\Dif_{\b}\,\ol d\left(\hat{\t}\left(\b\right),\b\right)}_{\b = \b^*} \neq \bf{0}$.
The requirements in Assumption \[assu:jointdiff\] are very weak. Part (a) is a standard differentiability condition, which should be satisfied in most applications. For (b), notice that by the Envelope Theorem, $$\psi^{*}:=\Dif_{\b}\ol d\left(\hat{\t}\left(\b^{*}\right),\b^{*}\right)=\frac{\p}{\p\b}\ol d\left(\t^{*},\b^{*}\right)$$ Hence, $\psi^*\neq\bf{0}$ essentially requires that the dissimilarity $d(f_{\t^*},f)$ between $f_{\t^*}$ and $f$ as $f$ varies locally in a neighborhood of $f^*$.
By the Delta Method, $$\begin{aligned}
& \sqrt{N}\left(\min_{\t\in\T}d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\hat{\b}]}\right)-\min_{\t\in\T}d\left(f_{\t},f_{[\b^{*}]}\right)\right)\\
&= \sqrt{N}\left(\ol d\left(\hat{\t}\left(\hat{\b}\right),\hat{\b}\right)-\ol d\left(\hat{\t}\left(\b^{*}\right),\b^{*}\right)\right)\quad\dto\quad\cN\left({ 0},\psi^{*}{}^{'}\Sigma\psi^{*}\right).\end{aligned}$$ implying that $$\sqrt{N}\left(\hat{\d}_{f^*}-\d_{f^*}\right)\dto\cN\left({0},\frac{\psi^{*}{}^{'}\Sigma\psi^{*}}{d^{2}\left(f_{\text{naive}},f^{*}\right)}\right).$$ The standard error can be estimated via bootstrapping.
Example: Lack of Decomposability {#app:LAD}
--------------------------------
Consider a setting where $X$ is degenerate, i.e., ${\cal X}$ is a singleton, so that the joint distribution $P$ is completely characterized by the distribution of $Y$. Furthermore, let ${\cal Y}:=\left[0,1\right]$.
If $
f^{*}:=\text{med}\left(Y\right)\in{\cal S}:=\mathcal{Y}=\left[0,1\right]$, then a mapping $f:{\cal X}\to{\cal S}$ is just a number in $\left[0,1\right]$. When the loss function is the absolute deviation $
l\left(f,y\right):=\left|y-f\right|,
$ and the error function is mean absolute deviation $
e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right):=\E_{P^{*}}\left[\left|Y-f\right|\right],
$ the true median $f^{*}$ minimizes the error, i.e. $
f^{*}\in\arg\min_{f\in\left[0,1\right]}e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right).
$ However, it is not true that $
\left|f-f^{*}\right|=e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right)-e_{P^{*}}\left(f^{*}\right)
$ for any $f\in\left[0,1\right]$. To see this, suppose that $Y\sim U\left[0,1\right]$ under $P^*$. Then $f^{*}=0.5$ and $e_{P^{*}}\left(f^{*}\right)=0.25$. However, for $f=0.4$, we have $e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right)=0.26.$ but $
\left|f-f^{*}\right|=0.1\neq0.01=e_{P^{*}}\left(f\right)-e_{P^{*}}\left(f^{*}\right).
$
Moreover, there is no function $d:\left[0,1\right]^{2}\to\left[0,1\right]$ such that decomposability holds, which would require that $
d\left(f,f_{P}\right)=e_{P}\left(f\right)-e_{P}\left(f_{P}\right)$ for any distribution $P$ of $Y$ supported on $\left[0,1\right]$. To see this, suppose that $Y\sim U\left[0,1\right]$ under $P_1$, we have $$e_{P_{1}}\left(f\right)-e_{P_{1}}\left(f_{P_{1}}\right)=\left(f-0.5\right)^{2}=\left(f-f_{P_{1}}\right)^{2},\quad \forall f \in [0,1].$$ However, supposing that, under $P_2$, the probability density function of $Y$ is given by $2y$ for $y\in\left[0,1\right]$, we have $
f_{P_{2}}=\sqrt{2}/2$ and $e_{P_{2}}\left(f_{P_{2}}\right)=(2-\sqrt{2})/3$ but $$e_{P_{2}}\left(f\right)-e_{P_{2}}\left(f_{P_{2}}\right)=\frac{1}{3}\left(2f^{3}-3f^{2}+\sqrt{2}\right)\neq\left(f-f_{P_{2}}\right)^{2}.$$
[^1]: Department of Economics, MIT
[^2]: Department of Economics, U. Pennsylvania
[^3]: Department of Economics, U. Pennsylvania
[^4]: We thank Nikhil Agarwal, Victor Aguiar, Abhijit Banerjee, Tilman Börgers, Vince Crawford, Glenn Ellison, Shaowei Ke, Rosa Matzkin, John Quah, Charles Sprenger, and Emanuel Vespa for helpful comments, and NSF grant SES 1643517 for financial support.
[^5]: There are representation theorems for many non-parametric theories of individual choice, and some analytic results for the sets of equilibria in games, but we are unaware of representation theorems for the functional forms that are commonly used in applied work.
[^6]: As @Koopmans points out, a special case of an observationally restrictive specification is an overidentifying restriction. See e.g. [@sargan1958estimation], [@hausman1978specification], [@hansen1982large], and [@chen2018overidentification] for econometric tests of overidentification.
[^7]: For example, the [@HarlessCamerer] exercise would be much harder on larger menus of binary lotteries, on $3$-outcome lotteries, or if subjects had been asked to report real-valued certainty equivalents.
[^8]: This paper has a different goal than the extensive econometric literature that studies how the “restrictiveness" of an econometric model may affect the identification of parameters and the efficiency of estimators.
[^9]: The VC dimension is known for very few economic models. A recent exception is the work of @BasuEchenique for various models of decision-making under uncertainty.
[^10]: For example, in a decision theory experiment the experimenter knows the distribution over menus that the subjects will face.
[^11]: Thus the choice of the distribution of simulated data is related to the choice of what alternatives to consider when evaluating the power of a test. We note that in many settings where a “correct" distribution does not exist, uniform distributions are used as a default. For example, in computational complexity, the average-case time complexity of an algorithm measures the amount of time used by the algorithm, averaged over all possible inputs [@GoldreichVadhan].
[^12]: @Selten provided an axiomatic characterization of the similar aggregator $m=r-a$, where $r$ is the pass rate of the model on the actual data and $a$ is the area measure we discussed above.
[^13]: See Appendix \[sec:asym\_CV\] for details of these assumptions.
[^14]: This parametric form for $w(p)$ was first suggested by @goldstein1987expression and @lattimore1992influence. Following @Bruhin and much of the literature, we will estimate separate values of these parameters for losses (see Appendix \[app:loss\], so in a sense the “overall CPT model” has 6 parameters.
[^15]: $\frac{CV\left(\mathcal{F}_{naive}\right) - CV\left(\mathcal{F}_\T\right)}{CV\left(\mathcal{F}_{naive}\right)-CV\left({\cal F}\right)} = \frac{98.32- 63.75}{98.32-61.87}=0.95$. A similar result was reported in @FKLM for the pooled sample of gain-domain and loss-domain lotteries.
[^16]: This finding is consistent @PeysakhovichNaecker’s result that CPT approximates the predictive performance of lasso regression trained on a high-dimensional set of features.
[^17]: This uniform distribution is well-defined since $\mathcal{F}_M$ is a bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^{50}$.
[^18]: The variation in restrictiveness is bounded by the total variation distance between the primitive choices of $\mu$ (see (\[eq:bound\])), but it can be difficult to compute the total variation distance between complex choices of $\mu$.
[^19]: Normalization plays an important role here: CPT’s errors are substantially higher when we drop FOSD, but so are the errors of the naive benchmark (Expected Value). CPT’s *relative* performance compared to the naive benchmark is comparable, whether or not we impose FOSD.
[^20]: This data includes a meta data-set of experimental data aggregated in @LeytonBrownWright from six experimental game theory papers, in addition to Mechanical Turk data from new experiments in @FudenbergLiang.
[^21]: In @FudenbergLiang, we found that modal play in some sorts of games is better described by equilibrium notions than level-1. Since such regularities cannot be accommodated by the logit level-1 model, these may explain the gap between the completeness of logit level-1 and full completeness. @CostaGomesCrawfordBroseta01 find a sizable fraction of level-2 players in their experimental data, which may further help to explain this gap.
[^22]: Classic game theory alone would suggest that dominant strategies have probability 1 and dominated strategies have probability 0, but this is inconsistent with our data (and most experimental data of play in games).
[^23]: In the actual data, the median strictly dominated action receives a frequency of 0.03 and the max frequency is 0.35.
[^24]: In the actual data, the median strictly dominant action receives a frequency of 0.86 and the min frequency is 0.69.
[^25]: The set $\mathcal{F}_M$ can be embedded in $[0,1]^{466\times3}$, and so the uniform distribution over $\mathcal{F}_M$ is well-defined.
[^26]: The figure naturally suggests composite measures such as $r-\delta_{f^*}$ (the difference between the average $f$-discrepancy computed on hypothetical data and the $f^*$-discrepancy computed on real data), or the fraction of sampled $f$ for which $\delta_f<\delta_{f^*}$ (as proposed in Section \[sec:discuss\]). By either of these composite measures, PCHM is the “better" model, but we don’t know what the right composite measure is.
[^27]: We suspect that PCHM and logit PCHM would outperform logit level-1 for predicting the actions of subjects who played these games several times and learned from feedback. Note however that the restrictiveness of the models would not change.
[^28]: For example, to measure the restrictiveness of rational aggregate demand, one could generate random demand functions on a finite collection of budget sets, and compute the “distance" between these functions and one that satisfies GARP. (We thank Tilman Börgers for this suggestion.)
[^29]: Even though the errors are substantially higher than when we require the permissible mappings to respect FOSD, the estimated restrictiveness is almost the same because the naive error also increases. Specifically, the mean naive error is 343.32 (compared to 178.73 under the original $\mathcal{F}_M$), while the mean CPT error is 110.73 (compared to 58.21 under the original $\mathcal{F}_M$).
[^30]: Note that this is true for any number of exogenously specified clusters.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We assess the benefit of including an image inpainting filter before passing damaged images into a classification neural network. We follow Bertozzi *et al.* \[IEEE [**16**]{} 285-291 (2007)\] and we employ an appropriately modified Cahn-Hilliard equation as an image inpainting filter which is solved numerically with a finite-volume scheme exhibiting reduced computational cost and the properties of energy stability and boundedness. The benchmark dataset employed here is the MNIST one, which consists of binary images of digits. We train a neural network based on dense layers with MNIST, and subsequently we contaminate the test set with damages of different types and intensities. We then compare the prediction accuracy of the neural network with and without applying the Cahn-Hilliard filter to the damaged images test. Our results quantify the significant improvement of damaged-image prediction due to applying the Cahn-Hilliard filter, which for specific damages can increase up to 50% and is advantageous for low to moderate damage.'
address:
- 'Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK'
- 'Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK'
- 'Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK'
- 'Departments of Chemical Engineering and Mathematics, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK'
author:
- 'José A. Carrillo'
- Serafim Kalliadasis
- Fuyue Liang
- 'Sergio P. Perez'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Enhancement of damaged-image prediction through Cahn-Hilliard Image Inpainting'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Image inpainting consists in filling damaged or missing areas of an image, with the ultimate objective of restoring it and making it appear as the true and original image. There are multiple applications of image inpainting, ranging from restoration of the missing areas of oil paintings and removal scratches in photographs to noisy MRI scans and blurred satellite images of the earth. Manual image inpainting techniques have been employed for many centuries by art conservators and professional restorers, but it was not until the turn of the $21^{\text{st}}$ century that digital image inpainting models based on PDEs and variational methods were introduced [@caselles1998axiomatic; @masnou1998level; @bertalmio2000image]. These methods are usually referred to as non-texture, geometrical or structural inpainting since they focus on restoring the structural information in the inpainted domain such as edges, corners or curvatures. This is done by performing an image interpolation of the damaged areas based on the information collected from the surrounding environment only, leading to appealing images for the human vision system. On the contrary, texture inpainting is based on recovering global patterns of the image for the inpainted region [@criminisi2004region], and a popular tool in this category is the exemplar-based inpainting methods[@criminisi2003object; @lee2012robust]. Associated with these developments, a field that has gained a lot of traction in recent years is the so-called generative image inpainting, where deep learning based approaches have proven to be successful even for blind inpainting in which the inpaited region is not provided a priori [@yeh2017semantic; @xie2012image; @yu2018generative]. In this work we focus on non-texture image inpainting methods based on PDEs, and we refer the reader to Ref. [@schonlieb2015partial] for a general review of the topic.
There have been multiple PDE models for image inpainting proposed since the initial work of Bertalmio [*et al*. ]{}[@bertalmio2000image] nearly 20 years ago. Their trailblazing model is able to propagate isotopes, i.e. contours of uniform grayscale image intensity, through the inpainted region, a common technique employed by museum artists in restoration. As it also turns out that the original model bears close connection to fluid dynamics through the Navier-Stokes equation with the image intensity function acting as the stream function [@bertalmio2001navier]. Another fluid dynamic equation that has played a pivotal role in image inpainting is the Cahn-Hilliard (CH) equation, initially proposed in [@cahn1958free] for phase separation in binary alloys. It has been employed in a wide spectrum of applications from wetting phenomena [@aymard2019linear; @schmuck2012upscaled] and polymer science [@choksi2009phase] to tumour growth [@wu2014stabilized]. This equation satisfies a gradient-flow structure using an $H^{-1}$ norm, $$\label{eq:ch}
\frac{{\partial}{\phi}(\bm{x},t)}{{\partial}t}=\nabla \cdot \left(M({\phi}) \nabla \frac{\delta \mathcal{F}[{\phi}]}{\delta {\phi}}\right),$$ where ${\phi}$ is an order parameter widely referred to as the phase field which for a binary system takes on the value ${\phi}=1$ in one of the phases and ${\phi}=-1$ in the other, while varying smoothly in the interface region with a width of $O(\epsilon)$. $M({\phi})$ is the mobility obtained here from the one-sided model $M({\phi})=1$ and $\mathcal{F}[{\phi}]$ is the free energy satisfying $$\label{eq:freeenergy}
\mathcal{F}[{\phi}]=\int_{\Omega}\left({H}({\phi})+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2}|\nabla {\phi}|^2\right)dx,$$ with the variation of the free energy given by $$\label{eq:varfreeenergy}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}[{\phi}]}{\delta {\phi}}= {H}'({\phi})-\epsilon^2 \Delta {\phi},$$ and ${H}({\phi})$ taken here as the Ginzburg-Landau double-well potential with the two wells corresponding to the two phases, $$\label{eq:doublewellpot}
{H}({\phi})=\frac{1}{4}\left({\phi}^2-1\right)^2\;\text{for}\;{\phi}\in [-1,1]$$ (see e.g. [@Ala-Nissila2004; @Marc2012] for discussions of the physical significance of the various terms of the CH equation). The CH equation was firstly proposed in the context of image inpainting by [@bertozzi2006inpainting]. Specifically, the authors adopted a modified CH equation for binary images with inpainting quality as accurate as the state-of-art inpainting models but with a much faster computational speed taking advantage of the efficient computational techniques already available for the CH equation [@eyre1998unconditionally; @vollmayr2003fast]. Since then several authors have extended the applicability of the CH equation in the field of image inpaiting, for instance by taking into account grayvalue images [@burger2009cahn; @cherfils2017complex], nonsmooth potentials instead of the double-well potential [@bosch2014fast], and considering color image inpainting [@cherfils2016cahn]. The modified CH equation in [@bertozzi2006inpainting] introduces a fidelity term $\lambda(\bm{x})$ to avoid modifying the original image outside of the inpainted region $D$, and the CH equation in becomes $$\label{eq:ch_modif}
\frac{{\partial}{\phi}(\bm{x},t)}{{\partial}t}= -\nabla^{2} {\left}(\epsilon^2 \nabla^{2} {\phi}- {H}'({\phi}) {\right}) + \lambda(\textbf{x}){\left}({\phi}(\bm{x},t=0) - {\phi}{\right}),$$ where $$\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda(\textbf{x}) =\begin{cases} 0 & \text{if} \quad \bm{x} \in D,\\
\lambda_{0} & \text{if} \quad \bm{x} \notin D, \end{cases}$$ and ${\phi}(\bm{x},t=0)$ refers to the original damaged image. The parameter $\epsilon$ plays a similar role as in the original CH equation, and here it is related to the interface between the two phases or colours presented in the image. The two parameters $\epsilon$ and $\lambda_{0}$ are essential to achieve an adequate image inpainting outcome, and it is usually necessary to iterate until finding appropriate tunings for their values, which typically depend on the image specifications.
As already alluded to above one of the main advantages of employing the CH equation for image inpainting is the myriad of fast and reliable numerical methods available for its solution. A pivotal contribution was the convex-splitting scheme developed by Eyre [@eyre1998unconditionally] which is unconditionally energy-stable by treating as implicit the convex terms of the free energy in , while keeping the concave terms explicit. The design of energy-stable and maximum-principle satisfying schemes for the CH equation has been a really active area of research [@tierra2015numerical], and several authors have proposed schemes based on finite differences [@furihata2001stable; @guo2016h2; @wise2009energy], finite elements [@barrett1999finite; @elliott1989cahn], finite volumes [@cueto2008time] or discontinuous Galerkin [@xia2007local; @choo2005discontinuous; @wells2006discontinuous; @liu2015stabilized]. These schemes have also proven effective for degenerate mobilities or logarithmic potentials. Schemes satisfying the maximum principle condition for specific choices of free energy have also been constructed [@chen2019positivity]. We refer the reader to [@shen2019new] for a recent work discussing the state-of-the-art numerical techniques for nonlinear gradient flows.
In a recent effort [@refCH] we constructed a robust semi-implicit finite-volume scheme for the CH equation that offers crucial advantages when applied to the field of image inpainting. Firstly, our scheme is based on a dimensional splitting approach, so that the cost of solving the CH equation for a $N^d\times N^d$ image in $d$ dimensions is reduced from $\mathcal{O}(N^{d\gamma})$ to $\mathcal{O}(d N^{d+\gamma-1})$, with $2<\gamma<3$ (see [@coppersmith1987matrix] for details). This is already advantageous for a two-dimensional (2D) image, and the computational cost is further reduced for high-dimensional images, such as the ones for MRI [@bosch2015fractional] or X-ray computed tomography [@gu2006x] in medical image analysis. Secondly, our scheme satisfies the discrete decay of the free energy for different choices of potentials [@bosch2014fast], and in addition we prove their boundedness for mobilities of the form $M({\phi})=1-{\phi}^2$. The combination of these properties and reduced computational cost, together with the versatility of finite volumes, make our scheme efficient and robust for the solution of the modified CH equation in for a variety of applications in image inpainting.
The objective of this work is to show precisely the applicability of our numerical framework in [@refCH] for a benchmark dataset of images in need of restoration through image inpainting. For this task we purposely add different types and intensities of damage to the popular MNIST dataset [@deng2012mnist], and then apply image inpainting by solving the modified CH equation with our finite-volume scheme in [@refCH]. We also assess the improvement in pattern recognition accuracy of the restored MNIST images, and for this we construct a neural network for the task of classification. A key objective of our study is to quantify the benefits of including a CH filter before introducing a damaged image into a neural network. Our results demonstrate that accuracies in classification can increase up to 50% for particular damages in the images, and, in general, applying the CH filter improves the accuracy prediction for a wide range of low to moderate image damage.
In we outline the methodology: in we adapt our finite-volume scheme in [@refCH] for the modified CH equation in ; in we recall the two-step method for image inpainting in [@bertozzi2006inpainting]; in we detail the neural network architecture for the classification task; and lastly in we explain the structure of the integrated algorithm which takes a damaged image, applies a CH filter to it, and then classifies the image through a neural network. Subsequently in we present the results of the integrated algorithm applied to the MNIST dataset: in we begin by identofying appropiate tunings for the values of $\epsilon$ and $\lambda_0$; in we present the different types of damage introduced into the MNIST testset of images; and finally in we quantify the improvement in accuracy of applying the CH filter to the damaged MNIST images before introducing them into the neural network. A discussion and final remarks are offered in .
Integrated algorithm with image inpainting and pattern recognition {#sec:methodo}
==================================================================
We detail the construction of an integrated algorithm that firstly applies image inpainting and subsequently conducts pattern recognition for the restored image. In we begin by presenting the finite-volume scheme employed to solve the modified CH equation, based on the work in [@refCH]. Then in we illustrate the two-step method for image inpainting, based on tuning the parameters $\epsilon$ and $\lambda_0$ of the modified CH equation. In we present the neural network employed for pattern recognition, detailing its architecture and training parameters. Finally, in we gather all previous elements to formulate an integrated algorithm for prediction with an image inpainting filter.
2D finite-volume scheme for the modified CH equation {#subsec:fvm_mod}
----------------------------------------------------
We summarise the 2D finite-volume scheme constructed for the original CH equation in our previous work [@refCH]. In this scheme the discrete free energy of the CH equation in decays unconditionally under a certain CFL condition for the timestep, while ensuring the boundedness of the phase field when choosing physical mobilities of the form $M(\phi)=1-\phi^2$. The scheme can be straightforwardly extended to the modified CH equation in proposed in Ref. [@bertozzi2006inpainting] as we show here. We also remark that in [@refCH] we detail how to turn the scheme into a dimensional splitting one, with promising applicability in high-dimensional images such as medical ones. We refer the reader to [@bailo2018fully] for further details about dimensional-splitting schemes.
We begin by dividing the computational domain $[0,L]\times [0,L]$ in $N\times N$ cells $C_{i,j}:=[x_{i-1/2},x_{i+1/2}]\times[y_{j-1/2},y_{j+1/2}]$, all with uniform size $\Delta x \Delta y$ so that $x_{i+1/2}-x_{i-1/2}=\Delta x$ and $y_{j+1/2}-y_{j-1/2}=\Delta y$. In each of the cells we define the cell average ${\phi}_i$ as $${\phi}_{i,j} (t)=\frac{1}{\Delta x \Delta y}\int_{C_{i,j}}{\phi}(x,y,t)dx dy.$$
The finite-volume scheme is derived by integrating the modified CH equation over each of the cells $C_{i,j}$ of the domain, leading to $$\label{eq:fv_2}
\frac{{\phi}_{i,j}^{n+1}-{\phi}_{i,j}^{n}}{\Delta t}=-\frac{F_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}^{n+1}-F_{i-\frac{1}{2},j}^{n+1}}{\Delta x}-\frac{G_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}^{n+1}-G_{i,j-\frac{1}{2}}^{n+1}}{\Delta y}+\lambda_{i,j}({\phi}_{i,j}^{0} - {\phi}_{i,j}^{n}),$$ with ${\phi}_{i,j}^{0}$ denoting the phase field of the initial damaged image to be inpainted, and $\lambda_{i,j}$ being the discrete version of $\lambda(\bm x)$ in satisfying $$\label{eq:lambda_dis}
\lambda_{i,j}=
\begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } (x_i,y_j)\in D, \\
\lambda_0 & \text{if }(x_i,y_j)\notin D,\\
\end{cases}$$ with $D$ being the inpainted domain.
The approximation of the fluxes at the boundaries follows an upwind and implicit approach inspired by the works of [@carrillo2015finite; @bailo2018fully; @bessemoulin2012finite], satisfying $$\label{eq:flux_2}
\begin{gathered}
F_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}^{n+1}=\left(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j}\right)^++\left(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j}\right)^-,\\ G_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}^{n+1}=\left(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2}\right)^++\left(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2}\right)^-,
\end{gathered}$$ where the velocities $u^{n+1}_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}$ and $v^{n+1}_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}$ are taken as $$\label{eq:vel_2}
u^{n+1}_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}=-\frac{\xi_{i+1,j}-\xi_{i,j}}{\Delta x},\quad v^{n+1}_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}=-\frac{\xi_{i,j+1}-\xi_{i,j}}{\Delta y},$$ and the upwind approach in accomplished by $$\label{eq:velpm_2}
\begin{gathered}
\left(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j}\right)^+=\max(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j},0),\quad \left(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j}\right)^-=\min(u^{n+1}_{i+1/2,j},0),\\
\left(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2}\right)^+=\max(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2},0),\quad \left(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2}\right)^-=\min(v^{n+1}_{i,j+1/2},0).
\end{gathered}$$
The discretized variation of the free energy $\xi_{i,j}^{n+1}$ in follows a semi-implicit scheme inspired by the ideas of [@eyre1998unconditionally; @vollmayr2003fast], where the so-called convexity splitting scheme is proposed to construct unconditional gradient-stable schemes (i.e. schemes that ensure the decay of the discrete version of the free energy in ). In our recent effort [@refCH] we show that our finite-volume scheme decreases the discrete free energy of the CH equation if the contractive part of the potential, ${H}_c(\rho)$, is taken as implicit; the expansive part of the potential, ${H}_e(\rho)$, is taken as explicit; and the Laplacian is taken as an average between the explicit and the implicit second-order discretizations, so that $$\label{eq:varsemi2}
\begin{gathered}
\xi_{i,j}^{n+1}={H}_c'({\phi}_{i,j}^{n+1})-{H}_e'({\phi}_{i,j}^{n})-\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \left[(\Delta {\phi})^{n}_{i,j}+(\Delta {\phi})^{n+1}_{i,j}\right] ,\\
{H}({\phi})={H}_c({\phi})-{H}_e({\phi})=\frac{{\phi}^4+1}{4}-\frac{{\phi}^2}{2},
\end{gathered}$$ where the discrete two-dimensional approximation of the Laplacian $(\Delta \phi)_{j,k}$ is chosen to satisfy the second-order form $$\begin{gathered}
(\Delta {\phi})_{i,j}^{n}\coloneqq\frac{{\phi}_{i+1,j}^{n}-2{\phi}^{n}_{i,j}+{\phi}^{n}_{i-1,j}}{\Delta x ^2}+\frac{{\phi}_{i,j+1}^{n}-2{\phi}^{n}_{i,j}+{\phi}^{n}_{i,j-1}}{\Delta y ^2},\\(\Delta {\phi})_{i,j}^{n+1}\coloneqq\frac{{\phi}_{i+1,j}^{n+1}-2{\phi}^{n+1}_{i,j}+{\phi}^{n+1}_{i-1,j}}{\Delta x ^2}+\frac{{\phi}_{i,j+1}^{n+1}-2{\phi}^{n+1}_{i,j}+{\phi}^{n+1}_{i,j-1}}{\Delta y ^2}.
\end{gathered}$$
The modified CH equation in employs no-flux boundary conditions that are numerically implemented as, $$\label{eq:nofluxnum2}
\begin{gathered}
F_{i-\frac{1}{2},j}^x=0 \; \text{for}\;i=1,\forall j;\quad F_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}^x=0 \; \text{for}\;i=N,\forall j;\\
F_{i,j-\frac{1}{2}}^y=0 \; \text{for}\;j=1,\forall i;\quad F_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}^y=0 \; \text{for}\;j=N,\forall i.
\end{gathered}$$
Two-step method for the modified CH equation {#subsec:two-step method}
--------------------------------------------
We apply the two-step method to solve the modified CH equation in proposed in [@bertozzi2006inpainting]. It basically consists of dividing the image inpainting in two subsequent stages, so that in each one of them the finite-volume scheme in is implemented with different values of the parameter $\epsilon$. The first stage consists of taking a large $\epsilon$ to execute a large-scale topological reconnection of shapes, leading to images with diffused edges. Subsequently, and in order to sharpen the edges after the first stage, $\epsilon$ is substantially reduced, and the final outcome becomes less blurry and diffused. We denote the corresponding values of $\epsilon$ as $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$.
Adequately tuning the two values of $\epsilon$ in each stage, as well as $\lambda$, is vital to complete a successful image inpainting. Those values have to be chosen empirically and depend on the dataset and type of damage, and in we conduct a study to select them. As explained there, the appropriate values for $\epsilon$ are between $0.5$ and $1.5$ for MNIST-like images, while $\lambda\in[1,1000]$. The cell sizes are $\Delta x=\Delta y=1$. The reader can find the exact values employed after the analysis of in .
Neural network architecture for classification {#subsec:neural network}
----------------------------------------------
The prediction of the label in the restored images is performed via a neural network constructed in TensorFlow [@TensorFlow]. Its architecture is defined taking into account that in this work we employ the MNIST dataset [@deng2012mnist], which contains binary images of digits from $0$ to $9$ and has a resolution of $28\times28$ pixels. This is a benchmark dataset in the community and is the de facto “hello world" dataset of computer vision. There are consequently plenty of neural network architectures attaining extremely high accuracies for the MNIST dataset, and we refer the reader to the Kaggle competition of Digit Recognizer in [@Kaggle] for examples of such architectures.
Here, however, our overarching objective aim is to quantify how the prediction of damaged images is enhanced once the CH filter is applied to the images beforehand. Hence we do not require a highly sophisticated neural network and a cutting-edge architecture as in computer vision: our images are not going to be exactly the same as in the training set due to the damage and the subsequent restoration. We then select a standard architecture for classification based on sequential dense layers. Such architecture is formed by:
1. A flatten layer that takes the $28\times28$ image input and turns it into an array with $784$ elements. There are no weights to optimize in this layer.
2. A dense layer with $64$ units and the ReLU activation function, defined as $f(x)=\max\{0,x\}$. There are $784 \times 64$ weights to optimize in this layer, in addition to the bias term in each of the 64 units.
3. Another dense layer with $64$ units and the ReLU activation function. There are $64 \times 64$ weights to optimize in this layer, in addition to the bias term in each of the 64 units.
4. A final dense layer with $10$ units and the softmax activation function, which returns the normalized probability distribution for the 10 labels and satisfies $\sigma (z_i)=\exp (z_i)/ \sum_{j=1}^{10} \exp(z_j)$, with $z=(z_1,\ldots,z_{10})$ being the output of the final dense layer with 10 units. There are $64\times 10$ weights to optimize in this layer, in addition to the bias term in each of the 10 units.
For the training of this network we initially divide the original MNIST dataset in 60000 training images and 10000 testing images. Then we train the neural network for 10 epochs with the Adam optimizer, choosing as loss function the categorical crossentropy defined as $$J(w)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N {\left}[y_i \log (\hat{y}_i) + (1-y_i) \log(1-\hat{y}_i){\right}],$$ with $w$ being the weights to optimize, $y_i$ each of the $N$ true labels of the training dataset, and $\hat{y}_i$ each of the $N$ predicted labels. After 10 epochs we get an accuracy for the training dataset of $99.02\%$, while for the test set the accuracy is $97.47\%$. Once the neural network is trained we keep the weights fixed for the comparison of damaged and restored images in . A display of the neural network is depicted in .
![Diagram showing the layers of the neural network of .[]{data-label="fig:NN"}](NN.pdf)
Integrated Algorithm {#subsec:Integrated}
--------------------
The integrated algorithm proposed and tested in this work takes as input a damaged image, applies the CH filter based on and to restore it, and finally applies the already-trained neural network in to predict its label.
To show the applicability of this integrated algorithm we initially create damage in the images of the test set in the MNIST dataset [@deng2012mnist]. After we apply the image inpainting to the damaged test images, we introduce the restored images in the neural network. At that point, and since we have the true labels of the test set, we can assess the attained accuracy in comparison to directly introducing the damaged images or the original images into the neural network. This procedure is conducted for multiple types of damage in , and a schematic representation of all steps is depicted in .
![A schematic representation to show the applicability of the integrated algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:flow_chart"}](modified_algorithm.pdf)
Application of the integrated algorithm to the MNIST dataset {#sec:results}
============================================================
Our focus here is testing the applicability of the integrated algorithm in to increase predictability in damaged images. In we start by analysing the impact of the parameters $\lambda_0$ and $\epsilon$ on the inpainting process, with the objective of calibrating them before employing the MNIST dataset. In we detail the types of damage that we insert into the MNIST dataset, and we also show the restored outcomes of applying the CH equation as an image inpainting filter. Finally, in we evaluate how the accuracy of the damaged images increases after applying the CH filter to them, for various types and degrees of damage.
Inpainting of a Crossline {#subsec:crossline}
-------------------------
We employ the crossline example in [@bertozzi2006inpainting] to analyse the role of the parameters $\epsilon$ and $\lambda_0$ in the finite-volume scheme of . These two parameters crucially determine the success of the image inpainting procedure, and consequently appropriate calibrations for the parameters must be chosen before running the scheme. The original crossline image is depicted in , and we add to it a grey damage in the center, as shown in . This image contains $50\times 50$ pixels or cells, each with a size of $\Delta x = \Delta y =1$. We apply the finite-volume scheme in to the damaged image in .
We first aim to determine $\lambda_0$ in and we set $\epsilon=1$ as an initial guess so that $\epsilon=\Delta x = \Delta y$. From , $\lambda_{i,j}$ is only nonzero for the predefined area of undamaged pixels. Indeed the term with $\lambda_{i,j}$ in the finite-volume scheme in ensures that the undamaged pixels are not modified during the image inpainting, but for this $\lambda_0$ has to be sufficiently large to counterbalance the fluxes of the scheme. Bearing this in mind we run the numerical scheme with a $\Delta t=0.1$ and until the $L^1$ norm between successive states is lower than a certain tolerance fixed to be $10^{-4}$. Our simulation produces satisfactory results and does not break down for a range of $\lambda\in[1,1000]$. shows that the computational time to reach the required tolerance decreases when increasing the value of $\lambda$. In addition, the $L^1$ norm between the final and initial state is also lower for greater $\lambda$. It is worth mentioning that different choices for $\Delta t$ yield different ranges of valid $\lambda$, given that is a singularly perturbed problem for large $\lambda_0$. Hence, greater values of $\lambda$ are possible if $\Delta
t$ is refined. In our case, with the choice of $\Delta t=0.1$, our finite-volume scheme does not yield any result and breaks down during the for values of $\lambda\notin[1,1000]$ .
$\lambda$ time $L^1$ norm
----------- ------- ------------
1 489.8 61.2
10 489.7 60.8
100 484.8 60.8
1000 481.5 60.7
: Comparison for different values of $\lambda$: computational time before reaching the tolerance and $L^1$ norm between the final and initial state.[]{data-label="tab:lambdatime"}
We next consider the tuning of the parameter $\epsilon$ which in turn is related to the pixel size $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$. For values of $\epsilon$ larger than the pixel size the outcome tends to be diffusive, while for smaller values the edges are sharpened. When applying the finite-volume scheme in with $\lambda\in[1,1000]$ we obtain satisfactory results for $\epsilon \in
[0.5,1.5]$, while for values outside this range the simulation breaks down because of the singular nature of . As a consequence, for the two-step method in we first take the value $\epsilon_1=1.5$ for the large-scale topological reconnection of shapes, while for the second step we choose the value $\epsilon_2=0.5$ to sharpen the edges. The image impainting of the damaged image in resulting from applying this choice of parameters is shown in .
![Image inpainting of a crossline, inspired by [@bertozzi2006inpainting].[]{data-label="fig:crossline"}](crossline_initial.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="4cm"} \[fig: initialcrossline\]
![Image inpainting of a crossline, inspired by [@bertozzi2006inpainting].[]{data-label="fig:crossline"}](crossline_damaged.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth" height="4cm"} \[fig:damagedcrossline\]
![Image inpainting of a crossline, inspired by [@bertozzi2006inpainting].[]{data-label="fig:crossline"}](crossline_final.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth" height="4cm"} \[fig:second\_step\_final\]
The final outcome after the image inpainting in is not the same as the original image in . The reason from this is explained in the work of [@bertozzi2007analysis], where multiple steady-state solutions of the modified CH equation were shown to exist. As the information under the inpainting region has been destroyed, there is no way of knowing that the steady state we obtain is less accurate than other viable solutions, in comparison to . For further details we refer the reader to [@bertozzi2007analysis], where a bifurcation analysis is carried out to show that the steady state may vary depending on the choices for $\epsilon$ and $\Delta x$, $\Delta y$.
Damage introduced in the MNIST dataset {#subsec:damage}
--------------------------------------
Here we discuss the types of damage inserted into the MNIST test set, with the objective of subsequently applying the CH filter developed in for image inpainting. The varied damage employed aims to represent a mock case of damage that may be encountered in an image in need for restoration. As a result, we decide to employ two kinds of damage with different intensities: customized damage affecting particular regions of the image, and random damage selecting arbitrary pixels or horizontal lines in the image. The details of both are:
1. Customized damage: this type of damage is applied in four different fashions, as shown in . The basic idea is to turn vertical or horizontal lines of pixels into a uniform grey intensity between black and white color. In we show the outcome of applying the CH filter to the damaged images. It can be seen that our model is able to recover the images from the different types of damage, albeit with varying degrees of success. For instance, the damage introduced in is a thick horizontal line which implied a considerable loss of information from the original image, compared to the other types of damage. As a result, the inpainted image filter for this type of damage is not as effective as the other ones, as it can be seen from the inpaintings in .
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](damaged_21_a.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:dexample1\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](damaged_21_b.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:dexample2\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](damaged_21_c.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:dexample3\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](damaged_21_d.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:dexample5\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](final_21_a.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:exampleinpaint1\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](final_21_b.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:exampleinpaint2\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](final_21_c.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:exampleinpaint3\]
![Customized damage applied to a particular sample of the MNIST dataset. (A)-(D): the sample with four different types of damage; (E)-(F): The outcome of applying image inpainting to the damaged samples.[]{data-label="fig:damageexample"}](final_21_d.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth" height="3.5cm"} \[fig:exampleinpaint5\]
2. Random damage: this second type of damage is inserted in a random fashion and with different levels of intensity. Two ways of randomly creating damage are considered: one makes use of randomly selecting whole horizontal rows of pixels, while the other is obtained by randomly selecting individual pixels. In addition, for both types of random damage we employ different levels of damage intensity, so that a higher percentage of the image contains damage if the intensity rises. This allows us to test how our image inpainting algorithm behaves with increasing levels of damage in the image. Examples of these damages are shown in . Similarly to the case of customized damage, the higher the intensity of damage the more information is lost in the inpainting, as we can see for example in the case of $80\%$ pixel damage in . But despite of this, our image inpainting algorithm renders recognisable images even with relative high amounts of damage.
Damaged rows Damaged Inpainted Damaged pixels Damaged Inpainted
-------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[-0.5cm\] 8 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_8R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_8R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $30\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_03.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_03.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1.5cm\] 10 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_10R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_10R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $40\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_04.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_04.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1.5cm\] 12 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_12R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_12R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $50\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_05.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_05.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1.5cm\] 14 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_14R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_14R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $60\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_06.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_06.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1.5cm\] 16 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_16R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_16R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $70\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_07.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_07.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1.5cm\] 18 ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_71_18R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_71_18R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} $80\%$ ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](damage_23_08.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"} ![Examples of image inpainting for random damage in whole horizontal rows and in individual pixels. The column entitled “Damaged rows" marks the number of rows randomly selected for damage in the $28\times28$ images. The column entitled “Damaged pixels" marks the percentage of ramdonly damaged pixels over the whole image. For higher levels of damage intensity the inpaintings lose more information. []{data-label="fig:random"}](inpainting_23_08.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}
\[1cm\]
$\epsilon_1$ $\epsilon_2$ $\lambda$
-- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------
1.5 0.5 1000
Rows 1.5 0.5 1000
Pixels 1.5 0.5 9000
: Optimal parameters of the two-step algorithm applied in the MNIST dataset. $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ denote the values of $\epsilon$ used in the first and second step respectively, as explained in .[]{data-label="tab:parameters"}
The parameter values of $\lambda$, $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are gathered in , and follow the reasoning discussed in . This choice of parameters in our finite-volume scheme in leads to an effective image inpainting algorithm capable of restoring images with damage of varied nature as shown in and . The next step is to integrate this image inpaintng algorithm within a pattern recognition framework for the MNIST dataset.
Pattern recognition for inpainted images {#subsec:prediction}
----------------------------------------
We now apply the neural network described in to predict labels of damaged images with and without image inpainting, with the aim of quantifying the improvement of accuracy following the application of the CH filter. This study is completed for the different types and intensities of the noise depicted in .
We begin by adding the types of damage in to the 10,000 samples of the MNIST test dataset. The next step is to apply the CH filter and two-step method to each one of them, while also saving copies of the test images with the damage. Eventually, for each type of damage we get two batches of 10,000 images: one still with the damage, and another one with image inpainting applied. Given that the neural network of is already trained with the 60,000 samples of the MNIST training dataset, we can directly compute the accuracy of each of the two batches. This way we are able to assess the improvement in accuracy thanks to applying image inpainting to restore the damage.
Here for the validation we just employ the accuracy metric, which is defined as follows $$\text{Accuracy} \equiv \frac{\text{Number of correct predictions}}{\text{Number of total predictions}}.$$ There are however many other metrics apart from the accuracy one that play a vital role in other classification problems: recall, precision, F1 score, true positive rate and so on. Here we believe that the accuracy metric is enough to draw conclusions about how the image inpainting is improving the predictions with respect to the damage images. This is due to the fact that the MNIST dataset is a balanced dataset, where there is generally no preference between false positives and false negatives.
The measure of improvement between the batch of samples with image inpainting and the damaged ones without it is computed as $$\label{eq:improvement}
\text{Improvement} \equiv \frac{\text{Accuracy}_{\text{with CH filter}}-\text{Accuracy}_{\text{without CH filter}}}{\text{Accuracy}_{\text{without CH filter}}},$$ and it basically represents the percentage of improvement that results from adding the CH filter to the prediction process.
The results for all the types of damage under consideration are displayed in , and . In we gather the prediction accuracies for the four customized damages displayed in , as well as the prediction accuracy for the unmodified MNIST test set, which for our neural network architecture is 0.97. We observe that for the types of more intense customized damage B and C the accuracy prediction for the damaged images without CH filter drops to 0.71 and 0.64, respectively. By applying the filter we find that the accuracy predictions can significantly escalate to 0.93 and 0.82, leading to improvements of 31% and 28% respectively. The other two types of customized damage A and D are not as pervasive as B and C, and as a result the accuracy predictions are high even without applying the CH filter.
Customized damage Without CH filter With CH filter Improvement
--------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------
A 0.84 0.96 14%
B 0.71 0.93 31%
C 0.64 0.82 28%
D 0.90 0.96 7%
Initial test images - 0.97 -
: Accuracy for the test dataset of MNIST without and with the CH filter, for the customized damage in . The improvement is computed following .[]{data-label="tab:predict_cust"}
In and we test the accuracies for random damage with various levels of intensities. The objective here is to analyse how the CH filter responds when the damage occupies more and more space in the images, both for the case of rows or pixels, as displayed in . In we show the accuracies for a range of damaged rows between 6 and 26, bearing in mind that the dimensions of the MNIST images are $28\times28$. We observe that for low numbers of damaged rows the accuracy prediction even without the CH filter is high and it does not improve significantly by adding the filter. But then the improvement surges until reaching a maximum value of 47% for 16 random damaged rows, where the prediction without CH filter is 0.55 and with CH filter 0.81. From larger numbers of damaged rows the accuracies drastically drop due to the large amount of information lost, and not even the image inpainting process is able to achieve decent accuracies. In the limit of damaged number of rows tending to 28 we observe that the accuracies are close to the ones of a dummy classifier with one out of ten chances of rightly guessing the label. In this limit there is no difference between adding the CH filter or not, and it turns out that the improvements are even negative.
Damaged rows Without CH filter With CH filter Improvement
-------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------
6 0.89 0.96 8%
8 0.82 0.93 13%
10 0.73 0.91 25%
12 0.66 0.87 32%
14 0.6 0.87 45%
16 0.55 0.81 47%
18 0.47 0.68 45%
20 0.40 0.48 20%
22 0.39 0.45 15%
24 0.33 0.26 -21%
26 0.20 0.12 -40%
: Accuracy for the test dataset of MNIST without and with the CH filter, for the case of random damage in rows. The improvement is computed following .[]{data-label="tab:predict_rows"}
We observe a similar pattern for the case of random damaged pixels in we observe a similar pattern. For low percentages of damaged pixels the improvement of adding the CH filter is negligible and the accuracies with and without the filter are quite high. As we increase the percentage of damaged pixels the improvement escalates until it reaches 45% for a scenario with 80% of the pixels randomly damaged. For this case the accuracy prediction without the filter is just 0.55, but thanks to the filter it significantly increases to a decent value of 0.8. For larger percentage of pixels the improvement and accuracies drop, and in the limit towards 100% of damaged pixels we get close to the accuracy of a dummy classifier. This is due to the large loss of information that the original images have suffered.
Damaged pixels Without CH filter With CH filter Improvement
---------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------
$30\%$ 0.93 0.93 0%
$40\%$ 0.96 0.96 0%
$50\%$ 0.91 0.95 4%
$60\%$ 0.8 0.94 18%
$70\%$ 0.75 0.93 24%
$80\%$ 0.55 0.8 45%
$90\%$ 0.39 0.46 18%
$92\%$ 0.32 0.37 16%
$94\%$ 0.33 0.34 3%
$96\%$ 0.20 0.23 15%
: Accuracy for the test dataset of MNIST without and with the CH filter, for the case of random damage in pixels. The improvement is computed following .[]{data-label="tab:predict_pixel"}
In we depict some specific examples for which the label is only predicted correctly after applying the CH filter to the damaged image. These are just some particular samples out of the 10,000 images contained in the test dataset of MNIST, and for some of them the opposite effect can occur: that the label is correctly predicted for the damaged image and following the inpainting process it is predicted incorrectly. However, we have shown in and that overall the CH filter increases the global accuracy for images with low to moderate damage, and consequently we expect that scenarios such as the ones displayed in are much more common than the opposite ones.
[cccccc]{} Initial Image & True label & Damaged image & $\quad P_D \quad$ & Inpainted image & $\quad P_I \quad$\
& & & & &\
![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](INITIAL_49.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&4& ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](damaged_49.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&6 & ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](final_49.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&4\
![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](INITIAL_71.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&0& ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](damage_71_16R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}& 8 & ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](inpainting_71_16R.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&0\
![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](INITIAL_23.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&5& ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](damage_23_07.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}& 4 & ![Particular examples of label predictions for MNIST samples with various types of damage: customized damage C, random damage in 16 rows and random damage in $70\%$ of pixels. The label of the damaged image is wrongly predicted, while the label for the inpainted image is correctly predicted. $P_D$ and $P_I$ represent the label predictions of the damaged and inpainted images, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wrong_predictions"}](inpainting_23_07.pdf "fig:"){width="0.13\linewidth" height="2cm"}&5\
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:con_fwork}
==========================
We have quantified the prediction improvement of employing a CH image inpainting filter to restore damaged images which are then passed into a neural network. We combined a finite-volume scheme with a neural network for pattern recognition to develop an integrated algorithm summing up the process of adding damage to the images and then predicting their label. Our results for the MNIST dataset suggest that, in general, the accuracy is improved for a wide range of low to moderate damages, while for some particular cases we reach improvements of up to 50%. We also provide the image inpainting outcome of multiple damage scenarios and the benefits of adding the CH filter to predict the label of the image are easily visible.
We believe that our results employing the MNIST dataset lay the foundations towards the application of image inpainting in more complex datasets. Here we have demonstrated the benefit of combining the fields of image inpainting with machine learning, and we believe that many applications can take advantage of it. For instance there are applications such as medical images from MRI or satellite observations where there is typically some inherent noise or damage involved and where there may be potential to employ tools from machine learning as was done here.
MNIST is one of the most well-known and convenient benchmark datasets. It is possible that applying our methodology to increasingly complex datasets might bring about new challenges. At the same time we have relied on two main assumptions about the damage and the images: the first one is that the images are binary, leading to the standard CH potential in that has only two wells (i.e. one for each of the two colours); the second one is that the damage is not blind, meaning that the location of the damage is known. Performing image inpainting without these two assumptions becomes substantially more involved as already pointed out in [@cherfils2016cahn; @burger2009cahn; @xie2012image]. We will be exploring these and related questions in future works.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are indebted to P. Yatsyshin and A. Russo from the Chemical Engineering Department of Imperial College (IC) for numerous stimulating discussions on machine learning and image inpainting. S. P. Perez acknowledges financial support from the IC President’s PhD Scholarship. JAC was partially supported by the EPSRC through grant no. EP/P031587 and the ERC through Advanced Grant no. 883363. SK was partially supported by the EPSRC through grant no. EP/L020564 and the ERC through Advanced Grant no. 247031.
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
[^4]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I show how prior work with R. Wald on geodesic motion in general relativity can be generalized to classical field theories of a metric and other tensor fields on four-dimensional spacetime that 1) are second-order and 2) follow from a diffeomorphism-covariant Lagrangian. The approach is to consider a one-parameter-family of solutions to the field equations satisfying certain assumptions designed to reflect the existence of a body whose size, mass, and various charges are simultaneously scaled to zero. (That such solutions exist places a further restriction on the class of theories to which our results apply.) Assumptions are made only on the spacetime region outside of the body, so that the results apply independent of the body’s composition (and, e.g., black holes are allowed). The worldline “left behind” by the shrinking, disappearing body is interpreted as its lowest-order motion. An equation for this worldline follows from the “Bianchi identity” for the theory, without use of any properties of the field equations beyond their being second-order. The form of the force law for a theory therefore depends only on the ranks of its various tensor fields; the detailed properties of the field equations are relevant only for determining the charges for a particular body (which are the “monopoles” of its exterior fields in a suitable limiting sense). I explicitly derive the force law (and mass-evolution law) in the case of scalar and vector fields, and give the recipe in the higher-rank case. Note that the vector force law is quite complicated, simplifying to the Lorentz force law only in the presence of the Maxwell gauge symmetry. Example applications of the results are the motion of “chameleon” bodies beyond the Newtonian limit, and the motion of bodies in (classical) non-Abelian gauge theory. I also make some comments on the role that scaling plays in the appearance of universality in the motion of bodies.'
author:
- 'Samuel E. Gralla'
title: Motion of Small Bodies in Classical Field Theory
---
Introduction
============
In special relativity, a non-interacting body moves in a straight line. Therefore, it is not surprising that in general relativity an “infinitesimal test body” (i.e., a body small enough that the curvature of the external universe can be neglected, and weakly-gravitating enough that curvature it generates can be neglected) will move *locally* in a straight line, i.e., it will follow a geodesic. But from this perspective it does seem quite surprising that strong-field bodies like neutron stars and black holes in fact *also* move on geodesics (in the limit of small size). After all, no matter how small or light such a body, the local spacetime metric will differ significantly from that of flat spacetime, and one would therefore expect that nonlinear gravitational dynamics—certainly not special relativity—would principally determine its motion. Furthermore, since the metrics of different strong-field bodies will differ greatly from *each other*, one would perhaps expect there to be *no* universal law for the motion of strong-field bodies at all. Indeed, the natural assumption would seem to be that the motion of a strong-field body depends in detail upon its composition.
This expectation is incorrect for a very counter-intuitive reason: in general relativity, the motion of a small body is in fact completely determined by field dynamics *outside* of the body. This surprising fact was first demonstrated by Einstein, Infeld and Hoffman [@einstein-infeld-hoffman], and has become the foundation of a more modern approach to motion termed “matched asymptotic expansions” [@matched-expansions] (see also [@poisson; @gralla-wald; @pound]). The basic physical requirement of this line of work is the existence of a region (the “buffer zone”) sufficiently far from the body that the body field may be approximated as a multipole series, yet sufficiently close to the body that the field of the external universe may be approximated in an ordinary Taylor series. The vacuum gravitational dynamics taking place in this region then suffice to determine the motion.
A primary purpose of this paper is to determine to what extent this conclusion generalizes to other classical field theories. To investigate this question I generalize the approach taken in [@gralla-wald] to deriving geodesic motion in general relativity.[^1] In the formalism of [@gralla-wald] a small body is characterized by a one-parameter-family of solutions to the vacuum Einstein equation describing the region outside of a body that shrinks to zero size and mass with the perturbation parameter, $\lambda$. A family with such behavior is considered by demanding the existence of a second, “scaled” limit wherein the coordinates and metric are rescaled such the body is held at fixed size and mass. At $\lambda=0$ in the original limit the body disappears, leaving behind a smooth spacetime with a preferred worldline, $\gamma$, picked out; this worldline is interpreted as the lowest-order perturbative motion of the body. We showed that $\gamma$ must be a geodesic by applying the Bianchi identity to an effective point particle description that (remarkably) emerges at first order in $\lambda$. In this paper I generalize the approach to theories that 1) follow from a diffeomorphism-covariant Lagrangian, ensuring a “Bianchi identity” and 2) have second-order field equations.
For this class of theories the method of [@gralla-wald] gives an equation for $\gamma$ that depends only on “buffer zone” field properties, showing that the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman idea remains correct in a more general context. More specifically, the equation involves, in addition to the value and first-derivative of the external fields at the location of the body, various charges (understood to include mass as the charge associated with the metric) that are determined from the body’s fields in the scaled limit (they are “field monopoles”). The results rely only on properties 1) and 2) above and are therefore surprisingly independent of the details of the theory. In particular, the force law depends only on the form of the Bianchi identity, which in turn depends only on the ranks of the tensor fields considered (although extra identities following from gauge symmetry can greatly simplify the results). Therefore, the expression for the force in terms of the charges and external field values is in fact identical across theories with the same types of tensor fields and the same gauge symmetries. However, the charges associated with a particular body composition will differ in different theories, since the relationship between a given source and the field monopoles it generates will depend on the field equations. In this sense—and only in this sense—are there “differences in motion” among theories of our class that have the same types of tensor fields and the same gauge symmetry.
In interpreting the results it is useful to distinguish varying degrees of “universality” in the motion of small bodies. In the case of general relativity, all small bodies move on geodesics, so that their internal structure is completely irrelevant to their motion. In Einstein-Maxwell theory, a single number characterizing the body (the charge-to-mass ratio) determines how it will move, so that the internal structure is minimally relevant. In scalar-tensor theory, a free function of time (the charge-to-mass ratio of the non-conserved charge) specifies the motion of a body, so that the internal structure is somewhat relevant. In higher-rank theories a finite number of free functions of time characterize the motion of a body. Of these results only geodesic motion in general relativity is truly universal in that it applies to *all* bodies; however, I will refer to all of the above results as “universal behavior in motion”, since the information required to determine the motion of a small body is reduced from the complete description of the body to the knowledge of a finite number of parameters at each time. To adopt the language of condensed matter physics, there are thus large “universality classes” of small bodies that move in the same way.
The content of this paper is as follows. In section \[sec:GR\] I summarize the formalism of [@gralla-wald] to derive geodesic motion in general relativity. In section \[sec:scalar\] I generalize the formalism to Einstein-scalar and then more general scalar-tensor theories, deriving the scalar force law. Note that mass evolution always occurs, and the scalar charge evolution is unconstrained. I discuss the results in the context of specific scalar-tensor theories and comment on scaling and universality. In section \[sec:vector\] I apply the formalism to vector-tensor theories to derive the vector force law. This surprisingly complicated equation simplifies to the Lorentz force law in theories with the Maxwell gauge symmetry. I also derive the simplified force law in the case of non-Abelian gauge theory. Finally in section \[sec:general\] I give the proof that universality in motion is achieved via buffer zone dynamics for tensor fields of arbitrary rank. A definition and disambiguation of scale-invariance is given in an appendix.
I use the conventions of Wald [@wald] and work in units where $G=c=1$. Early-alphabet Latin indices $a,b,...$ are abstract spacetime indices, while Greek indices $\mu,\nu,...$ give tensor components in a coordinate system. When working in coordinates $(t,x^1,x^2,x^3)$, mid-alphabet Latin indices $i,j,...$ denote spatial components $1-3$, while a zero denotes the time component $t$. Mid-alphabet capital Latin indices $I,J,...$ label members of a collection of tensor fields.
Review of formalism: motion in general relativity {#sec:GR}
=================================================
In this section I review the derivation of geodesic motion given in [@gralla-wald]. While the treatment here is self-contained, the reader is referred to [@gralla-wald] for more details and significantly more motivation. Note that many of the arguments given here will hold identically or analogously for the more general theories treated in later sections, in which case those arguments will not be repeated.
The basic approach to motion is to formalize the notion of a “small body” by considering a one-parameter-family of solutions to Einstein’s equation that contains a body that shrinks to zero size with the parameter $\lambda$. While no universal behavior in motion (nor even any definition of “position”[^2]) can possibly be obtained at any finite $\lambda$, in the limit $\lambda \rightarrow 0$ one can hope for a simplified description, whose observables will then approximate observables at small but finite $\lambda$.[^3] The task is therefore to develop assumptions on a one-parameter-family to the effect that it contains a body shrinking to zero size. The first realization is that the body must also shrink to zero mass, since (roughly speaking) no body can be smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. The body will thus disappear in the limit, but it will leave behind a preferred worldline, $\gamma$, characterizing its motion. Our method of considering such a body is essentially to demand that if we zoom in on the presumed shrinking body, then a body is recovered. This zooming process is accomplished via the notion of a *scaled limit*, defined as follows. Consider a one-parameter-family of metrics $g_{ab}(\lambda)$, whose metric components $g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda)$ are given in some particular coordinates $(t,x^i)$. Introduce both a rescaled metric $\bar{g}_{ab}(\lambda) = \lambda^{-2} g_{ab}(\lambda)$ and, for a particular time $t_0$, rescaled coordinates $(\bar{t},\bar{x}^i)=\left((t-t_0)/\lambda,x^i/\lambda\right)$. Then, the scaled limit is given by $$\label{eq:scaled-limit}
\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(t_0) \equiv \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0}\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(\lambda;t_0),$$ where the limit is taken at fixed scaled coordinate. In this notation, the bar on the “$g$” indicates that the rescaled metric is being considered, while the bars on the coordinate component indices “$\mu$” and “$\nu$” indicate that the components of $\bar{g}_{ab}$ in the rescaled coordinates are being considered. (I will continue to adopt this notation throughout the paper.[^4])
This limit has the interpretating of “zooming in” because a fixed-$\bar{x}^\mu$ observer moves ever closer to the shrinking body while the rescaled metric keeps distances finite. A simple example to keep in mind is the family of Schwarzschild deSitter metrics of mass parameter $\lambda$ [@gralla-wald], which clearly contains a shrinking body of the sort we want to consider. In the ordinary limit the body disappears, leaving behind the background spacetime of deSitter. But in the scaled limit the background “disappears”, leaving behind the Schwarzschild metric for all $t_0$. For all one-parameter-families in this paper, I will refer to $g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu} \equiv g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda=0)$ as the “background metric” and to $\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(t_0)$ as the “body exterior metric” (no interior is ever considered). The existence of both original and scaled limits reflects the presence of a body with the appropriate scaling, and will be our assumptions i) and ii), below.
An additional assumption is required. To arrive at this assumption, note that the rescaling of the metric by $\lambda^{-2}$ effectively cancels powers of $\lambda^2$ that arise in changing to the rescaled coordinates, so that one has the simple formula $$\label{eq:compute-scaled}
\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(\lambda;t_0;\bar{t},\bar{x}^i) = g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda;t=t_0+\lambda \bar{t}, x^i=\lambda \bar{x}^i),$$ relating barred components of the barred metric, $\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}$, to corresponding unbarred coordinates of the unbarred metric, $g_{\mu \nu}$. That is, one simply “plugs in” $t=t_0+\lambda \bar{t}$ and $x^i=\lambda \bar{x}^i$ to compute $\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}$ from $g_{\mu \nu}$. This formula shows that if we regard $g_{\mu \nu}$ as a function of new variables $\alpha\equiv r$,$\beta\equiv r/\lambda$,$\theta$,$\phi$ (at fixed $t$, and with $r,\theta,\phi$ defined relative to $x^i$ in the usual way), then the scaled limit is given by the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ at fixed $\beta$ of the original metric components $g_{\mu \nu}$. Similarly, the original limit is given by the limit $\beta \rightarrow 0$ at fixed $\alpha$. Demanding that both limits exist is thus the statement of separate continuity in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. A natural extension (argued for at length in [@gralla-wald] on the grounds that it excludes certain pathological behavior) is to demand *joint* continutity and in fact joint smoothness in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (although only $C^1$ is required here). This will be our assumption iii), below. Note that the electromagnetic analog of iii) has been shown to hold for a family of shrinking charge-current sources in flat spacetime [@gralla-harte-wald].
The assumptions of this section for the metric family $g_{ab}(\lambda)$ are that there exists coordinates $(t,x^i)$ at each $\lambda \geq 0$ such that the following hold.
- i\) For $r \geq \lambda \bar{R}$ for some constant $\bar{R}$, the metric components $g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda)$ satisfy the vacuum Einstein equation and are smooth functions of $(t,x^i,\lambda)$. The worldline, $\gamma$, defined by $\lambda = x^i = 0$ is timelike.
- ii\) The scaled metric components $\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(t_0;\lambda)$ are smooth functions of $(\lambda,\bar{t},\bar{x}^i)$ for $\bar{r} \geq \bar{R}$.
- iii\) The metric components $g_{\mu \nu}$ are smooth functions of $(\alpha,\beta)$ at $(0,0)$ for fixed $(t,\theta,\phi)$.
Assumption i) establishes our domain $r \geq \lambda \bar{R}$ and provides the requisite smoothness for perturbation theory on that domain. It also lays the groundwork for the interpretation of the domain as the exterior of a shrinking body by taking $\gamma$ to be timelike. Assumption ii) establishes this interpretation according to the ideas of the scaled limit, and assumption iii) adds additional “uniformity” properties [@gralla-wald]. Note, however, that this latter assumption has an important physical consequence (i.e., it places an important restriction on the type of spacetime for which our approximate results will be useful). It requires that there be a spatial region both far enough from the body that its field can be approximated in a series in inverse powers of distance (corrections in $\beta$ near zero), and close enough to the body that the field of the external universe can be approximated as a series in positive powers of distance (corrections in $\alpha$ near zero). Therefore by seeking one-parameter-families containing a shrinking body, we in fact end up with a mathematically precise version of the usual “buffer zone” assumption of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman approach and its descendants. No further assumptions beyond i), ii), iii) (and their analogs for other theories) are made in this paper.
Smoothness in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ allows us to taylor expand in these variables to any finite order. However, to derive geodesic motion we in fact require only a single derivative in $\beta$, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda,t,r,\theta,\phi) & = b_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi) + c_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi) \beta + O(\alpha) + O(\beta^2) \nonumber \\
& = b_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi) + c_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi) \frac{\lambda}{r} + O(r) + O\left(\frac{\lambda}{r}\right)^2 \label{eq:galphabeta}\end{aligned}$$ where $O(r)$ near zero is at fixed $\lambda/r$, and $O(\lambda/r)$ near zero is at fixed $r$. Sorting into powers of $\lambda$ and $r$, we have $$g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda,t,r,\theta,\phi) = b_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi) + O(r) + \lambda \left( c_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi)\frac{1}{r} + O(r^0) \right) + O(\lambda^2), \qquad r>0$$ where the order symbols are for small $r$ and $\lambda$. From this expression it is easy to read off series expressions for the background metric $g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu}$ and linear perturbations $g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu} \equiv \partial_\lambda g_{\mu \nu}|_{\lambda=0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu}(t,x^i) & = b_{\mu \nu}(t) + O(r), & r\geq 0 \ \label{eq:g0} \\
g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}(t,x^i) & = c_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi)\frac{1}{r} + O(1), & r>0. \label{eq:g1} \end{aligned}$$ Since $g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu}$ is assumed smooth everywhere, $b_{\mu \nu}$ cannot depend on angles and we have written $b_{\mu \nu}(t)$. (This quantity is usually taken to be $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ by coordinate choice.) We are also interested in the consequences of equation in the scaled limit. Using equation , we have $$\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(\lambda;t_0;\bar{t},\bar{r},\theta,\phi) = b_{\mu \nu}(t_0 + \lambda \bar{t},\theta,\phi) + c_{\mu \nu}(t_0 + \lambda \bar{t},\theta,\phi) \frac{1}{\bar{r}} + O(\lambda \bar{r}) + O\left(\frac{1}{\bar{r}^2}\right),$$ so that the limit $\lambda \rightarrow 0$ at fixed $(\bar{t},\bar{x}^i)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}(t_0;\bar{x}^i) & = b_{\mu \nu}(t_0) + c_{\mu \nu}(t_0,\theta,\phi) \frac{1}{\bar{r}} + O\left(\frac{1}{\bar{r}^2}\right), \label{eq:gbar0}\end{aligned}$$ and the body exterior metric $\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}$ is seen to be *stationary* (independent of $\bar{t}$) and *asymptotically flat* (constant as $\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$). (Stationarity follows from smoothness of $g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda)$ in $t$.) This supports the idea that $\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}$ characterizes the body exterior as it would appear in isolation at time $t_0$. Equations , , and are key consequences of our assumptions.
Geodesic motion is now derived as follows. By assumption i), $g_{\mu \nu}(\lambda)$ is smooth in $\lambda$ at $\lambda=0$ for $r>0$. Thus $g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}$ satisfies the vacuum linearized Einstein equation about $g^{(0)}$, $$\label{eq:G1}
G^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}[g^{(1)}] = 0 , \qquad r > 0.$$ Now regard $g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}$ as a distribution on defined on the background spacetime including at $r=0$, which is possible because its “most singular” behavior is only $1/r$. Since $G^{(1)}$ is a second-order, linear partial differential operator, it follows from equations and via the analysis of appendix \[sec:calc\] that, distributionally, we have $$\label{eq:G1dist}
G^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}[g^{(1)}] = N_{\mu \nu}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i),$$ for some $N_{\mu \nu}$ defined on the worldline $x^i=0$. (This result is analogous to the well-known fact that $\nabla^2(1/r)=- 4 \pi \delta^3(x^i)$. If the explicit form of $G^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}$ is used, a formula for may be obtained for $N_{\mu \nu}$ in terms of angle averages of $c_{\mu \nu}$ and its first angular derivatives.) Thus, an effective distributional stress-energy of $1/8\pi N_{\mu \nu} \delta^3(x^i)$ has emerged at first-order in perturbation theory, supported on the worldline $\gamma$. This is remarkable, given that any true stress-energy associated with the body is confined to $r<\lambda \bar{R}$ and excluded from consideration; and furthermore, the body need not be “made” of stress-energy at all (as in the case of a black hole).
The strategy is now to apply “conservation” to the “stress-energy”. That is, because the linearized Bianchi identity $\nabla^a G^{(1)}_{ab}[g^{(1)}]=0$ holds as an identity on *all* sufficiently smooth $g^{(1)}_{ab}$ (not necessarily satisfying the linearized Einstein equation), the distributional linearized Bianchi identity also holds as an identity on distributional $g^{(1)}_{ab}$, and we must have $$\label{eq:dist-cons}
\nabla^{\mu} \left( N_{\mu \nu}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i) \right) = 0$$ in the distributional sense. Here $\nabla_a$ is the derivative operator associated with the background metric $g^{(0)}_{ab}$. The consequences of this equation can be determined in a variety of ways. I will proceed by adopting the specific coordinate choice of Fermi normal coordinates (see, e.g., [@poisson]) for the background metric $g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu}$. On the worldline $x^i=0$, the metric components are Minkowski ($g_{\mu \nu}=\eta_{\mu \nu}$), and the Christoffel symbols are given by $\Gamma^i_{00} = \Gamma^0_{0i}=a_i$, where $a_i$ are the spatial components of the four-acceleration of the worldline (the time component $a_0$ is zero). We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{\mu} \left( N_{\mu 0} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \right) & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N_{00} + a_i N_{i0} \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N_{i0} \right] \\
\nabla^{\mu} \left( N_{\mu i} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \right) & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N_{0i} + a_j N_{ij} + a_i N_{00} \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N_{ij} \right],\end{aligned}$$ with repeated spatial indices summed. The coefficients of $\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})$ and $\partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})$ must separately vanish, giving $N_{i0}=N_{ij}=0$, as well as $\partial_0 N_{00}=0$ and $a_i N_{00}=0$, i.e., geodesic motion when $N_{00}$ is non-zero.
We can interpret $N_{00}$ through its appearance in equation . Since it multiplies the delta function, it is clear that $N_{00}$ will determine the singular behavior of the metric perturbation, i.e., it will determine the coefficient $c_{\mu \nu}$ in equation . Furthermore, if one expands the background metric according to , it is clear that only the constant term $b_{\mu \nu}$ (which here equals $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ by coordinate choice) is relevant for the determination of $c_{\mu \nu}$ via . Thus, we may compute this coefficient by using the stationary linearized Einstein equation off of flat spacetime in global inertial coordinates. The solutions are well known and one obtains for the time-time component (which is all we need) that $4 \pi c_{00} = N_{00}$ (so that $c_{00}$ is in fact independent of angles in these coordinates). Observing the appearance of $c_{\mu \nu}$ in the series for the body exterior metric , we conclude that $N_{00}$ is $8 \pi$ times the *ADM mass* of the body exterior metric. Therefore we define $M=(1/8 \pi) N_{00}$ and refer to this quantity as the mass of the body. This explains the role of the requirement that $N_{00} \neq 0$ for geodesic motion to hold: there must actually be a body present in the one-parameter-family for the curve to be necessarily geodesic.
Equation for the effective stress-energy may be clarified by introducing $M$ and by rewriting in covariant form. Since $u^\alpha=(1,\vec{0})$ in Fermi normal coordinates, we have from $N_{ij}=N_{i0}=0$ that $N_{ab} = M u_a u_b$. The spatial coordinate delta function becomes a worldline integral of the “invariant” four-dimensional delta function $\delta_4(x,x')=\frac{\delta^{(4)}(x^\mu-x'^\mu)}{\sqrt{-g}}$. Thus we have $$\label{eq:pp}
G^{(1)}_{ab}[g^{(1)}] = 8 \pi M \int_\gamma u_a u_b \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau ,$$ where the mass $M$ is constant. This equation shows that the metric perturbations for our family are in fact sourced by the usual “point particle” stress-energy (see, e.g., [@poisson]). Thus, despite the fact that point particles do not make sense in general relativity [@geroch-traschen], we have shown that they do emerge as part of a (mathematically rigorous) approximate description of the metric of an arbitrary small body. Furthermore, the “particle mass” $M$ is indeed the ADM mass of the body (as measured in the scaled limit).
The results of this section (i.e., the results of sec. IV of [@gralla-wald]) may be summarized as follows. Consider a one-parameter-family of spacetimes containing a body whose size and mass decrease to zero, according to the stated assumptions. Then, the ADM mass $M$ of the body exterior metric is a constant independent of time $t_0$, and, if $M\neq 0$, the worldline $\gamma$ left behind after the body disappears is a geodesic of the spacetime $g^{(0)}_{ab}$ left behind. Furthermore, the far-field effective description in linearized gravity is that of a point particle of mass $M$. These results show, in essense, that small bodies move on geodesics while keeping their ADM mass constant and sourcing linear perturbations reflecting a point particle of that mass.
Scalar-tensor theories {#sec:scalar}
======================
A simple generalization of general relativity is the addition of a scalar field. I will first consider the ordinary Einstein-scalar theory in detail. I will then discuss the general case, which in fact follows from the computations already done. Finally I make some comments on scaling and universality. In this in later sections it will be convenient to use a Lagrangian formulation. I will use the definitions and conventions of appendix E of Wald [@wald], except that I will denote his fixed volume element $\mathbf{e}$ by “$d^4x$”.
Einstein-scalar theory
----------------------
The action for general relativity plus a minimally-coupled massless scalar field $\phi$ is given by $$\label{eq:es-action}
S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left( R - 2 g^{ab} \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi \right),$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar constructed from $g_{ab}$. I have chosen the relative normalization so that the theory reduces to that of Quinn [@quinn] in the appropriate limit. It is helpful to define ${E}^{[g]}_{ab} \equiv (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta g^{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi]} \equiv (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta \phi$, which evaluate to $$\begin{aligned}
E^{[g]}_{ab} & = G_{ab} - 2 \left( \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} g^{cd} \nabla_c \phi \nabla_d \phi \right) \label{eq:Eg}\\
E^{[\phi]} & = 4 g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \phi . \label{eq:Ephi}\end{aligned}$$ The equations of motion for the Einstein-scalar theory are then simply $E^{[g]}_{ab} = 0$ and $E^{[\phi]} = 0$.
The formalism requires a “Bianchi identity” for this theory. To derive such an identity, consider the variation of the action with respect to an infinitessimal diffeomorphism. Since the action is diffeomorphism-invariant, the variation must vanish, and one has $$0 = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left\{ E^{[g]}_{ab} (-2\nabla^a \xi^b) + E^{[\phi]} \xi^a \nabla_a \phi \right\},$$ where $\xi^a$ is an arbitrary vector field. Integrating the first term by parts, we derive $$\label{eq:es-bianchi}
\nabla^a E^{[g]}_{ab} = -\frac{1}{2} E^{[\phi]} \nabla_b \phi.$$ The field equations were not used in deriving this equation, which therefore holds as an identity on all sufficiently smooth $\{ g_{ab},\phi \}$. (This can also be easily checked by direct calculation using equations and .) To interpret this identity, note that nonzero values of $E^{[g]}_{ab}$ and $E^{\phi}$ would normally be interpreted as stress-energy and scalar charge density (respectively) associated with some matter field. This equation gives the precise non-conservation the matter stress-energy in terms of the matter scalar charge density necessary for consistent coupling of that matter to the Einstein-scalar theory. Although we will always impose $E^{[g]}_{ab}=0$ and $E^{\phi}=0$ at finite $\lambda$, non-zero values will emerge in the linearized, distributional description (analogously to equation in general relativity), reflecting an effective stress-energy and scalar charge of the body.
We now seek to generalize the assumptions used in general relativity to the Einstein-scalar theory. The main requirement is to take the scalar charge to zero along with the size and the mass, in order to keep the energy in the field finite. Thus we seek a one-paramater family with scalar field behavior like $\phi \sim \lambda/r$. To characterize this by the existence of a scaled limit, the appropriate rescaling (after changing to scaled coordinates) is simply $\bar{\phi}=\phi$. (That is, no rescaling is required; however, we still define $\bar{\phi}$ for notational consistency.) Then for an arbitrary family we define the scaled limit as in , $$\label{eq:scaled-limit-phi}
\bar{\phi}^{(0)} \equiv \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0}\bar{\phi}(\lambda),$$ where the limit is taken at fixed scaled coordinate. I will refer to $\bar{\phi}^{(0)}$ as the body exterior scalar field in analogy with the body exterior metric $\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}$.
One can now follow the same path of reasoning as in section \[sec:GR\], leading one to assume the existence of original (i) and scaled (ii) limits, as well as the uniformity condition (iii). In other words, the appropriate assumptions for this section are those of \[sec:GR\], where the metric $g_{ab}(\lambda)$ is replaced by the pair $\{g_{ab}(\lambda),\phi(\lambda)\}$, and the required equations are not Einstein’s equation but the Einstein-scalar equations $E^{[g]}_{ab} = 0$ and $E^{[\phi]} = 0$. (The same coordinates $(t,x^i)$ and hence worldline $\gamma$ are used for the metric and scalar field.) Note that the new assumption iii) will imply the existence of a “buffer zone” for the scalar field as well as the metric.
The steps of the derivation of motion now follow completely analogously. The analog of holds for the scalar field, which leads to the analogs of , and , given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{(0)} & = b^{[\phi]}(t) + O(r) \label{eq:phi0} \\
\phi^{(1)} & = c^{[\phi]}(t,\theta,\phi)\frac{1}{r} + O(1) \label{eq:phi1}\\
\bar{\phi}^{(0)} & = b^{[\phi]}(t_0) + c^{[\phi]}(t_0,\theta,\phi) \frac{1}{\bar{r}} + O \left( \frac{1}{\bar{r}^2}\right) \label{eq:phibar0}\end{aligned}$$ for some $b^{[\phi]}$ and $c^{[\phi]}$. (Here $\phi^{(1)}\equiv \partial_\lambda \phi|_{\lambda=0}$ is the scalar field perturbation, so that one has $\phi(\lambda) = \phi^{(0)} + \lambda \phi^{(1)} + O(\lambda^2)$ for $r>0$.) The body exterior scalar field $\bar{\phi}^{(0)}$ is seen to be stationary and to have smooth behavior in $1/\bar{r}$ as $\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$, supporting the name we have given it. Note, however, that in constrast to the case of the metric, the body exterior scalar field retains some “memory” of the external universe, since $b^{[\phi]}$ contains physical information about $\phi^{(0)}$. As before, the perturbations $\phi^{(1)}$ and $g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}$ satisfy the linearized field equations at $r>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu}[g^{(1)},\phi^{(1)}] & = 0, \qquad & r>0 \\
E^{[\phi](1)}[g^{(1)},\phi^{(1)}] & = 0, \qquad & r>0\end{aligned}$$ where $E^{[g](1)}_{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi](1)}$ denote the linearizations of $E^{[g]}_{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi]}$, respectively, off of the background $\{g^{(0)},\phi^{(0)}\}$. Since the field equations are second order in $g_{ab}$ and in $\phi$, the linear operators $E^{[g](1)}_{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi](1)}$ are also second order in $g^{(1)}_{ab}$ and $\phi^{(1)}$. Thus, as in the case of pure gravity, the “$1/r$ behavior” of equations and implies via the analysis of appendix \[sec:calc\] that, distributionally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Eg1}
E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu}[g^{(1)},\phi^{(1)}] & = N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i) \\
E^{[\phi](1)}[g^{(1)},\phi^{(1)}] & = N^{[\phi]}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i),\label{eq:Ephi1}\end{aligned}$$ for some $N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}$ and $N^{[\phi]}$. As discussed above, a non-zero value of $E^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}$ would normally be interpreted as a matter stress-energy source, whereas a non-zero value of $E^{[\phi]}$ would be interpreted as a scalar charge density source. Thus, despite the fact that no matter stress-energy or scalar charge density was considered, distributional descriptions of both have arisen effectively in perturbation theory. We can take advantage of this remarkable occurence, as before, by using the “Bianchi identity” for the theory. That is, since the linearization of equation , $\nabla^\mu E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu} = - 1/2 E^{[\phi](1)} \nabla_\nu \phi^{(0)}$, holds as an identity on all sufficiently smooth $\{g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu},\phi^{(1)}\}$, it must hold as an identity on distributions as well. Thus we must have $$\label{eq:es-bianchi2}
\nabla^\mu \left( N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu} \delta^{(3)}(x^i) \right) = - \frac{1}{2} N^{[\phi]} \delta^{(3)}(x^i) \nabla_\nu \phi^{(0)}$$ in the distributional sense. Here $\nabla_a$ is the derivative operator associated with the background metric $g^{(0)}_{ab}$. Adopting Fermi normal coordinates as before, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N^{[g]}_{00} + a_i N^{[g]}_{i0} + \frac{1}{2} N^{[\phi]} \partial_0 \phi^{(0)} \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N^{[g]}_{i0} \right] \\
0 & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N^{[g]}_{0i} + a_j N^{[g]}_{ij} + a_i N^{[g]}_{00} + \frac{1}{2} N^{[\phi]} \partial_i \phi^{(0)} \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N^{[g]}_{ij} \right],\end{aligned}$$ from which we determine $N^{[g]}_{i\mu} = 0$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 N^{[g]}_{00} & = \frac{1}{2} N^{[\phi]} \partial_0 \phi^{(0)}|_{x^i=0} \label{eq:eom-m-coord} \\ N^{[g]}_{00} a_i & = - \frac{1}{2} N^{[\phi]} \partial_i \phi^{(0)}|_{x^i=0}. \label{eq:eom-gamma-coord}\end{aligned}$$ We can interpret $N^{[g]}_{00}(t)$ and $N^{[\phi]}(t)$ as follows. The formula for $E^{[g]}_{ab}$, equation , demonstrates that the linearization, $E^{[g](1)}_{ab}$ will depend on second-derivatives of $g^{(1)}_{ab}$ only through the linearized Einstein tensor $G^{(1)}_{ab}$, and will contain no second-derivatives of $\phi^{(1)}$. Therefore, the identical arguments from the case of pure gravity carry over, and we have $(1/4\pi)N^{[g]}_{00}=c_{00}=2M$, where $M$ is the mass[^5] of the body exterior metric at time $t_0=t$. Similarly, from the properties of the stationary, flat-spacetime Klein-Gordon equation in global inertial coordinates with delta-function source (i.e., the Green’s function for the Poisson equation), we have $N^{[\phi]}=-16 \pi c^{[\phi]}$; and since $c^{[\phi]}$ is the coefficient of $1/\bar{r}$ in equation , it is in fact just the *scalar charge* $q$ of the body exterior scalar field $\bar{\phi}^{(0)}$; therefore we take $N^{[\phi]}=- 16 \pi q$.
Incorporating $M$ and $q$ and rewriting equations (\[eq:Eg1\]-\[eq:Ephi1\]) and (\[eq:eom-m-coord\]-\[eq:eom-gamma-coord\]) in covariant[^6] form, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E^{[g](1)}_{ab} & = 8 \pi \int_\gamma M u_a u_b \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau \label{eq:E1ab}\\
E^{[\phi](1)} & = - 16 \pi \int_\gamma q \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau , \label{eq:E1}\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
M u^b \nabla_b u^a & = q \left( g^{ab} + u^a u^b \right) \nabla_b \phi^{(0)} \label{eq:eom-gamma} \\
u^a \nabla_a M & = - q u^a \nabla_a \phi^{(0)}, \label{eq:eom-m}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_a\phi^{(0)}$ is evaluated on $\gamma$. Equations and give the metric and scalar perturbations produced by the body, showing that they are in fact sourced by the usual point charge stress-energy and scalar charge density [@quinn; @poisson]. Equations and give the worldline and mass evolution, and agree with the equations normally given for scalar charges [@quinn; @poisson]. Note that the charge $q$ is unconstrained; a separate postulate about the body—such as constant charge or some other evolution law for $q$—is required to obtain a deterministic set of equations. (Since there is no “conservation law” for $q$, the body can modify it via internal dynamics at will.) Thus the possible motions small bodies in Einstein-scalar theory are specified by one free function of time. Equations (\[eq:E1ab\]-\[eq:eom-m\]) give the universal behavior of small bodies in Einstein-scalar theory and comprise the results of this subsection.
More General Scalar-Tensor Theories
-----------------------------------
The analysis of the preceeding subsection carries over straightforwardly to many more general scalar-tensor theories. In fact, the analysis *already applies* to the majority of scalar-tensor theories commonly considered, since these theories have an “Einstein frame” (i.e., a field redefinition) in which the matterless Lagrangian (all we ever consider) reduces precisely to equation . However, suppose that a “Jordan frame” derivation is desired, or that one considers a scalar-tensor theory with no Einstein frame. In fact, the analysis still carries over to these cases with essentially no modification. Specifically, consider an action $$\label{eq:scalar-action}
S = \int d^4x \mathcal{L}(g^{ab},\phi)$$ such that $\mathcal{L}(g^{ab},\phi)$ is diffomorphism-covariant[^7] and such that ${E}^{[g]}_{ab} \equiv (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta g^{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi]} \equiv (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta \phi$ are second-order (local) differential operators on $\{ g_{ab}, \phi \}$. The Bianchi identity is again given by equation , where now ${E}^{[g]}_{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi]}$ refer to the new action . Now adopt the same assumptions for the one-parameter-family $\{ g_{ab}(\lambda), \phi(\lambda) \}$, leading to equations (\[eq:phi0\]-\[eq:phibar0\]). Since ${E}^{[g]}_{ab}$ and $E^{[\phi]}$ are assumed second-order, the analysis of appendix \[sec:calc\] again gives the effective distributional sources, equations and . Finally, identical computations based on the linearized distributional Bianchi identity in Fermi normal coordinates give equations and (as well as $N^{[g]}_{i \mu}=0$).
At this point in the treatment of Einstein-scalar theory the parameters $N^{[g]}_{00}$ and $N^{[\phi]}$ appearing in equations and were interpreted via an analysis of the specific field equations for Einstein-scalar theory, where it was found that $N^{[g]}_{00} = 4 \pi c_{00} = 8 \pi M$ and $N^{[\phi]}=-16\pi c^{[\phi]} = -16 \pi q$, where $M$ and $q$ are the conventional notions of mass and charge. For a general theory, the relationship between $\{ N^{[g]}_{00}(t), N^{[\phi]}(t) \}$ and $\{ c_{\mu \nu}(t,\theta,\phi), c^{[\phi]}(t,\theta,\phi) \}$ will depend on the details of the field equations and will in general be more complicated; furthermore, there may not be standard notions of mass and charge available. I will simply *define* “mass” $M=1/8\pi N^{[g]}_{00}$ and “charge” $q = -1/16\pi N^{[\phi]}$ for a general scalar-tensor theory. For any particular theory, one may determine a formula for $M$ and $q$ in terms of $c_{\mu \nu}$ and $c^{[\phi]}$, enabling the calculation of $M$ and $q$ for a particular body from its exterior field via the appearance of $c_{\mu \nu}$ and $c^{[\phi]}$ in equations and . With $M$ and $q$ incorporated, the results for a general a general scalar-tensor theory are (\[eq:E1ab\]-\[eq:eom-m\]).
Note that one can easily consider theories with multiple scalar fields as well. That is, suppose that the Lagrangian of depends on a whole collection of scalar fields ${\phi_I}$. The assumptions are then made for each $\phi_I$, and the steps of the derivation proceed apace, with copies of equations for each $\phi_I$ as well as sums over $I$ where appropriate. For example, the right-hand-sides of , , , and become sums with one term for each $\phi_I$, while equations (\[eq:phi0\]-\[eq:Ephi1\]) and are copied for each $\phi_I$. Thus the results are that there is a charge $q^I$ associated with each scalar field, and that the force on a body is the sum of the ordinary scalar force from each $\phi_I$ (and likewise for the mass evolution). Note that if one adopts the additional assumption on the field equations for a particular $\phi_I$ that $q^I=0$ for all bodies (i.e., that bodies do not “produce” this field), then the field $\phi_I$ has the interpretation of being “non-interacting” (except by gravity) and does not appear in the force law. One can add “matter fields” to a theory in this way.
Of course, it is not at all obvious that our assumptions—argued for in the specific context of Einstein-scalar theory (equivalently “Einstein frame” scalar-tensor theory)—will remain reasonable for a general theory of the form . I now give some examples of more general theories in which the assumptions do appear to remain reasonable—that is, in which one still expects families of solutions smooth in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to exist. The first example is the Einstein-massive-scalar theory, formed by the addition of a mass term to equation , giving the Lagrangian[^8] $$\label{eq:ems-action}
\mathcal{L} = \sqrt{-g} \left[ R - 2 \left( g^{ab} \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi + \ell^{-2} \phi^2 \right) \right].$$ In this case, rather than the Coulomb potential family $\lambda/r$, the example to keep in mind is the Yukawa potential family $(\lambda/r) e^{-r/\ell}$. Despite falling off faster than any power of $1/r$ at fixed $\lambda$, the Yukawa potential family is indeed smooth in $\alpha$ and $\beta$; it is simply $\beta e^{-\alpha/\ell}$. Therefore, the addition of the mass term does not appear to pose any obstacle to smoothness in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Notice that the scaled limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ gives $\beta = 1/\bar{r}$, reflecting appropriate body-like falloff in the “buffer zone”, even though this falloff does not occur at fixed $\lambda$.
A second, more complicated example concerns so-called “chameleon” theories [@khoury-weltman], in which non-linear effects, as well as non-minimal coupling to matter, cause a body’s exterior scalar field—and hence its inferred scalar charge—to depend on the local density of matter.[^9] Although no exact solutions with chameleon behavior are known, approximate solutions that have been compared to numerical solutions [@khoury-weltman] show that the exterior field of an isolated body is Yukawa if the ambient density is constant (as expected from the linearization of the scalar field equation). Since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ near $(0,0)$ refers precisely to the “buffer zone” where the density of the external universe would be approximately constant, it seems reasonable to expect smoothness to hold here. In fact, this type of argument should work for any theory with a standard kinetic term, since linearization in the body exterior will give Yukawa.
The equations of motion for screened bodies in chameleon theory were previously investigated by Hui, Nicolis, and Stubbs [@hui-nicolis-stubbs], who obtained the non-relativistic limit of via a variant of the original Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman approach. We have rigorously derived the full behavior of chameleon bodies, and , with no non-relativistic approximations. For a Newtonian body with the scalar field coupling usually [@khoury-weltman] considered, the scalar charge $q$ corresponds the body’s “screened mass”. That is, one has a relationship $q=q(M,\phi^{(0)})$, providing deterministic evolution. However, it seems unlikely that any such universal relationship will exist for strong-field bodies. The evolution of the scalar chage $q$ would have to be determined by other methods in order to take advantage of and for strong-field bodies.
Scaling and Universality {#subsec:examples}
------------------------
In this subsection I digress to point out a connection between scaling and universality that arises in this work. Returning to the example of Einstein-massive-scalar , recall that the Yukawa potential example family $\beta e^{-\alpha / \ell}$ had the scaled limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ of $\beta = 1/\bar{r}$, which is not the Yukawa potential but the Coulomb potential. The fact that the scaled limit gives a field configuration that is not a solution of the theory can be traced to the theory’s lack of *scale invariance* (see appendix \[sec:scale\]). In particular, the Lagrangian does not scale homogeneously under the rescalings $g_{ab} \rightarrow \lambda^2 g_{ab}$ and $\phi \rightarrow \phi$. Rather, if one rewrites in terms of the barred metric and scalar field, one has $$\mathcal{L} = \lambda^2 \sqrt{-\bar{g}} \left[ R - 2 \left( \bar{g}^{ab} \nabla_a \bar{\phi} \nabla_b \bar{\phi} + \lambda^2 \ell^{-2} \bar{\phi}^2 \right) \right],$$ where $R$ is now constructed from $\bar{g}_{ab}$. Since the mass term disappears in the $\lambda \rightarrow 0$ limit, the equations satisfied by $\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}^{(0)}$ and $\bar{\phi}^{(0)}$ are the *massless* Einstein-scalar field equations (a fact easily verified at the level of the equations of motion). This explains the appearance of the Coulomb potential in the scaled limit of the Yukawa potential example family.
The fact that the body exterior fields $\bar{g}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}}^{(0)}$ and $\bar{\phi}^{(0)}$ satisfy the massless equations is an indication that our results apply only in situations where the mass term can be neglected in the buffer zone outside a body. Thus in particular our assumptions require that the body be small compared to $\ell$. However, this requirement is not suprising or in any sense additional to the basic requirement of the existence of a buffer zone. Because the scale of variation of solutions to the massive Klein-Gordin equation is rigidly fixed by $\ell$ (in that derivatives[^10] of $\phi$ are of order $\phi/\ell$), the usual requirement that the body be small compared to the scale of variation of the external fields in fact implies that the body be small compared with $\ell$. This implication is conveniently captured in the mathematics of the scaled limit.
In a general theory (including the higher-rank theories discussed later) the story will be analogous: by construction, the scaled limit picks out a scale-invariant “subtheory,” which must describe the body exterior field approximately for our results to be useful. Thus one obtains universal behavior only in the presence of scale-invariance, a situation reminiscent of well-known connections between scaling and universality in condensed matter and particle physics. Note, however, that the field near the body is not required to be described by a scale-invariant theory; our assumptions only refer to $\bar{r} \geq \bar{R}$, and furthermore the results depend only on $\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$ properties of the body exterior fields. Scale-invariance appears only in the buffer zone; scale-non-invariant effects (such as “chameleon effects” or those due matter fields) are always allowed to act near the body.
Vector-tensor theories {#sec:vector}
======================
Vector-tensor theories, the most famous of which is Einstein-Maxwell theory, form another important class of classical field theories. Here the Lagrangian depends on the metric tensor and a vector field $A^a$, $$\label{eq:vector-action}
S = \int d^4x \mathcal{L}(g^{ab},A_a).$$ As in the scalar case we assume that the Lagrangian is diffeomorphism-covariant and the field equation operators $E^{[g]}_{ab} \equiv (-g)^{1/2} \delta S / \delta g^{ab}$ and $E^{[A]a} \equiv (-g)^{1/2} \delta S / \delta A_a$ are second order (local) differential operators. A useful example to keep in mind is Einstein-Maxwell theory, where (with the normalization of [@wald]) one has $E^{[g]}_{ab} = G_{ab}-8\pi T^{EM}_{ab}$ and $E^{[A]a}=-8 \nabla_a \nabla^{[a} A^{b]}$. Next we derive the Bianchi identity for a vector theory. Varying with repsect to an infinitessimal diffeomorphism, we have $$0 = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left\{ E^{[g]}_{ab} (-2\nabla^a \xi^b) + E^{[A]a}\left( \xi^c \nabla_c A_a + A_c \nabla_a \xi^c \right) \right\},$$ for a vector field $\xi^a$. After integration by parts, the fact that $\xi^a$ is abitrary gives $$\label{eq:vector-bianchi}
\nabla^a E^{[g]}_{ab} = E^{[A]a}\nabla_{[a}A_{b]} + \frac{1}{2} \nabla_a E^{[A]a} A_b .$$ As in the scalar case, this identity describes how any “extra” stress-energy $E^{[g]}_{ab}$ must be non-conserved in the presence of any “extra” charge-current $E^{[A]a}$ for consistent coupling. Note that this identity may also be derived by varying with respect to the upper-index $A^a$. (However, the appearance will be different when expressed in terms of $(-g)^{1/2} \delta S / \delta g^{ab}$ computed at fixed $A^a$, since this quantitity differs from $E^{[g]}_{ab}$ (computed at fixed $A_a$) by terms proportional to $E^{[A]a}$.) We restrict without loss of generality to a lowered-index dynamical variable in this section.
An important special case of vector theories are those whose Lagrangian posesses the Maxwell gauge symmetry $A_a \rightarrow A_a + \nabla_a \psi$. In this case an anlogous calculation gives $\nabla_a E^{[A]a}=0$ as an identity (describing the requirement that any “extra” charge-current be conserved). Thus for theories with the gauge symmetry we have two identities, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^a E^{[g]}_{ab} & = E^{[A]a}\nabla_{[a}A_{b]} \label{eq:spin1-bianchi} \\
\nabla_a E^{[A]a} & = 0. \label{eq:spin1-charge}\end{aligned}$$
The assumptions for a vector field can be motivated by considering the example of Einstein-Maxwell theory. Analogously to the scalar case, the sort of behavior we desire is the represented by the Coulomb field family $A_0 \sim \lambda/r$. To characterize this type of behavior with a scaled limt, we must define $\bar{A}_a=\lambda^{-1} A_a$, so that the scaled limit recovers the Coulomb field $\bar{A}_{\bar{0}} \sim 1/\bar{r}$. This is also the scaling of $A_a$ that leaves the Einstein-Maxwell theory invariant. The analog of for the components of the vector potential now holds, leading again to our assumptions for each component $A_\mu$ in the coordinates $(t,x^i)$. Note that our assumptions are on especially strong footing in ordinary electromagnetism, since they were in fact *shown* to hold for the retarded solution of a family of shrinking charge-current and stress-energy sources in flat spacetime [@gralla-harte-wald]. I will make these assumptions for a general theory of the form .
Therefore the assumptions for this section are the original assumptions of section \[sec:GR\], with the metric components replaced by the pair $\{g_{\mu \nu},A_{\mu}\}$, which must satisfy $E^{[g]}_{ab}=0$ and $E^{[A]a}=0$ instead of Einstein’s equation. The computation of the small body equations of motion proceeds in precise analogy with the scalar case of section \[sec:scalar\]. That is, define $A^{(0)}_\mu\equiv A_\mu(\lambda=0)$, $A^{(1)}_\mu \equiv \partial_\lambda A_\mu(\lambda)|_{\lambda=0}$, and $\bar{A}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu}}\equiv \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \bar{A}_{\bar{\mu}}(\lambda)$ (limit at fixed $\bar{x}^\mu$). Then the assumptions give series expansions, $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(0)}_\mu & = b^{[A]}_\mu(t) + O(r) \label{eq:A0}\\
A^{(1)}_{\mu} & = c^{[A]}_\mu(t,\theta,\phi)\frac{1}{r} + O(1) \label{eq:A1}\\
\bar{A}^{(0)} & = b^{[A]}_\mu(t_0) + c^{[A]}_{\mu}(t_0,\theta,\phi) \frac{1}{\bar{r}} + O \left( \frac{1}{\bar{r}^2}\right), \label{eq:Abar0}\end{aligned}$$ for some $b^{[A]}_\mu$ and $c^{[A]}_\mu$. The body exterior vector field $\bar{A}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu}}$ is seen to be stationary and asymptotically flat, confirming its interpretation. Again one finds the effective distributional sources at linear order, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Eg1A}
E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu}[g^{(1)},A^{(1)}] & = N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i) \\
E^{[A](1)\mu}[g^{(1)},A^{(1)}] & = N^{[A]\mu}(t) \delta^{(3)}(x^i),\label{eq:EA1}\end{aligned}$$ where $E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu}$ and $E^{[A](1)\mu}$ are the linearizations of $E^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}$ and $E^{[A]\mu}$, respectively, off of the background $\{ g^{(0)}_{\mu \nu},A^{(0)}_{\mu}\}$. At this point it makes sense to treat separately those theories with the Maxwell gauge symmetry and those without. For those with the symmetry, we have the identities and . Employing as usual the linearized, distributional forms of these identities in Fermi normal coordinates, we find $N^{[g]}_{i0}=N^{[g]}_{ij}=N^{[A]}_i=0$ as well as $\partial_0 N^{[g]}_{00} = \partial_0 N^{[A]}_0 = 0$ and $M a_i = N^{[A]0} \partial_{[0}A^{(0)}_{i]}$. As usual $N^{[g]}_{00}$ and $N^{[A]}_0$ may be interpreted by their appearance in the body exterior metric and vector field. In the Einstein-Maxwell case discussed above one sees that the usual notions of mass $M$ and charge $q$ are related by $N^{[A]0}=16 \pi q$ and $N^{[g]}_{00}=8 \pi M$. We use this to define $q$ and $M$ for a general theory with Maxwell gauge invariance, and rewrite the results covariantly to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E^{[g](1)}_{ab} & = 8 \pi M \int_\gamma u_a u_b \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau \label{eq:E1abA}\\
E^{[A](1)a} & = 16 \pi q \int_\gamma u^a \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau , \label{eq:E1A}\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
M u^b \nabla_b u_a & = q u^b (2 \nabla_{[a}A^{(0)}_{b]}), \label{eq:lorentz}\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ and $M$ are constants. Thus for theories with the Maxwell gauge symmetry we have the usual point particle stress-energy and charge-current, along with the Lorentz force law. For theories without the gauge symmetry, however, the situation is more complicated. In this case we only have the single identity , and the Fermi coordinate calculation now gives $$\begin{aligned}
N^{[g]}_{i\mu} & = \frac{1}{2} N^{[A]}_{\ \ \ i} A^{(0)}_\mu \label{eq:c1} \\
\partial_0 N^{[g]}_{00} & = -N^{[A]\mu} \partial_{[\mu}A^{(0)}_{0]} + \frac{1}{2}A^{(0)}_0 \partial_0 N^{[A]}_{\ \ \ 0} \label{eq:c2} \\
N^{[g]}_{00} a_i & = N^{[A]\mu} \partial_{[\mu}A^{(0)}_{i]} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_0(N^{[A]}_i A^{(0)}_0)-\frac{1}{2}A^{(0)}_i \partial_0 N^{[A]}_0. \label{eq:c3}\end{aligned}$$ Since we no longer have $N^{[g]}_{i0}=N^{[g]}_{ij}=N^{[A]}_i=0$, the parameters $q$ and $M$ no longer suffice to characterize the body. In light of equation , which requires $N^{[A]}_{ \ \ \ i}$ to point along $A^{(0)}_i$, it seems simplest to introduce a second charge $\hat{q}$ by $N^{[A]}_{\ \ \ i}=16 \pi \hat{q} A^{(0)}_i$. Then the results are rewritten covariantly as $$\begin{aligned}
E^{[g](1)}_{ab} & = 8 \pi \int_\gamma \left( M u_a u_b + 4 \hat{q} P^c_{\ (a}A_{b)} A^{(0)}_c \right) \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau \label{eq:p1}\\
E^{[A](1)a} & = 16 \pi \int_\gamma \left( q u^a + \hat{q} P^{ab} A^{(0)}_b\right) \delta_4(x,z(\tau)) d\tau \label{eq:p2} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left( M - \hat{q}(A^c A_c)^2 \right) u^a \nabla_a u_b & = 2 (q - \hat{q} A^c u_c ) \nabla_{[b}A_{a]} u^a \nonumber \\
& \quad + P^a_{\ \ b} \left\{ 2 \hat{q} A^c\nabla_{[c} A_{a]} + u^c \nabla_c \left( \hat{q} A_d u^d A_a \right) - A_a u^c \nabla_c q \right\} \label{eq:p3} \\
u^a \nabla_a M & = -\hat{q} A^a u^b(2 \nabla_{[a}A_{b]}) + u^a A_a u^b\nabla_b q, \label{eq:p4}\end{aligned}$$ where $P^a_{\ b} \equiv \delta^a_{\ b} - u^a u_b$ projects orthogonally to $u^a$, and the superscript $(0)$ on $A^{(0)}_a$ has been dropped in the last two equations for readability. Thus for theories without the gauge symmetry the usual point particle stress-energy and charge-current are *not* obtained (in that the distributional forms are not parallel to $u^a$), the Lorentz force law is *not* the correct force law, and the particle is described by a time-dependent mass $M$ as well and two charges $q$ and $\hat{q}$, neither of which has an evolution law (just as there was no law for the scalar charge in scalar-tensor theory). An example of a commonly studied theory to which these equations apply is Einstein-Proca theory. Of course, in most references Proca lagrangian is coupled to matter via an interaction term that by itself has the gauge symmetry, so that solutions to the Proca-matter system respect charge conservation (but charge conservation does *not* hold as an identity). If one restricts to such matter, presumably one would have $\hat{q}=0$ and $u^a \nabla_a q = 0$ for bodies made of that matter, whence the usual particle equations of electromagnetism (\[eq:E1abA\]-\[eq:lorentz\]) would be recovered. However, it is not clear that there is reason for matter to conserve charge in a vector theory beyond the fact that it is required in the most familiar vector theory. It should be emphasized that the Proca theory (and others without the gauge symmetry) admit far more general behavior in the motion of bodies than does ordinary electromagnetism. This general behavior would give the motion of any matter that did not conserve charge, as well as the motion of any non-matter objects (such as black holes or “geons”) that might exist in the theory.
Note finally that the analysis of this section can be straightforwardly generalized to the case of multiple vector fields (or even multiple vector and scalar fields) in the manner discussed in section \[sec:scalar\] for scalar-tensor theory. In this case one simply obtains copies of equations and for each field, and the right-hand-sides of and are copied for each field to form a sum. If any of the fields have Maxwell gauge-invariance, of course, the simpler terms from equations (\[eq:E1abA\]-\[eq:lorentz\]) may be used for that field. There may also be different gauge symmetries that provide different simplification. An important example is non-Abelian gauge theory, where the charges respect “gauge covariant” conservation. More precisely, if we label the set of vector fields by $A_a^I$ and their field equation operators by $E^{Ia} \equiv (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta A_a^I$ (using capital latin indices for “gauge indices”) then the gauge symmetry of the Lagrangian gives $\nabla_a E^{Ka} = \sum_{I,J} f^{IJK} E^{Ia} A^J_a $ as an identity, where $f^{IJK}$ are the structure constants as defined in [@peskin-schroeder] (anti-symmetric on the first two indices). The usual Fermi normal coordinate calculation on this identity implies that the “hatted charge” vanishes for each body and gives an evolution law for the charges $q^I$. The small body equations of motion are then $$\begin{aligned}
M u^b \nabla_b u_a & = \sum_I q^I (2 \nabla_{[a}A^I_{b]}) u^b \\
u^a \nabla_a M & = \sum_{I,J,K} f^{IJK} q^I A^J_a A^K_b u^a u^b \\
u^a \nabla_a q^K & = \sum_{I,J} f^{IJK} q^I A^J_a u^a .\end{aligned}$$ The evolution is now fully deterministic on account of the extra symmetry of the Lagrangian. Note that if the structure constants are totally anti-symmetric, then $M$ is constant and these reduce to “Wong’s equations” [@wong].
The General Case {#sec:general}
================
The procedure used for scalar and vector fields generalizes straightforwardly to higher-rank tensor fields. Here we motivate the scaling by analogy with the scalings used before. The scalings used for the metric, scalar, and vector fields were all such that the power of $\lambda$ cancelled powers of $\lambda$ resulting from the Jacobian of the coordinate transformation to scaled coordinates, allowing and its scalar and vector analogs to hold. For a general-rank tensor field $T^{a_1 \dots a_n}_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ b_1 \dots b_m}$, I define the scaled version $\bar{T}^{a_1 \dots a_n}_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ b_1 \dots b_m} = \lambda^{n-m} T^{a_1 \dots a_n}_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ b_1 \dots b_m}$ so that the analog of holds. Then the usual reasoning leads to the usual assumptions for each component of the tensor field, and one proceeds exactly as in the previous sections. I will summarize this procedure in the form of a proof of a theorem, below. It is straightforward to follow the steps to determine the force law for any theory of particular interest (although higher-rank fields are more seldom considered).
Let $S$ be an action in four spacetime dimensions in the sense of appendix E of Wald [@wald] such that 1) the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ depends differomorphsim-covariantly on the metric $g_{ab}$ and some set of tensor fields $\{\psi_I\}$ (tensor indices suppressed), i.e., $\phi^*\mathcal{L}(g_{ab},\psi_I) = \mathcal{L}(\phi^*g_{ab},\phi^*\psi_I)$ is satisfied for diffeomorphisms $\phi$; and 2) $E^{[g]}_{ab} = (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta g^{ab}$ and $E^I = (-g)^{-1/2} \delta S / \delta \psi_I$ are (local) second-order differential operators on $\{g_{ab},\psi_I\}$. Suppose there exists a one-parameter-family $\{g_{ab}(\lambda),\psi_I(\lambda)\}$ satisfying the analogs of the assumptions of section \[sec:GR\].[^11] Then, the worldline $\gamma$ (four-velocity $u^a$ and four-acceleration $a^a$) and a certain function $M$ defined on $\gamma$ satisfy equations of the form $M a^a=f^a$ and $u^a \nabla_a M = F$, where $f^a u_a=0$ and both $f^a$ and $F$ are local tensor functions of $u^a$, $a^a$, $g_{ab}(0)|_\gamma$, $\psi_I(0)|_\gamma$, $\nabla (\psi_I(0))|_\gamma$, and certain tensor fields $q^I$ defined on $\gamma$.
The proof is essentially to follow the steps of the previous sections. Since these steps are by now familiar, I will omit some details in the description here (allowing considerable savings on notation). Begin by varying $S$ with respect to an infinitessimal diffeomorphism to derive the “Bianchi identity”. This results in an expression of the form $$\label{eq:general-bianchi}
\nabla^a E^{[g]}_{ab} = \sum_I \left[ \left( E^I \odot \nabla \psi_I \right)_b + \left( \nabla E^I \odot \psi_I \right)_b \right]$$ where the notation $\left( A \odot B \right)_a$ indicates a sum of terms, each of which consists of the tensor product of $A$ and $B$ contracted in some way to yield a dual vector. Note that the explicit form for an arbitrary-rank tensor field was worked out in [@seifert-wald]. Now derive the effective point particle description. By assumption iii), the components of $g^{(1)}_{ab}$ and $\psi^{(1)}_I$ are $O(1/r)$ ($r$ near zero). By the assumption of second-order field equations and the analysis of appendix \[sec:calc\], the components of $E^{[g](1)}_{ab}$ and $E^{I(1)}$ as distributions are multiples of $\delta^3(x^i)$; take the coefficients to be $N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu}(t)$ and $N^I(t)$ (component indices suppressed), respectively. Now apply the linearized, distributional form of equation . By satisfaction of the background field equations ($E^{(0)}_{ab}=E^{I(0)}=0$), this identity takes the form $$\nabla^\mu E^{[g](1)}_{\mu \nu} = \sum_I \left[ \left( E^{I(1)} \odot \nabla \psi^{(0)}_I \right)_\nu + \left( \nabla E^{I(1)} \odot \psi^{(0)}_I \right)_\nu \right] ,$$ where here and below $\nabla$ is the derivative operator associated with the background metric. We then have $$\nabla^\mu N^{[g]}_{\mu \nu} = \sum_I \left[ \left( N^{I} \odot \nabla \psi^{(0)}_I|_\gamma \right)_\nu + \left( \nabla N^{I} \odot \psi^{(0)}_I|_\gamma \right)_\nu \right].$$ Adopting Fermi normal coordinates, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N_{00} + a_i N_{i0} - \mathcal{F} \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N_{i0} - \mathcal{G}_i \right] & = 0 \label{eq:FG} \\
\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})\left[ - \partial_0 N_{0i} + a_j N_{ij} + a_i N_{00} - \mathcal{H}_i \right] + \partial_i \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}) \left[ N_{ij} - \mathcal{K}_{ij} \right] & = 0, \label{eq:HK}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{G}_i$, $\mathcal{H}_i$, and $\mathcal{K}_{ij}$ are local functions of $N^I$, $\psi^{(0)}_I|_\gamma$, $\partial \psi^{(0)}_I|_\gamma$, $a_i$. Naming $N_{00}=M$, it now follows from and that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 M & = a_i \mathcal{G}_i + \mathcal{F} \label{eq:mass} \\
M a_i & = \partial_0 \mathcal{G}_i - a_j \mathcal{K}_{ij} + \mathcal{H}_i .\label{eq:accel} \end{aligned}$$ These are the small-body equations of motion for the theory (expressed in Fermi normal coordinates). It is straightforward to determine the functions $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{G}_i$, $\mathcal{H}_i$, and $\mathcal{K}_{ij}$ by direct calculation for the theory in question (or even the general case; however, the expression is not simple). It is also straightforward to relate the parameters $M$ and $N^I$ to the body exterior configuration $\{\bar{g}^{(0)}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\nu}},\bar{\psi}^{(0)}_i\}$ for each particular theory (as done in previous sections), enabling their calculation for any particular body. The covariant translation of equations and proves the theorem.
The theorem establishes that a simplified description of motion (in the form of a second-order equation for $\gamma$)[^12] is obtained via buffer-zone dynamics in a very large class of theories. It is interesting to speculate on the extent to which the class of theories could be enlarged. The requirement of second-order field equations seems easiest to relax, since higher-order equations would lead only to higher-order delta functions (i.e., derivatives of delta functions) appearing in the effective stress-energy, whence our calculations could proceed striaghtforwardly. However, it is far from obvious that our assumptions on one-parameter-families would remain reasonable in the context of higher-order theories, whose solutions may have very different properties.[^13] The requirement of a diffeomorphism covariant Lagrangian appears difficult if not impossible to relax, since the Bianchi identity plays an essential role in determining the motion. At least in our approach, the diffemorphism-symmetry and Lagrangian formulation are key to obtaining a description of motion from the buffer-zone field equations alone.
Summary
=======
I have treated the motion of small bodies in classical field theory via the approach of [@gralla-wald]. The search for one-parameter-families of solutions representing the exterior field of a shrinking body led precisely to the physical assumption of a “buffer zone”—a region far enough from the body that its field can be approximated in a multipole series, but close enough to the body that the field of the external universe can be approximated in an ordinary Taylor series. No assumptions about the body interior are made. In the case of second-order metric-based theories following from a diffeomorphism-covariant Lagrangian, I derived the force law for scalar and vector fields, and showed that the method works in the general-rank case. This provides a rigorous derivation of the small-body force law in many classical field theories commonly considered, and shows that that field dynamics outside a body determines its motion in a very general class of theories.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I wish to thank Wayne Hu, Fabian Schmidt, Michael Seifert and especially Bob Wald for very helpful conversations. This research was supported in part by NSF grants PHY04-56619 and PHY08-54807 to the University of Chicago.
Delta-function Calculation {#sec:calc}
==========================
Consider a linear, second-order differential operator $L$ that takes tensors $\phi^{a_1...a_n}$ of rank $n$ into tensors $(L\phi)^{b_1...b_m}$ of rank $m$. The adjoint $L^\dagger$ is the linear map from tensors of rank $m$ to tensors of rank $n$ defined by [@wald-prl] $$\label{eq:adjoint}
\psi^{b_1...b_m} (L \phi)_{b_1...b_m} - (L^\dagger \psi)^{a_1...a_n} \phi_{a_1...a_n} = \nabla_c s^c$$ for arbitrary $\psi$ and $\phi$. The vector $s^c$ is a multilinear function of $\phi^{a_1...a_n} \nabla_c \psi^{b_1...b_n}$, $\psi^{b_1...b_n} \nabla_c \phi^{a_1...a_n}$, and $\phi^{a_1...a_n}\psi^{b_1...b_n}$. We now promote $L$ to an operator on distributions in the standard way. That is, we define a distributional operator $\hat{L}$ by $$\label{eq:Lhat}
(\hat{L}\phi)[f] \equiv \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} (L^\dagger f)^{a_1...a_n}\phi_{a_1...a_n}$$ for smooth test tensors $f^{b_1...b_m}$ of compact support. Now suppose that the metric and $\phi$-field have the following expressions in coordinates $(t,x^i)$, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu \nu} & = \eta_{\mu \nu} + O(r) \label{eq:gform} \\
\phi^{\mu_1...\mu_n} & = \frac{1}{r}C^{\mu_1...\mu_n}(t,\theta,\phi) + O(r^0), \label{eq:phiform}\end{aligned}$$ and further that $\phi^{\mu_1...\mu_n}$ solves the equation at $r>0$, i.e., that we have $$\label{eq:soln}
(L \phi)^{\nu_1...\nu_m} = 0, \ \ \ r>0 .$$ Here $r,\theta,\phi$ are related to $x^i$ in the usual way. The distribution $(\hat{L} \phi)^{\nu_1...\nu_m}$ may be computed by $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{L}\phi)[f] & = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{\epsilon>0} d^4x \sqrt{-g} (L^\dagger f)^{\mu_1...\mu_n}\phi_{\mu_1...\mu_n} \\
& = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{\epsilon>0} d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left\{ f^{\nu_m...\nu_m} (L \phi)_{\nu_1...\nu_m} + \nabla_\rho s^\rho \right\} \\
& = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{r=\epsilon} r^2 \sin \theta d\theta d\phi dt \ n_\rho s^\rho,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_\rho$ is the unit normal to the unit two-sphere in Euclidean three-space, and $s^\rho$ is evaluated on $\phi$ and $f$. The first line follows from and the smoothess of $f^{\mu_1...\mu_n}$. The second line follows from . The third line follows from and integration by parts, where the boundary term vanishes by the compact support of $f^{\mu_1...\mu_n}$. The volume element on the surface $r=\epsilon$ has been replaced with the Minkowski volume element on account of the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and the metric form . (Note that if different coordinates were chosen such that the metric is not Minkowski at $r=0$, the volume element would take a different form, but it is easy to check that the analysis would still hold.) Now, equation together with the properties of $s^a$ imply that $s^\rho$ may be written $$s^\rho=\frac{1}{r^2} D^{\rho \nu_1...\nu_m}(t,\theta,\phi)f_{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t,r,\theta,\phi) + O(1/r)$$ for some $D^{\rho \nu_1...\nu_m}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{L}\phi)[f] & = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int \sin \theta d\theta d\phi dt \ n_\rho D^{\rho \nu_1...\nu_m}f_{\nu_1...\nu_m}|_{r=\epsilon} \\
& = \int dt f_{\nu_1...\nu_m}|_{r=0} \int \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \ n_\rho D^{\rho \nu_1...\nu_m} \\
& \equiv \int dt N^{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t) f_{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t,x^i=0) \end{aligned}$$ where the second step follows from the smoothness of $f^{\nu_1...\nu_m}$, and the last step simply defines the result of the angular integral to be $N^{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t)$. Since the test function is evaluated at $x^i=0$, this expression shows that distribution $(\hat{L} \phi)^{\nu_1...\nu_m}$ is proportional to the spatial delta function $\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})$; i.e., we have the desird result $$(\hat{L} \phi)^{\nu_1...\nu_m} = N^{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t) \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}).$$ Note that an explicit formula for $N^{\nu_1...\nu_m}(t)$ in terms of $C_{\mu_1...\mu_n}(t,\theta,\phi)$ can be determined for any particular differential operator $L$ by following the steps of this computation explicitly. This formula will in general involve angular integrals of $C_{\mu_1...\mu_n}$ and its first angular derivatives.
Scale Invariance {#sec:scale}
================
In this appendix I provide a definition of scale invariance and compare with other definitions commonly given. Tensor indices are suppressed throughout this section. It is convenient to restrict to theories that follow from a Lagrangian, $$S(g,\psi_I) = \int d^4x \mathcal{L}(g,\psi_I),$$ although the metric need not be dynamical and there may exist other “background structure”. (That is, the Lagrangian is not required to depend diffeomorphism-covariantly on $g$ and $\psi_I$.) The theory is scale invariant if the action scales homogeneously under a scaling of the metric and other fields; more precisely, if exist numbers $\{P_I\}$ and $n$ such that $$S(\lambda^2 g, \lambda^{P_I} \psi) = \lambda^n S(g,\psi_I),$$ for numbers $\lambda$. This property implies that the equations of motion for the rescaled fields are identical to the equations of motion for the original fields, so that there is no preferred scale for lengths (as measured by $g$) or field values ($\phi$) in the theory. The choice of $\lambda^2$ for the scaling of $g$ is conventional, and gives $\lambda$ the interpretation of a length (since the line element scales as $\lambda^2$). Note that our definition of $\bar{g} = \lambda^{-2} g$ in the body of the paper is consistent with this convention of “$g \rightarrow \lambda^2 g$”.
An alternative definition of scale-invariance is often given in the context of theories specified by partial differential equations in coordinates (without the introduction of a metric). In this case one rescales the coordinates $x^\mu \rightarrow \lambda x^\mu$ and asks if a rescaling of the fields can restore the original partial differential equations. Such theories can often be rewritten diffeomorphism-covariantly via the introduction of a flat metric $g_{ab}$. Changing the coordinates of the original partial differential equation then corresponds to applying the diffeomorphism $\sigma$ associated with coordinate rescaling to all fields *except* the metric. That is, to check if a diffeormpism-covariant equation $E[g,\psi_I]=0$ is scale-invariant according to the non-tensorial definition, one asks if $\sigma_*E[g,\psi_I] \stackrel{?}{=} \lambda^n E[g,\lambda^{P_I} \sigma_*\psi_I]$. Applying $\sigma^{-1}$ to both sides and using the diffeomorphism-covariance of $E$, this becomes $E[g,\psi_I] \stackrel{?}{=} \lambda^n E[\sigma^{-1}_{\ \ *}g,\lambda^{P_I}\psi_I]$. But since $g$ is flat, $\sigma^{-1}_{\ \ *}g = \lambda^2 g$, and this reduces to the definition involving rescaling the metric. This is why one says that rescaling the metric is a curved-spacetime generalization of rescaling the coordinates [@hollands-wald].
In the context of quantum field theory a second alternative definition of classical scale-invariance is often given by requiring that the action be left *invariant* under under the rescalings, rather than just scale homogeneously [@CFT]. This corresponds to our definition with the additional demand that $n=0$. Since the overall scaling of the action (i.e., the value of $n$) has no effect on the classical equations of motion, this notion in fact removes as “classically scale-invariant” many classical theories with no preferred scale. For example, vacuum general relativity is scale-invariant in our sense, having no preferred length scale; however, vacuum general relativity is not classically scale invariant according to the definition used in quantum field theory. Another example is massless $\phi^n$ ($n\neq 2$) in flat spacetime (scale-invariant in our sense); only $\phi^4$ is classically scale-invariant in the sense used in quantum field theory.
The difference between the definitions can be further elucidated with reference to the well-known fact that a scale-invariant action contains only coupling constants that are dimensionless in particle physics units ($c=1$, $\hbar=1$, $G \neq 1$). Adopting the viewpoint that masses and lengths are fundamentally different (but that time intervals and lengths are not), it is convenient to work in special relativity units ($c=1$,$\hbar \neq 1$,$G \neq 1$), where the statement of dimensionlessness in particle physics units becomes the property of having equal mass and length dimension, so that in particular one cannot construct a length using $\hbar$ (which has dimensions of mass times length). For example, the constant $\Lambda$ of $\Lambda \phi^4$ has dimensions of mass times length so that no length can be constructed with $\hbar$. On the other hand, the constant $G$ of general relativity has dimensions of mass over length, so that $\hbar$ can be used to construct a length (called the Planck length). While our notion of classical scale-invariance implies that no lengths can be constructed from the coupling constants alone, the quantum field theory notion of classical scale-invariance places the further restriction that no lengths can be constructed even when one is allowed to use $\hbar$ in addition.
[99]{} A. Einstein, L. Infeld and B. Hoffmann, *Annals Math.* **39** 65 (1938). P. D. D’Eath, *Phys. Rev. D* **11** 1387 (1975)\
R. Kates *Phys. Rev. D* **22** 1879 (1980)\
R. Kates *Phys. Rev. D* **22** 1853 (1980)\
K. S. Thorne and J. B. Hartle, *Phys. Rev. D* **31** 1815 (1985)\
Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka, *Phys. Rev. D*, **55**, 3457-3476, (1997) E. Poisson, *Liv. Rev. Rel.* **7** 6 (2004) S. Gralla and R. Wald, *Class. Quant. Grav.* **25** 205009 (2008) A. Pound, arXiv:0907.5197 Wald R M 1984 *General Relativity* (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) R. Geroch and J. Traschen, *Phys. Rev. D* **36** 1017 (1987) T. Quinn, *Phys. Rev. D* **62** 064029 (2000) S. Gralla, A. Harte, and R. Wald *Phys. Rev. D* **80** 024031 (2009) J. Khoury and A. Weltman, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **93** 171104 (2004) L. Hui, A. Nicolis, and C. Stubbs, *Phys. Rev. D* **80** 104002 (2009) Peskin M E and Schroeder D V 1995 (Westview Press) S.K. Wong, *Nuovo Cimento* **65A** 689-694 (1970) M Seifert and R Wald *Phys. Rev. D* **75** 084029 (2007) R. Wald, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **41** 203 (1978) S. Hollands and R. Wald, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **237** 123-160 (2003) P Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal 1997 *Conformal Field Theory* (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag)
[^1]: I do not treat self-force corrections, which were the primary focus of [@gralla-wald].
[^2]: Consider, for example, the impossible task of assigning a center of mass position to a black hole.
[^3]: Of course, the value of $\lambda$ at which the physical spacetime is embedded into the one-parameter-family is arbitrary. What matters for the application of the simplified description is that corrections to the relevant observables are numerically small.
[^4]: Note also that coordinate indices will *always* refer to the original cartesian-like $(t,x^i)$, even if the coordinate componants are being viewed as functions of other variables, such as spherical coordinates.
[^5]: Applying the usual notion of mass to Einstein-scalar theory makes sense because the scalar field stress-energy is quadratic in first-derivatives of $\phi$, so that the $1/\bar{r}$ part of the metric still satisfies the same equations as it does in general relativity.
[^6]: Note that spatial components of a tensor $T_i$ in Fermi normal coordinates correspond to projections orthogonal to $\gamma$, $(\delta_a^{ \ b} + u_a u^b )T_b$.
[^7]: i.e., such that $\mathcal{L}$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}(\psi_*g^{ab},\psi_*\phi) = \psi_*\mathcal{L}(g^{ab},\phi)$ for diffemorphisms $\psi$
[^8]: Note that the constant $\ell$ has dimensions of length (even if $G \neq 1$); the name “massive” for this theory comes from the fact that $\hbar/\ell$ would give the mass of excitations of a quantized $\phi$-field.
[^9]: A matter field representing ambient density can be included in the action in the manner described in the paragraph above that containing .
[^10]: This language is slightly sloppy. One really means that scales of variation as measured by the metric, such as $\sqrt{|g^{ab}\nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi|}$, are of order $\phi/\ell$.
[^11]: That is, adjoin the components of the $\psi_I$ and $\bar{\psi}_I$ to those of the metric and rescaled metric (respectively) where they appear, and replace satisfaction of the Einstein equations with satisfaction of the field equations $E^{[g]}_{ab}=0$ and $E^I=0$.
[^12]: In some theories the field equations may enforce $M=0$ in which case the equation for $\gamma$ may be lower than second-order or even trivial.
[^13]: Note, however, that many higher-order theories (such as those whose Lagrangian is a function of the Ricci scalar) admit second-order formulations, so that the current analysis applies.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Boolean networks have long been used as models of molecular networks and play an increasingly important role in systems biology. This paper describes a software package, *Polynome*, offered as a web service, that helps users construct Boolean network models based on experimental data and biological input. The key feature is a discrete analog of parameter estimation for continuous models. With only experimental data as input, the software can be used as a tool for reverse-engineering of Boolean network models from experimental time course data.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0975, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341-2206, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0123, USA'
- 'Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0477, USA'
- 'Mathematics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275-0156, USA'
- 'DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8018, USA'
- 'Mathematics Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4201, USA'
- 'Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4006, USA'
author:
- Elena Dimitrova
- 'Luis David Garc[í]{}a-Puente'
- Franziska Hinkelmann
- 'Abdul S. Jarrah'
- Reinhard Laubenbacher
- Brandilyn Stigler
- Michael Stillman
- 'Paola Vera-Licona'
title: Parameter estimation for Boolean models of biological networks
---
Introduction
============
During the last decade finite dynamical systems, that is, discrete dynamical systems with a finite phase space, have been used increasingly in systems biology to model a variety of biochemical networks, such as metabolic, gene regulatory, and signal transduction networks. In many cases, the available data quantity and quality is not sufficient to build detailed quantitative models such as systems of ordinary differential equations, which require many parameters that are frequently unknown. In addition, discrete models tend to be more intuitive and more easily accessible to life scientists. Boolean networks and the more general so-called logical models are the main types of finite dynamical systems that have been used successfully in modeling biological networks.
Discrete dynamical models of biological networks were first introduced by Kauffman who used Boolean networks to study the dynamics of gene regulatory networks [@Kauffman1:69; @Kauffman2:69; @Kauffman:1993]. A gene is assumed to be in one of two states, *expressed* ($1$) or *not expressed* ($0$). The next state of a gene is determined by a Boolean function in terms of the current states of the gene and its immediate neighbors in the network. The state of a network in $n$ variables is then a binary vector of length $n$, representing the state of each node of the network. Thus, there are $2^n$ possible states. The dynamics of the network is represented by a directed graph on the $2^n$ states, where each state has out-degree one, that is, each state is mapped to exactly one other state (possibly itself).
Boolean models of biological systems are abundant, including gene regulatory networks such as the segment polarity network in the fruit fly [@AO], the cell cycle in mammalian cells [@AdrienFaure], in budding yeast [@Li_cc_2004], and fission yeast [@Bornhold_cc_plos], and metabolic networks in *E. coli* [@jain_sysBio_2008; @Ecoli_BN] and in *S. cerevisiae* [@S.cerevisiae_BN]. Also, Boolean network models of signaling networks have recently been used to gain insight into different mechanisms such as the molecular neurotransmitter signaling pathway [@nueroTrans], the T cell receptor signaling pathway [@julio_compBio_2007], the signaling network for the long-term survival of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in humans [@albert_plosBio_06], and the abscisic acid signaling pathway [@albert_pnas_2008].
Boolean models require less detailed information about the system to be modeled, so they can be used in cases where quantitative information is missing. They are also useful if qualitative predictions from the model are desired, such as whether a T cell becomes pro- or anti-inflammatory. Finally, Boolean models are very intuitive compared to models based on differential equations or other more sophisticated formalisms. It is also easier to explore their dynamics, at least for reasonably small models. On the other hand, an important disadvantage of Boolean models, and algebraic models in general, is that there are very few theoretical tools available for their construction. Typically, Boolean models are built by translating information from the literature into logical statements about the interactions of the different molecular species involved in the network. In many cases, the biological information about a particular network node might not be sufficient, however, to construct a logical function governing regulation.
In the case of a continuous model, the remedy would be to insert a differential equation of specified form, [*e.g.,* ]{}mass action kinetics, with unspecified parameters. If experimental time course data are available one can then use one of several parameter estimation methods to determine those unspecified model parameters so that the model fits the given data. Data fit is determined by model simulation, using numerical integration of the equations in the model. The software package described in this paper addresses the need for a discrete analog of this process.
In the case of missing information about a particular node in the network to be modeled one can insert a general Boolean function, maybe of a specified type, [*e.g.,* ]{}a nested canalyzing function. This is most easily done by viewing the Boolean function as a general polynomial, with undetermined (0/1) coefficients. If experimental time course data for the network is available, then one can use one of several existing inference methods to estimate a function that will result in a model that fits the data. This function in addition satisfies a specified optimality criterion, similar to the optimality criterion for the fitting of continuous parameters. This process might be considered the discrete analog of parameter estimation.
In this paper we describe a software package, *Polynome*, which can be used for this purpose. The package integrates several existing algorithms for parameter estimation and model simulation. Space limitations do not allow a detailed self-contained description of each of the algorithms, most of whom have already appeared elsewhere. But enough detail is given so that the potential user understands the capabilities and limitations of the package. We conclude the paper with an example application of the package to the well-known *lac* operon, the network that regulates lactose metabolism *E. coli* . We use data generated from a Boolean model of this network to illustrate software performance.
Architecture
============
In this section we introduce the architecture of the software package *Polynome* which integrates algorithms that perform discrete parameter estimation, or system identification, and simulation. A web interface of the software is available at
<http://polymath.vbi.vt.edu/polynome/>.
The algorithms underlying the software represent Boolean networks as time discrete dynamical systems as follows. Let $k = \{0,1\}$ be the field with two elements and arithmetic modulo 2. A Boolean network in $n$ variables is a function $$f = (f_1,\ldots ,f_n): k^n \longrightarrow k^n,$$ with $f_i\in k[x_1,\ldots , x_n]$. It is easy to see that any Boolean function can be represented as a polynomial with coefficients in $k$. Furthermore, this polynomial can be chosen so that the variables appear only to the first power. Two directed graphs are associated to this function. The *wiring diagram* has as nodes the variables, and there is a directed edge $i\rightarrow j$ if $x_i$ appears in $f_j$. The *state space* of $f$ has as nodes all $2^n$ binary strings in $k^n$. There is a directed arrow $\mathbf a\rightarrow \mathbf b$ if $f(\mathbf a ) = \mathbf b$.
There are two stochastic versions of Boolean networks that are relevant here. The first is update-stochastic networks. Here, rather than updating the variables synchronously, they are updated asynchronously, using a randomly chosen update order. Update-stochastic Boolean networks have been shown to capture interesting aspects of biological networks [@sontag] and stochastic sequential update is used in the most general form of the logical models introduced in [@LM_thomas]. The second kind, function-stochastic Boolean networks are obtained by assigning a family of Boolean functions to each node, together with a probability distribution on the family. At each update, a function from this family is chosen at random. The software described here implements update stochastic networks as a subclass of function-stochastic networks by including for each function also the identify function. Whenever the identity function is chosen for an update, the corresponding variable is delayed, resulting in a sequential update.
Figure \[flow-chart\] shows a flow chart of the software architecture.
![Flow chart of the software package Polynome.[]{data-label="flow-chart"}](software-flow.eps){width="6.4in"}
The **input** consists of two parts:
1. time course data, either continuous or Boolean (mandatory input);
2. A subset of the $f_i$ (optional input).
If the input consists of continuous data, then the software Booleanizes the data first. The data need to be provided as a matrix with columns corresponding to nodes and rows correspond to experimental data points, whereas the functions are input as a list.
There are several **output** options:
1. A wiring diagram only, showing the dependency relations between the variables of the network;
2. a deterministic Boolean network model, which either fits the data exactly or which optimizes between model complexity and data fit, and which can be simulated either deterministically or stochastically;
3. a stochastic Boolean network model.
The simulator has several capabilities. It can:
1. simulate a deterministic Boolean network and output the wiring diagram and/or the state space;
2. simulate a deterministic Boolean network using random sequential updates of the variables and output the state space with transition probabilities on the edges;
3. simulate a function-stochastic Boolean network and output the state space with transition probabilities on the edges.
The first step is to preprocess the data: Booleanize them if necessary (see Section \[sec:discretization\]) and remove any states (rows) which occur more than once. As there are many models which may fit a given data set, the set of possible models is typically very large, even with the minimality restriction. We offer three ways to search the model space:
- minimal-model sampling, based on the Gröbner fan sampling method (Algorithm \[dep-gr-reveng\])
- minimal-model estimation, based on the method for noisy data (Algorithm \[EA1\])
- minimal-model selection, based on the minimal-sets algorithm (Algorithm \[minsetsalg\]).
For small networks ($n\leq 10$), the model space can be explored using one of two methods. Algorithm \[dep-gr-reveng\] is used to sample the subspace of minimal models and returns a set of weighted functions per node (for stochastic models) or a set of weighted inputs per node (for static models - dynamics not desired by the user). Algorithm \[EA1\] is used to estimate the minimal Boolean networks in the model space when inconsistent data are provided or a deterministic model is desired. What is returned is a polynomial dynamical system (PDS) that provides a best approximate data fit and is not overly complicated. For moderate to large networks ($n>10$), the model space becomes too large to explore. So Algorithm \[minsetsalg\] is used to identify a subset of essential variables, and only models involving those variables are considered subsequently. This algorithm returns either a minimal PDS (for large deterministic models) or a minimal wiring diagram (for static models - dynamics not desired by the user). Note that Algorithms \[minsetsalg\] and \[dep-gr-reveng\] return PDSs that fit the data exactly.
Once a PDS has been identified, its dynamics can be simulated with one of the following modules: deterministic or stochastic simulation. Given a PDS, its wiring diagram is constructed using the GraphViz `dot` program.
Data discretization {#sec:discretization}
===================
Discretization of continuous experimental data into finitely many discrete states is important for inferring gene regulatory networks from experimental data. Discretization of experimental data has been discussed extensively, [*e.g.,* ]{}[@dim-discr-soft]. The following definition of discretization is due to @hartemink.
\[discr-def\] A discretization of a real-valued vector $\mathbf{v}=(v_1,\dots,v_N)$ is an integer-valued vector $\mathbf{d}=(d_1,\dots,d_N)$ with the following properties:
1. Each element of $\mathbf{d}$ is in the set ${0,1,\dots,D-1}$ for some (usually small) positive integer $D$, called the degree of the discretization.
2. For all $1\leq i,j\leq N$, we have $d_i\leq d_j$ if and only if $v_i\leq v_j$.
Without loss of generality, assume that $\mathbf{v}$ is sorted, [*i.e.,*]{}for all $i < j$, $v_i\leq v_j$. Spanning discretizations of degree $D$ are a special case that we consider here. They are defined in [@hartemink] as discretizations that satisfy the additional property that the smallest element of $\mathbf{d}$ is equal to 0 and that the largest element of $\mathbf{d}$ is equal to $D-1$. The translation from continuous to discrete data is crucial in preserving the variable dependencies and thus has a significant impact on the performance of the network inference algorithms. While there is a large selection of discretization methods available which cluster data points, many of them are not directly applicable in the network inference context or are not suitable. One important limitation is typically that the number of available data points is very small, typically consisting of less than 10 time points. We apply a newly developed method, based on graph theory, especially designed for short time series data [@dim-discr-soft]. Novel aspects are incorporation of an information-theoretic criterion and a criterion to determine the optimal number of values. While the method can be used on other types of data, the motivation for its development was the need for a discretization algorithm for several short multivariate time courses of heterogeneous data, such as transcript, protein, and metabolite concentration measurements. Furthermore, the method has been demonstrated to preserve the dynamic features of the time courses, as well as to be robust to noise in the experimental data.
The method begins by constructing a complete graph in which the vertices are the time points and the edge weights are the Euclidean distances between two vertices. Edges are deleted consecutively starting with the one of highest weight until the graph is disconnected. The process continues until one of the several stop criteria are met. The goal is to minimize the average internal distance of the components and maximize the distance between components. In the current work we have limited the number of states to 2, [*i.e.,*]{}the data are Booleanized. The next version of *Polynome* will be capable of handling parameter estimation for larger numbers of states. (The only parameter estimation algorithm that is currently not capable of handling something other than binary states is REACT. A multi-state version is in preparation. However, in order to obtain useful performance, the computations will have to be performed in parallel on a multi-processor machine.) While Booleanization is a rather drastic transformation of the data and in many cases loses valuable information in the data, it can still derive useful information from experimental data, as is shown in [@EA1]. There, the authors use transcript data from a gene regulatory network in yeast used to compare different reverse-engineering methods [@dibernardo]. It is shown that the performance of REACT with a Booleanization of the data compares very favorably to the other methods tested.
Suppose that vector $\mathbf{v} = (1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11)$ is to be discretized. We start by constructing the complete weighted graph based on $\mathbf{v}$.
![The complete weighted graph constructed from vector entries 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11. Only the edge weights of the outer edges are given.[]{data-label="graph"}](discretization-graph.eps){width="3in"}
Eight edges with weights 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, and 5, respectively, have to be deleted to disconnect the graph into two components: one containing vertices 1 and 2 and another having vertices 7, 9, 10, and 11; this is the first iteration. Having disconnected the graph, the next task is to determine if the obtained degree of discretization is sufficient; if not, the components need to be further disconnected in a similar manner to obtain a finer discretization.
A commonly occurring phenomenon, when discretizing time courses, is that the resulting data are inconsistent with a deterministic process. This happens because a given state can transition to two different states at different times. So, when a deterministic model is desired, these inconsistencies have to be removed. A common cause of such inconsistencies is small variations among consecutive time points, so that these get discretized into the same state. Eventually, there is sufficient change in the data so that a later discrete state becomes different again. This situation is dealt with by removing all but one instance of the repeated state. This essentially amounts to a local adjustment of time scale. Since time is not represented explicitly in discrete models, this is permissible. In the case of a given state transitioning to two different states in two different time courses, we remove the state in question, disconnecting the two time courses into four shorter ones. We further assume that there are no missing (unmeasured) time points. If new data points are included, then the parameter estimation process has to be restarted at the beginning.
Parameter estimation
====================
The minimal-sets algorithm
--------------------------
Inferring the wiring diagram of a gene regulatory network has received lots of attention and many different methods in different contexts have been developed to address this problem. Using methods from computational algebra and algebraic geometry, we have developed an algorithm that first finds all possible minimal wiring diagrams of a gene regulatory network, and then chooses a particular model using different selection methods. Here a diagram is *minimal* if all specified interactions in the wiring diagram are necessary to have a function that interpolates the data.
For a fixed gene, say $x_j$, we need to identify the minimal sets of genes which could be used as inputs to $x_j$. Let $\{({\mathbf s}_1,t_1),\ldots ,({\mathbf s}_m, t_m)\}$ be the stimuli-response data for the gene $x_j$, where ${\mathbf s}_i\in k^n, t_i\in k$. We need to find all minimal subsets $F\subset\{1, \ldots ,n\}$ such that there exists a polynomial function $f\in k[\{x_i\mid i \in
F\}]$ with $f({\mathbf s}_i)=t_i$ and there is no such polynomial on any proper subset of $F$. The main idea of the algorithm is the following:\
For any two stimuli ${\mathbf s}_a$ and ${\mathbf s}_b$ such that $t_a \neq t_b$, identify all coordinates $i$ such that ${\mathbf s}_{ai} \neq {\mathbf s}_{bi}$. If none of these coordinates was picked previously, pick one of them. Once all possible pairs are considered, the set of variables corresponding to the chosen coordinates can be used to generate the required function. This can be done using computational algebra algorithms, as described in [@LS].
Using tools from computational algebra, the steps above can be encoded as an algorithm that performs operations on a *monomial ideal* $M$ with one generator for each pair of stimuli encoding their mismatch, and each minimal prime of $M$ is a minimal set. See [@JLSS; @SJLS].
\[minsetsalg\]
It is clear that there will usually be many possible wiring diagrams and selecting a single model could be done only based on further assumptions, such as knowledge from the literature about some of the interactions, or the network being sparse. For the purpose of building a web-based application, we employ the $(S_1,T_1)$ ranking scheme described in [@JLSS] and used in [@SJLS] to select highest-scoring minimal sets. The scheme ranks sets according to size (smaller is better) and frequency of occurrence of the variables (higher is better). Given a list of highest-scoring sets of equal rank, we choose the first one in the list.
Parameter estimation using the Gröbner fan of an ideal {#sec:par_est_groebner_fan}
-------------------------------------------------------
Typically there are many models that fit a time course of experimental data and often there is insufficient information to select one of them. Even restricting the model space to minimal models leaves multiple possible models. The reason is that different orderings of the polynomial terms (monomials) can give rise to different polynomial models, since the algorithm uses such an order for multivariate polynomial division. Algorithm \[dep-gr-reveng\] generates all Boolean network models fitting the data and, if needed, extracts the corresponding wiring diagram. The method is based on a combinatorial structure known as the *Gröbner fan* of a polynomial ideal [@morarobb; @sturmfels], which is a polyhedral complex of cones in which every point encodes a monomial ordering. The cones are in bijective correspondence with the distinct Gröbner bases of an ideal. (To be precise, the correspondence is to the marked reduced Gröbner bases of the ideal). Therefore, it is sufficient to select exactly one monomial ordering per cone and, ignoring the rest of the orderings, this still guarantees that all distinct minimal models are generated. In addition, the relative number of monomial orderings under which a particular PDS model is generated gives us insight into the likelihood that the model is a good representation of the system. The sizes of the Gröbner cones can be computed for small Gröbner fans using the method of [@yoshida] or sampling uniformly a large number of points. The monomial orderings used in generating the models are selected through random sampling of the corresponding Gröbner fan of the ideal of points. If the number of points is sufficiently large, their distribution approximately reflects the relative size of the Gröbner cones. The number of points is determined using a $t$-test hypothesis testing for proportion.
Steps 1–5 of Algorithm \[dep-gr-reveng\] are used for parameter estimation of a stochastic model of a system. If the wiring diagram is also required, Step 6 is performed as well. If the Gröbner fan is too large to compute, Step 3 is replaced by a large random sample of points from the Gröbner fan which reflects the relative sizes of the Gröbner cones.
\[dep-gr-reveng\]
Parameter Estimation in the Presence of Data Noise
--------------------------------------------------
Since experimental data are typically noisy, due to measurement error or intrinsic biological noise, robustness to noise of inference methods is desirable. Therefore, in order to avoid over-fitting, in [@EA1] a method for parameter estimation is described, based on the premise that the input data may contain **noise**. In this genetic algorithm based method, a Boolean network model is inferred which is optimized with respect to both data fit and model complexity; an optimal Boolean model can also be constructed when prior knowledge about the network structure is included.\
Consider a network of $n$ nodes. The main elements of the genetic algorithm (GA) are
- Chromosomes of GA: Polynomial models, where a polynomial model is given as a system of $n$ polynomial functions $F_1, F_2,\dots,F_n$.
- Genes of GA: Polynomial functions (hence there are $n$ different classes of genes).
- Each chromosome (polynomial model) in the GA contains $n$ genes ($n$ polynomial functions $F_1, F_2,\dots,F_n$).
Algorithm \[EA1\] summarizes the key features in this procedure.
\[EA1\]
Some comments about the implementation of this algorithm in *Polynome* are in order.
[**[Model fitness.]{}**]{} The fitness function used in the GA is a multi-objective function incorporating the different fitness criteria of each Boolean coordinate function for each node in the network as well as the fitness of the fully assembled Boolean models. The different criteria include: data fit, model complexity, and consistency with prior knowledge about the network structure.
[**[Parameters.]{}**]{} The algorithm is controlled by a set of parameters that specify properties such as gene pool size and an upper bound for the maximum number of generations to run the GA. In the current version of the software, a default selection of parameters is made based on a preselected maximum network size. In future versions of the algorithm, the user will be able to control such parameters for an *ad-hoc* selection based on the specific network analyzed by the user.
[**[Termination criteria.]{}**]{} Common concerns about genetic algorithms are the selection of termination criteria, how to avoid local minima, or to the computational resources required to run the algorithm for sufficiently many generations. Our stopping criterion is based on two parameters: a parameter that controls the maximum number of generations to be run and the maximum number of generations after which the algorithm is terminated if the fitness score has not improved. Both of these parameters have been selected based on the current limit on network size and the need of the web service version to provide output within a short period of time. It is important to mention that this limitation generally leads to models of lower quality than one would obtain from a free-standing version of the software.
[**[Output.]{}** ]{}The algorithm described in [@EA1] provides as output all models with highest fitness score. Due to interface limitations, the implementation in *Polynome* outputs only ten of these models. Future versions of *Polynome* will allow the user to request more models. As with all evolutionary algorithms, it is not possible to prove convergence results, guarantee that the results are not just local optima, or guarantee that the search results are robust under repetition. These are all drawbacks of this method over the other methods available in *Polynome*. It is also possible that two models with the same score are very different from each other. On the other hand, this algorithm is the only one that can produce models which do not have to fit the given data exactly, so they are more robust to noise.
Simulation
==========
For the identified network, fixed points and limit cycles are calculated and the phase space and wiring diagram are generated. The analog of the graph of a function in the continuous case, [*e.g.,* ]{}solution of a system of differential equations, is the phase space for a discrete model. It visualizes the dynamics of the network, namely the fixed points and oscillatory cycles. In a deterministic network, each state has out-degree exactly $1$, in a function stochastic network as generated by \[sec:par\_est\_groebner\_fan\], the out-degree can be higher. In a stochastic network fixed points have a stability that is calculated from the probabilities of the update functions. The stability indicates how likely it is to remain in this state, so stability 1 corresponds to a true fixed point.
For a function stochastic system a synchronous update is used, but for a deterministic network it is possible to use a sequential update order instead, in case more biological information about the network is available, such as the order in which certain molecular processes take place. If the user wants to use sequential update without providing an update order, then the software uses stochastic sequential update, that is, at each update an update order is chosen at random. As pointed out in the introduction, sequential update has been shown to be biologically more realistic (see, e.g., [@sontag]), which is the reason why we are providing this simulation capability. However, it is easy to see that different update orders result in different dynamics, so that it is possible that a deterministic system that was chosen to fit a given set of experimental data will not do so any longer when simulated sequentially.
An example: the *Lac* operon
============================
We demonstrate the key features of the software with an example. For simplicity, we choose an existing Boolean network model in order to be able to compare the output to the “true" network. We consider a Boolean model [@SV] for lactose metabolism in the context of the *lac* operon for the following two examples. Let $f$ be the 9-node Boolean model in [@SV] in terms of the variables $(M,P,B,C,R,A,A_l,L,L_l)$ and the parameters $(L_e,G_e)$ (see the original manuscript for an introduction to the *lac* systems and a description of the model). For simplicity, we rename the variables as $(x_1,\ldots,x_9)$ and the parameters as $(x_{10},x_{11})$, and write the Boolean functions as in Table \[bool\], where $f_i$ represents the Boolean function associated to variable $x_i$ and $\sim$ is the logical NOT operator, $*$ AND, and $+$ OR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\begin{array}{l} $\begin{array}{l}
f_M=(\sim R)* C \\ f_1 = (\sim x_5) * x_4\\
f_P=M\\ f_2 = x_1\\
f_B=M\\ f_3 = x_1\\
f_C=\sim G_e\\ f_4 = \sim x_{11}\\
f_R=(\sim A) * (\sim A_l) \\ f_5 = (\sim x_6) * (\sim x_7)\\
f_A=L* B\\ f_6 = x_8 * x_3\\
f_{A_l}=A+ L+ L_l\\ f_7 = x_6 + x_8 + x_9\\
f_L=(\sim G_e)* (P* L_e)\\ f_8 = (\sim x_{11}) * (x_2 * x_{10})\\
f_{L_l}=(\sim G_e)*(L+ L_e) f_9 = (\sim x_{11}) * (x_8 + x_{10})
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Left panel: Boolean functions in the original variables. Right panel: Boolean functions in the indeterminates $x_1,\ldots,x_{11}$.[]{data-label="bool"}
Note that functions in *Boolean form*, with binary operations $*$ and $+$ and unary operation $\sim$ as defined above, can be translated to *polynomial form*, with field operations $+$ and $\times$ (also written as $*$ in nonformatted text) via the mapping
Boolean form Polynomial form
-------------- -----------------
$\sim x$ $x+1$
$x*y$ $xy$
$x+y$ $xy+x+y$
In the following example, we consider the case where we wish to identify some of the functions in a partially known network.
In the Boolean model in Table \[bool\], the functions for $M, P, B, C,$ and $R$ are straight-forward from a biological perspective. However, this is not the case for the functions for lactose ($L, L_l$) and allolactose ($A, A_l$). There is only one combination of values for extracellular glucose ($G_e$) and lactose ($L_e$) for which the operon is ON; [*i.e.,*]{}$L_e=1, G_e=0$. Setting the parameters to these values produces a single fixed point $(1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1)$ in the above Boolean model. Further it limits what the functions for lactose ($L, L_l$) could be, namely $f_L = P$ and $f_{L_l} = 1$. This leaves $f_A$ and $f_{A_l}$ open for investigation.
For demonstrative purposes we chose the following data sets, which represent immediate initiation ($C=1$) of the *lac* operon when applicable, to use in the parameter estimation step.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Operon is OFF Operon is ON
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --
$\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc} $\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc}
0&0&0&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ 1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1\\
1&0&0&1&1&0&0&0&1\\ 0&1&1&1&0&1&1&1&1\\
0&1&1&1&1&0&1&0&1\\ 1&0&0&1&0&1&1&1&1\\
0&0&0&1&0&0&1&1&1\\ 1&1&1&1&0&0&1&0&1
1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0&1\\ \end{array}$
1&1&1&1&0&0&1&0&1\\
1&1&1&1&0&0&1&1&1\\
1&1&1&1&0&1&1&1&1\\
1&1&1&1&0&1&1&1&1
\end{array}$
Transcription of *lac* genes Repression of operon
$\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc} $\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc}
1&0&0&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&1&1&0&0&0&0\\
1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&0&1&1&0&0&0&1\\
0&1&1&1&1&0&1&1&1\\ 0&0&0&1&1&0&1&0&1\\
0&0&0&1&0&1&1&1&1\\ 0&0&0&1&0&0&1&0&1\\
1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0&1 1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0&1
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
Initiation by $A, A_l$ Initiation by $L, L_l$
$\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc} $\begin{array}[t]{ccccccccc}
0&0&0&1&0&1&1&0&0\\ 0&0&0&1&0&0&0&1&1\\
1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0&1 1&0&0&1&1&0&1&0&1\\
\end{array}$ 0&1&1&1&0&0&1&0&1\\
1&0&0&1&0&0&1&1&1\\
1&1&1&1&0&0&1&0&1
\end{array}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
Given the above data, Algorithm \[dep-gr-reveng\] is used to identify the connections (see Figure \[wd-bool\]), as well as the functions in polynomial form for allolactose as follows:
![Inferred wiring diagram for allolactose.[]{data-label="wd-bool"}](graph.ps "fig:"){width="5in"}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$\vdots$$
f6 = {
x3*x8 0.422222
x2*x8 0.577778
}
f7 = {
x4*x8+x5*x7+x8+x4*x5+x7 0.0111111
x7*x8+x8+x4*x7+x7+x4 0.0333333
x6*x9+x6+x9 0.111111
x7*x9+x7+x9 0.322222
x4*x6+x6+x9 0.122222
x6*x8+x6+x9 0.177778
x4*x8+x8+x4*x6+x6+x4 0.0222222
x4*x8+x8+x4*x7+x7+x4 0.0444444
x4*x7+x7+x9 0.0666667
x7*x8+x5*x7+x8+x4*x5+x7 0.0111111
x6*x8+x4*x8+x8+x6+x4 0.0444444
x7*x8+x6*x8+x8+x6+x4 0.0222222
x5*x7+x5*x9+x7+x9+x4 0.0111111
}
$$\vdots$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figure represents only *part* of the full wiring diagram; we include only the subgraph of edges incident to nodes 6 and 7 for simplicity and include the isolated node $x1$ to emphasize that $x_1$ is not an input of either $x_6$ or $x_7$. The edge weights are values between 0 and 1 and can be interpreted as relative likelihood of interaction or interaction strength. That is, if the weight on the edge from node $i$ to node $j$ is $p$, this means that the relative likelihood or strength with which $i$ affects $j$ is $p$.
In the table of functions, again we only display the portion of the output that is relevant in this example. We find 2 possibilities for $f_6$, one which matches the original function, and 13 possibilities for $f_7$. Note that the original for $f_7$ can be written as $$x_8f_{7,3} + f_{7,3} + x_8$$ in polynomial form, or $$x_8 + f_{7,3}$$ in Boolean form, where $f_{7,3}$ is the third element in the function list `f7`. The weights associated to each function can be interpreted similarly to the weights on the edges in the wiring diagram. Since we have multiple possibilities for each function, we can produce a stochastic simulation of the model. This yields the following dynamics:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of components 1
Number of fixed points 2
Fixed point, component size, stability
(1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1), 512, 0.08
(1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1), 512, 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first fixed point has very small stability and is therefore not reliable as a steady state. However, the second one, which corresponds to the unique fixed point in the original Boolean model, has stability 1 indicating that it is a true steady state.
In Figure \[ss-bool\] we show the portion of the state space. Since two of the functions are constant, we remove them for simplicity. We note that there is a greater probability (0.92) of encountering the state in which all molecules are present, as opposed to the low probability (0.08) of encountering the state in which all molecules are present except for $A_l$, which is biologically infeasible, from the state (1,1,1,*1*,0,0,0,1,*1*)[^1].
![Portion of the state space of the Boolean model simulated stochastically.[]{data-label="ss-bool"}](ss.eps "fig:"){width="2in"}\
Here we consider the case that we do not know any of the functions and aim to construct a deterministic dynamic model. Given that the data are consistent, the default strategy is to produce a model using the minimal-sets algorithm. However, for demonstrative purposes, we illustrate Algorithm \[EA1\] which is reserved for inconsistent or noisy data. Using the above data, we get the following model and its dynamics:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f1 = x1*x6*x7 + x1*x6 + x5 + 1
f2 = x1 + 0
f3 = x1 + x2 + x3*x4 + x4*x9 + x4 + 0
f4 = 1
f5 = x7 + 1
f6 = x2*x4*x8 + x2*x6 + x4 + x5*x7*x8 + x5*x8 + x6*x9 + x6 + x9 + 0
f7 = x1*x3*x6 + x6*x8 + x9 + 0
f8 = x3 + 0
f9 = 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 7 components and 3 fixed point(s)
$$\vdots$$
[ 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 ] lies in a component of size 6.
[ 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ] lies in a component of size 4.
[ 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 ] lies in a component of size 124.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to mention that Algorithm \[EA1\] returns a list of the highest-scoring models (according to an internal fitness score). Hence in some instances like in this example, more than one model is returned with the same high score:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f1 = x5 + 1
f2 = x1 + 0
f3 = x1 + x2 + x3*x4 + x4*x9 + x4 + 0
f4 = 1
f5 = x7*x9 + 1
f6 = x3*x8 + 0
f7 = x4 + 0
f8 = x2*x7 + x2 + x3*x7 + x5*x6*x8 + 0
f9 = 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ] lies in a component of size 256.
[ 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 ] lies in a component of size 256.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both models have the highest ranking, meaning that they both fit the given data well, though not exactly. However, the second model has dynamics which resembles the original Boolean model: it only has fixed points (the first model has 4 nontrivial cycles) and one matches the unique fixed point of the Boolean model.
Discussion
==========
We have presented a description of a software package to construct models of biological networks by fitting Boolean network models to time course experimental data. The software is offered as a web application. A detailed tutorial is available to help the user. Several other features will be incorporated in the next release, including the ability of the user to specify that the software return nested canalyzing Boolean functions, a particular type of Boolean function that was introduced by S. Kauffman and his collaborators [@Kauff2]. The next release will also allow the user to infer polynomial dynamical systems with more than two states. In addition, more useful graphical features will be introduced.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI), the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (DIMACS), and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute (MBI) for supporting the work reported in this paper. Dimitrova was partially supported by NSF/EPSCoR Award Nr. EPS-0447660, and Garcia and Laubenbacher were partially supported by SAMSI. Stillman was partially supported by NSF Award Nr. DMS 08-10909.
[28]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Albert, R., Othmer, H., 2003. The topology of the regulatory interactions predicts the expression pattern of the segment polarity genes in *Drosophila melanogaster*. Journal of Theoretical Biology 223, 1–18.
Barrett, C., Herring, C., Reed, J., Palsson, B., 2005. The global transcriptional regulatory network for metabolism in *[E]{}scherichia coli* exhibits few dominant functional states. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (52), 19103–19108.
Cantone, I., Marucci, L., Iorio, F., Ricci, M., Belcastro, V., Bansal, M., Santini, S., di Bernardo, M., di Bernardo, D., Cosma, M., 2009. A yeast synthetic network for in vivo assessment of reverse-engineering and modeling approaches. Cell 137, 172–181.
Chaves, M., Albert, R., Sontag, E., 2005. Robustness and fragility of boolean models for genetic regulatory networks. J. Theor. Biol. 235, 431–449.
Davidich, M. I., Bornholdt, S., 2007. Boolean network model predicts cell cycle sequence of fission yeast. [PL]{}o[S]{} [O]{}ne 3 (2), e1672.
Dimitrova, E., McGee, J., Laubenbacher, R., Vera Licona, P., 2008. Comparison of discretization methods for network inference, under revision.
Eickmeyer, K., Huggins, P., Pachter, L., Yoshida, Y., 2008. On the optimality of the neighbor joining algorithm. Algorithms for Molecular Biology 3 (5).
Faure, A., Naldi, A., Chaouiya, C., Thieffry, D., 2006. [Dynamical analysis of a generic [B]{}oolean model for the control of the mammalian cell cycle]{}. Bioinformatics 22 (14), 124–131.
Gupta, S., Bisht, S., Kukreti, R., Jain, S., Brahmachari, S., 2007. Boolean network analysis of a neurotransmitter signaling pathway. J Theor Biol 244 (3), 463–469.
Hartemink, A. J., 2001. Principled computational methods for the validation and discovery of genetic regulatory networks. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, supervisor-David K. Gifford.
Herrgard, M., Lee, B., Portnoy, V., Palsson, B., 2006. Integrated analysis of regulatory and metabolic networks reveals novel regulatory mechanisms in *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*. Genome Res 16, 627–635.
Jarrah, A., Laubenbacher, R., Stigler, B., Stillman, M., 2007. Reverse-engineering of polynomial dynamical systems. Adv Appl Math 39, 477–489.
Kauffman, S., 1969. Homeostasis and differentiation in random genetic control networks. Nature 224, 177–178.
Kauffman, S., 1969. Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol 22, 432–467.
Kauffman, S., Peterson, C., Samuelsson, B., Troein, C., 2003. Random [B]{}oolean network models and the yeast transcriptional network. PNAS 100 (25), 14796–14799.
Kauffman, S. A., 1993. The Origins of Order: Self–Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford.
Laubenbacher, R., Stigler, B., 2004. A computational algebra approach to the reverse-engineering of gene regulatory networks. J Theor Biol 229, 523–537.
Li, F., Long, T., Lu, Y., Ouyang, Q., Tang, C., 2004. The yeast cell-cycle network is robustly designed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (14), 4781–4786.
Li, S., Assmann, S., Albert, R., 2006. Predicting essential components of signal transduction networks: A dynamic model of guard cell abscisic acid signaling. PLoS Biology 4 (10), e312.
Mora, T., Robbiano, L., 1988. The [G]{}röbner fan of an ideal. J. Symb. Comp. 6, 183–208.
Saez-Rodriguez, J., Simeoni, L., Lindquist, J. A., Hemenway, R., Bommhardt, U., Arndt, B., Haus, U.-U., Weismantel, R., Gilles, E. D., Klamt, S., Schraven, B., Aug 2007. A logical model provides insights into [T]{} cell receptor signaling. PLoS Comput Biol 3 (8), e163.
Samal, A., Jain, S., 2008. The regulatory network of *[E]{}. coli* metabolism as a [B]{}oolean dynamical system exhibits both homeostasis and flexibility of response. BMC Systems Biology 2, Article 21.
Stigler, B., Jarrah, A., Stillman, M., Laubenbacher, R., 2007. Reverse-engineering of dynamic networks. Annals NYAS 1115, 168–177.
Stigler, B., Veliz-Cuba, A., 2008. Network topology as a driver of bistability in the lac operon. [http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3995]{} 3, 318–356.
Sturmfels, B., 1996. Gröbner bases and convex polytopes. Vol. 8 of University Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
Thomas, R., 1973. Boolean formalisation of genetic control circuits. J Theor Biol 42, 565–583.
Vera-Licona, P., Jarrah, A., Garc[í]{}a-Puente, L. D., McGee, J., Laubenbacher, R., 2009. An evolutionary algorithm for the selection of polynomial models of biochemical networks, in preparation.
Zhang, R., Shah, M. V., Yang, J., Nyland, S. B., Liu, X., Yun, J. K., Albert, R., Loughran, T. P., 2008. [Network model of survival signaling in large granular lymphocyte leukemia]{}. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 (42), 16308–16313.
[^1]: Italicized coordinates where removed from the figure.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study topological properties of the Bose-Hubbard model with repulsive interactions in a one-dimensional optical superlattice. We find that the Mott insulator states of the single-component (two-component) Bose-Hubbard model under fractional fillings are topological insulators characterized by a nonzero charge (or spin) Chern number with nontrivial edge states. For ultracold atomic experiments, we show that the topological Chern number can be detected through measuring the density profiles of the bosonic atoms in a harmonic trap.'
author:
- 'Shi-Liang Zhu'
- 'Z. D. Wang'
- 'Y.-H. Chan'
- 'L. -M. Duan'
title: 'Topological Bose-Mott Insulators in a One-Dimensional Optical Superlattice'
---
*Introduction –* Ultracold atoms in optical lattices can be used to simulate strongly correlated many-body models that are central to the understanding of condensed matter physics. This simulation has attracted a lot of attention as the optical lattice experiments offer unparalleled controllability and new tools to study many-body physics [Jaksch1998,Greiner2002,Duan2003,Lewenstein2007]{}. As a remarkable example, the Bose-Hubbard (BH) model has been experimentally realized with ultracold atoms and a quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator described by this model has been observed [@Greiner2002]. On the other hand, topological matters, such as quantum Hall systems and topological insulators, are of fundamental importance in physics [@Hasan2010]. Recently, studying topological phases with ultracold atoms has raised great interest [@Duan2003; @Zhu2006; @Shao2008; @Umucallar2008; @Goldman2010; @Alba2011; @Lang2012; @Mei2012]. In general, it requires complicated control of experimental systems to realize topological phases with ultracold atoms. An interesting question is whether one can observe topological phases in a simple BH type of model, which can be readily implemented by many experimental groups. Topological properties of bosonic systems, however, have not been well-studied in literature, partly for the reason that the topological invariants are usually defined as an integration over all the occupied states in the momentum space [@Thouless1982; @Bohm2003]. This definition does not apply directly to the bosonic system as many bosons can occupy the same momentum state.
In this Letter, in contrast to the conventional wisdom, we show that the BH model in a one-dimensional (1D) optical superlattice displays nontrivial topological properties. We demonstrate that the Mott insulators of the single-component (two-component) BH model at fractional fillings belong to topological matter with its phase characterized by a nonzero integer charge (or spin) Chern number. For Mott insulators, the bulk system has a gap in the excitation spectrum induced by the interaction. For a topologically nontrivial Mott insulator state characterized by a nonzero Chern number, we further show that there are protected edge states inside the bulk gap under the open boundary condition. The Mott insulators at integer fillings for this system remain topologically trivial with a zero Chern number and no edge states. The topological properties discussed here are reminiscent of those in topological Mott insulators theoretically predicted in Ref. [Raghu2008]{} for the Fermi-Hubbard model in a honeycomb lattice with frustrated next-neighbor interactions. Remarkably, we here show that topological Mott insulators can appear in a simple 1D BH model in an optical superlattice, which, besides being conceptually interesting, makes the experimental realization of topological matter much easier in the ultracold atomic system. We propose a scheme to detect the topological Chern number by observation of the plateaus of the density profile with ultracold atoms in a weak global harmonic trap as it is the case for experiments.
*Single-component BH model in a superlattice.–* We consider a single-component bosonic gas loaded into a 1D optical lattice, which is described by the BH model $$H=-J\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }b_{j}^{\dagger }b_{i}+\sum_{j}\left[
Un_{j}(n_{j}-1)/2+V_{j}n_{j}\right] , \label{Hs}$$where $\label{V_j}V_{j}=V\cos (2\pi \alpha j+\delta )$ denotes a periodic superlattice potential [@Roati2008], $b_{j}$ and $b_{j}^{\dagger }$ correspond to the bosonic annihilation and creation operators of atoms on the $j$th lattice site, $n_{j}=b_{j}^{\dagger }b_{j}$ is the number operator, and $J$ and $U$ represent the hopping rate and the on site interaction strength, respectively. We consider in this Letter a commensurate superlattice potential $V_{j}$ with $\alpha =p/q$ ($p,q$ are integers) being a rational number and $\delta $ an arbitrary tunable phase, which has been experimentally realized [@Roati2008]. We take $J$ as the energy unit by setting $J=1$.
The ground-state phase diagram of the Hamiltonian \[Eq.(\[Hs\])\] is well-studied [@Rousseau2006; @Jaksch1998; @Greiner2002]. For a sufficiently large $U$, the system is in a gapped Mott insulator phase at commensurate fillings with $%
\nu \equiv N_{b}/N=m\alpha $, where $m$ is an integer, $N_{b}$ is the atom number, and $N$ is the number of lattice sites. Away from the commensurate fillings or for a small $U$, the system is in a superfluid state [Rousseau2006]{}. In this Letter, we focus on study of the topological properties of the Mott insulator phase.
*The energy gap and the Chern number of the ground state.–* The topological property is best characterized by the Chern number. To calculate the Chern number, we first perform exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian \[Eq.([Hs]{})\] on a chain of $N$ sites with periodic or open boundary conditions [Zhang2010]{}. The ground state is nondegenerate and separated from the higher eigenstates by a finite gap $\Delta $ at the commensurate fillings. This gap is shown in Fig.1 as a function of the interaction strength $U$ at $%
\nu =1/3$. The gap increases monotonically with $U$ and then saturates at a finite value. For a large $U$, the atoms become hard-core bosons. In this case, each site is occupied by no more than one atom. The hard-core boson Hubbard model can be mapped to a model of free fermions. From that mapping, we find that the saturation value of the gap is $1.08$ (in units of $J$) at a large $U$ for an infinite system. The gap should decrease to zero as $U$ drops below a critical value $%
U_{c}$ where the system transits to a superfluid phase. In Fig. 1, due to the finite size effect, the saturation value of the energy gap is above $1.08 $ for the large $U$ and does not drop exactly to zero as $U$ diminishes. However, as the number of lattice sites increases, we clearly see the tendency that the gap approaches these limiting values at the two ends.
![(Color online) The energy gap $\Delta $ and the Chern number $C_{g}$ \[ defined by Eq.(\[C\_g\])\] as functions of the interaction strength $U$. The number of lattice sites $N=9,12,15$ are used for exact diagonalization, and we take $N=15$ for calculation of $C_{g}$. Other parameters include $V=1.5$, $%
\protect\delta =2\protect\pi /3$, $\protect\alpha =1/3$, and $\protect\nu %
=1/3$. ](fig1_15.eps){height="4cm"}
Now, we investigate the topological property of the system by calculating the Chern number. For fermions, the Chern number is defined as an integration over the occupied states in the momentum space [@Thouless1982]. This definition can not be extended to the bosonic system as many bosons can occupy the same momentum state. Fortunately, there is another way to calculate the Chern number for interacting systems [@Niu1985]: suppose the ground state has a gap to the excited state and it depends on the parameters $%
\theta ,\delta $ through a generalized periodic boundary condition $|\Psi
(j+N,\theta ,\delta )\rangle =e^{i\theta }|\Psi (j,\theta ,\delta )\rangle $, where $j$ denotes an arbitrary site, $\theta $ is the twist angle, and $%
\delta $ is the phase in the superlattice potential $V_{j}$. Under this boundary condition, we numerically diagonalize Hamiltonian \[Eq.(\[Hs\])\] and derive the ground state $|\Psi (\theta ,\delta
)\rangle $, which is a non-degenerate state separated from the excited state by a nonzero energy gap $\Delta $ when $U>U_{c}$. For the ground state $|\Psi (\theta ,\delta )\rangle $ where $\theta$ and $\delta $ vary on a torus, one can define the Chern number $C_{g}$ as a topological invariant by the following formula [Niu1985]{} $$C_{g}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\theta \int_{0}^{2\pi }d\delta
(\partial _{\theta }A_{\delta }-\partial _{\delta }A_{\theta }), \label{C_g}$$where the Berry connection $A_{\mu }\equiv i\langle \Psi (\theta
,\delta )|\partial _{\mu }|\Psi (\theta ,\delta )\rangle $ $(\mu
=\delta ,\theta )$. We numerically calculate the Chern number $C_{g}$ using the method for a discrete manifold [@Fukui2005]. When the parameter $\alpha =1/3$, we find for this boson system that the Chern number $C_{g}=1$ $(-1)$ for the filling fraction $\nu =1/3$ $(2/3)$ and $C_{g}=0$ when $\nu =1$. As an example, we show the value of $C_{g}$ as a function of $U$ at $\nu =1/3$ in Fig. 1, where the manifold of torus is discretized by $5\times 5$ meshes in the calculation. When the system is in the gapped Mott state with $U>U_{c}$, $C_{g}$ is quantized to be exactly at $1$, while $C_{g}$ is unquantized when the system enters the gapless superfluid phase. Because of quantization of $%
C_{g}$, the finite size effect seems to have a minimal influence, and we can use exact diagonalization of a small system to get the exact value of $C_{g}$ in Fig. 1 for the Mott phase (however, because of the finite-size gap, $C_g$ is still approximately unity in some region of the superfluid phase near the transition point). This calculation unambiguously shows that this bosonic system is in a topological Mott insulator phase with nonzero Chern number at the fractional filling of the optical lattice.
*Edge states.–* The appearance of edge states at the boundary is usually considered to be a hallmark of nontrivial topological properties for the bulk system. Under the periodic boundary condition, this interacting system is gapped at the fractional filling $\nu =1/3$ $($or $2/3)$. However, under the open boundary condition, edge states confined to the boundary can appear inside the energy gap, signaling the nontrivial topological properties of the bulk insulator. The quasiparticle energy spectrum $\Delta E_{n}$ is determined by the additional energy required to add an atom to a system with $n$ atoms, that is, $$\Delta E_{n}^{(O,P)}\equiv E_{n+1}^{(O,P)}-E_{n}^{(O,P)}, \label{E_ground}$$where $E_{n}^{(O)}$ ($E_{n}^{(P)}$) is the ground-state energy of the system with $%
n$ atoms under the open (periodic) boundary condition[Guo2011]{}. In Fig. 2(a) , we show the quasi-particle energy spectrum for a system with $96$ lattice sites near the filling $\nu =1/3$ under both periodic and open boundary conditions. The calculation is done using the density matrix renormalization group method [@DMRG], which provides a reliable approach to precisely calculate energies for any 1D systems. Near the filling $\nu =1/3$, the quasi-particle energy spectrum is split into two branches separated by a finite gap. The calculation clearly shows that two states appear in the gap of the energy spectrum under the open boundary condition. In Fig. 2 (b), we show the quasi-particle energy spectrum as a function of phase $\delta $ under the open boundary condition. Inside the gap between the lower and the upper branches of the energy spectrum, one can see two edge modes (which are degenerate in energy at $\delta =2\pi /3$) that connect these two branches of the bulk spectrum as one varies phase $\delta $.
To verify that the in-gap modes indeed correspond to the edge states, we numerically calculate the excitation distribution of these modes and find that they are confined near the edges of the chain. The distribution of the quasi-particle can be defined as $$\Delta n_{j}=\langle \Psi _{n+1}^{g}|n_{j}|\Psi _{n+1}^{g}\rangle -\langle
\Psi _{n}^{g}|n_{j}|\Psi _{n}^{g}\rangle , \label{Nj}$$where $|\Psi _{n}^{g}\rangle $ denotes the ground state wave function of the system with $n$ bosonic atoms. The distribution of the in-gap quasi-particle modes for $N=96$ sites under filling $\nu =1/3$ is plotted in Fig.2 (c). As expected, the in-gap states mainly distribute near the two edges, especially for a large $V$. For instance, $99\%$ of the quasi-particle modes at $V=10$ are localized at the two edge sites.
\[Fig2\] ![(Color online) (a) The quasi-particle energy spectrum $\Delta E_n$ \[see the definition by Eq. (3)\] versus $n$ under the periodic (PBC) or open (OBC) boundary condition. The calculation is done in a $96$-site lattice near the filling $\protect\nu=1/3$ with $V=1.5$, $U=10$, $\protect\delta=2\protect\pi/3$, and $\protect\alpha=1/3$. (b) The edges of the lower ($\Delta E_{30}$) and the upper ($\Delta E_{33}$) branches of the energy spectrum and the two in-gap modes ($\Delta E_{31}$and $\Delta E_{32}$) as functions of the phase $\delta$ under the open boundary condition. (c) The distribution of the two in-gap modes along the chain at $V=1.5,\ 10$. The other parameters for (b) and (c) are the same as those for (a).](figure2.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"}
*Two-component BH model in a superlattice and spin Chern number.–* If the phase $\delta $ in Eq.(2) is replaced by $-\delta $, we find that the Chern number is $-1$ ($1$) for $\nu
=1/3$ ($2/3$), that is, the sign of the Chern number is flipped. This fact implies that we can realize a topological insulator characterized by a nontrivial spin Chern number with a two-component bosonic gas in a 1D optical superlattice. To this end, we consider a simple case where the inter-component atomic collision is turned off, e.g., through Feshbach resonance, and the system is described by a decoupled two-component BH model with the Hamiltonian $$H=-J\sum_{\langle ij\rangle \sigma }b_{i\sigma }^{\dagger
}b_{j,\sigma }+\sum_{j,\sigma }[\frac{U_{\sigma }}{2}n_{j\sigma
}(n_{j\sigma }-1)+V_{j\sigma }n_{j\sigma }],$$where the potential $V_{j\sigma }=V\cos (2\pi \alpha j+\delta
_{\sigma })$ with $\delta _{\uparrow }=-\delta _{\downarrow
}=\delta $, $b_{j\sigma }$ denotes the bosonic annihilation operator with the pseudo-spin $\sigma =\uparrow ,\downarrow $, and $U_{\sigma }$ is the intra-component interaction rate for spin $\sigma $. For this decoupled two-component BH model, we have the Chern number $C_{g}^{\uparrow }=-C_{g}^{\downarrow }$. So, although the total charge Chern number $C_{g}^{\uparrow
}+C_{g}^{\downarrow }$ cancels out to zero, the spin Chern number $%
C_{g}^{s}=C_{g}^{\uparrow }-C_{g}^{\downarrow }$ [@Sheng2006] is non-vanishing at fractional fillings. The nonzero spin Chern number is usually associated with the quantum spin Hall effects in two-dimensional systems [@Sheng2006]. For our 1D system, spin edge states appear when the spin Chern number is nonzero. For an example with $\alpha =1/3$, we have $C_{g}^{s}=2$ at the fractional fillings $\nu =1/3$ ($2/3$) and $%
C_{g}^{s}=0$ at the integer filling. The edge states are similar to those shown in Fig. 2. The spin up (down) edge state is confined near the left (right) edge, respectively.
*Experimental detection.–* We now discuss how to measure topological Chern number in a practical experimental setting. For atomic experiments, apart from the optical superlattice potential, the bosons are confined in a weak global harmonic trap. For simplicity, we consider the large-$U$ limit where the system is described by hard-core bosons with no more than one atom occupying the same lattice site. The total potential, including the optical superlattice and the global harmonic trap, is described by $$V_{j}=V\cos (2\pi \alpha j+\delta )+V_{H}(j-j_{0})^{2},$$where $j_{0}$ denotes the position of the trap center and $V_{H}$ is the strength of the harmonic trap. We use the Jordan-Wigner transformation, $%
b_{j}^{\dagger }=f_{j}^{\dagger }\prod_{m=1}^{j-1}e^{-i\pi f_{m}^{\dagger
}f_{m}}$ and $b_{j}=\prod_{m=1}^{j-1}e^{i\pi f_{m}^{\dagger }f_{m}}f_{j}$, to map the hard-core BH model to non-interacting fermion Hamiltonian $%
H_{F}=-J\sum_{j}(f_{j}^{\dagger }f_{j+1}+h.c.)+\sum_{j}V_{j}f_{j}^{\dagger
}f_{j}$, where $f_{j}^{\dagger }$ and $f_{j}$ are the creation and annihilation operators for spinless fermions, respectively[@Rousseau2006; @Paredes2004]. The particle density of hard-core bosons coincides with that of non-interacting fermions as we have $n_{j}=\langle b_{j}^{\dagger
}b_{j}\rangle =\langle f_{j}^{\dagger }f_{j}\rangle =n_{j}^{F}$ with the Jordan-Wigner transformation; however, the momentum distribution for bosons is typically very different from that for fermions.
After the hard-core bosons are mapped to fermions, there is a simple way to figure out the Chern number. The ground state of free fermions is a Slater determinant, i.e., a product of single particle states $|\Psi _{g}^{F}\rangle
=\prod_{m=1}^{N_{f}}\sum_{n=1}^{N}P_{nm}f_{n}^{\dagger }|0\rangle
$, with $N_{f}=N_{b}$ the number of fermions and $P$ the matrix of the components of $|\Psi _{g}^{F}\rangle $. Supposing that the $n$-th eigenstate of a single particle is denoted by $|\psi
_{n}\rangle
=\sum_{j}\phi _{j,n}f_{j}^{\dagger }|0\rangle $, the eigenvalue equation $%
H_{F}|\psi _{n}\rangle =E_{n}|\psi _{n}\rangle $ can be written in terms of the following Harper equation [@Lang2012] $$-J(\phi _{j+1,n}+\phi _{j,n})+V\cos (2\pi \alpha +\delta )\phi
_{j,n}=E_{n}\phi _{j,n}, \label{Harper}$$where $\phi _{j,n}$ is the amplitude of the particle wave function of the $j$-th site and $E_{n}$ is the $n$-th single-particle eigen-energy. Compared with the Harper equation in a magnetic field, we know that $\alpha $ corresponds to the magnetic flux [@Bohm2003]. Therefore, we can define the local density difference as $$\delta n_{j}=\frac{n_{j}(\alpha _{1})-n_{j}(\alpha _{2})}{\alpha _{1}-\alpha
_{2}}. \label{Streda}$$The Chern number $C_{g}$ can then be obtained through the Streda formula $%
C_{g}=\delta n_{j}$ under the condition that $n_{j}(\alpha _{\eta })$ $(\eta
=1,2)$ is the local density associated with the plateau at $\alpha _{\eta }$[@Umucallar2008; @Shao2008; @Lang2012; @Mei2012].
![(Color online) The average density profiles $\bar{n}_j$ and the density difference $\protect\delta \bar{n}_j$ for $\protect\alpha_1=1/3$ and $\protect\alpha_2=1/4$. The values of $\protect\delta \bar{n}_j$ represent the corresponding Chern numbers at the plateaus with the fillings $\protect%
\nu=1/3,2/3,1$ for $\protect\alpha=1/3$ and $\protect\nu=1/4, 3/4,1$ for $%
\protect\alpha=1/4$. The other parameters are $N=300$, $N_b=180$, $M=4$, $V=10$, $\delta=\pi/2$, and $V_H=0.001$. []{data-label="Fig3"}](fig3.eps){height="4.5cm"}
Following the method outlined in Ref. [@Rousseau2006], we numerically calculated the average density profiles for $\alpha
=1/3,1/4$, with the results shown in Fig.3. To reduce the oscillations in density profiles induced by modulation of the potentials, we define the local average density $\bar{n}_{j}=\sum_{m=-M}^{M}n_{j+m}/(2M+1)$, where $2M+1$ is the length to average the density, which corresponds to the position resolution in the experimental detection. We take $M\ll N$, e.g., $M=4$ and $N=300$ in Fig. 3, as it is typical for experiments. As one can see from the density profiles $\bar{n}_{j}$ in Fig. 3, plateaus appear at the rational fillings $%
\nu =1/3,2/3,1$ for $\alpha =1/3$, and $\nu =1/4,3/4,1$ for $\alpha =1/4$ (the gap at half filling in the case of $\alpha
=p/q$ with an even $q$ is generally closed at an integer $\delta
/\pi $ [@Bohm2003]). Using the Streda formula \[Eq. (\[Streda\])\], we obtain $C_{g}=\delta n_{j}=1,-1$ at the fractional fillings $\nu =\alpha ,1-\alpha $, and $C_{g}=0$ at the integer filling $\nu =1$. The width of the plateaus is associated with the size of the energy gap. To make detection of the Chern number easier, we can adjust the frequency of the harmonic trap to move the target plateaus to the center of the trap. For example, if we choose $V_{H}=10^{-4}J$ and other parameters as those given in Fig.3, the plateaus at $\nu =2/3$ for $\alpha =1/3$ and $%
\nu =3/4$ for $\alpha =1/4$ are moved to the center of the trap spanning from the $65$th to the $235$th lattice site. With such a wide plateau, it is straightforward to read out the Chern number $C_{g}=\delta \bar{n}%
_{j}=-1$ for this case.
In summary, we have shown that for bosonic atoms in a 1D optical super-lattice, the Mott insulator states of the corresponding BH model at fractional fillings are topologically nontrivial, characterized by nonzero Chern number and existence of edge states. We further predict that the topological Chern number can be detected by measuring the plateaus in the density profile when the atoms are trapped in a global harmonic potential. The model discussed in this Letter represents one of the simplest experimental systems to show intriguing topological properties, and the proposed detection method allows one to confirm these topological properties with the state-of-the-art technology.
SLZ is supported by the NSF of China (Grant No. 11125417), the SKPBR of China (Grant No.2011CB922104), and the PCSIRT. ZDW is supported by the GRF (HKU7058/11P) and the CRF (HKU8/11G) of Hong Kong RGC. LMD and YHC acknowledge support by the NBRPC (Grant No.2011CBA00302), the DARPA OLE Program under ARO Award W911NF0710576, the IARPA, and the AFOSR and ARO MURI program.
[99]{} M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Adv. Phys. **56**, 243 (2007); I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 885 (2008).
D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 3108 (1998).
M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T.W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, Nature (London) **415**, 39 (2002); T. Stoferle, H. Moritz, C. Schori, M. Kohl, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 130403 (2004).
L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 090402 (2003).
M.Z.Hasan and C. L.Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 3045 (2010); X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1057 (2011).
S. L. Zhu, H. Fu, C. J. Wu, S. C. Zhang, and L. M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 240401 (2006).
R. O. Umucalilar, H. Zhai, and M. O. Oktel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 070402 (2008).
L. B. Shao, S. L. Zhu, L. Sheng, D. Y. Xing, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 246810 (2008).
N. Goldman, I. Satija, P. Nikolic, A. Bermudez, M. A. Martin-Delgado, M. Lewenstein, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 255302 (2010).
E. Alba, X. Fernandez-Gonzalvo, J. Mur-Petit, J. K. Pachos, and J. J. Garcia-Ripoll Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 235301 (2011)
L. J. Lang, X. Cai, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 220401 (2012).
F. Mei, S. L. Zhu, Z. M. Zhang, C. H. Oh, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. A **85**, 013638 (2012).
D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **49**, 405 (1982).
A. Bohm, A. Mostafazadeh, H. Koizumi, Q. Niu, and J. Zwanziger, *The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems*, ( Spinger-Verlag, Berlin,2003).
S. Raghu, X. L. Qi, C. Honerkamp, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 156401 (2008).
G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Nature (London) **453**, 895 (2008); L. Fallani, J. E. Lye, V. Guarrera, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 130404 (2007).
V. G. Rousseau, D. P. Arovas, M. Rigol, F. Hebert, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 174516 (2006).
For a pedagogical introduction to the exact diagonalization of the BH model, see M. Zhang and R. X. Dong, Eur. J. Phys. **31**, 591 (2010).
Q. Niu, D. J. Thouless, and Y. S. Wu, Phys. Rev. B **31**, 3372 (1985).
T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **74**, 1674 (2005).
H. Guo, S. Q. Shen, and S. Feng, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 085124 (2012); H. Guo and S. Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 195107 (2011).
U. Schollwöck, Rev. Mod. Phys. **77**, 259 (2005).
D. N. Sheng, Z. Y. Weng, L. Sheng, and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 036808 (2006).
B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. Folling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, Nature (London) **429**, 277 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We characterize the fixed divisor of a polynomial $f(X)$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ by looking at the contraction of the powers of the maximal ideals of the overring ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ containing $f(X)$. Given a prime $p$ and a positive integer $n$, we also obtain a complete description of the ideal of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ whose fixed divisor is divisible by $p^n$ in terms of its primary components.'
address: 'Institut für Analysis und Comput. Number Theory, Technische Universität, Steyrergasse 30, A-8010 Graz, Austria.'
author:
- Giulio Peruginelli
title: |
Primary decomposition of the ideal of polynomials whose fixed divisor is divisible by a prime power\
0.3cm
---
Integer-valued polynomial,Image of a polynomial ,Fixed divisor ,Factorization of integer-valued polynomials ,Primary components ,Primary decomposition. MSC Classification codes: 13B25, 13F20.
0.2cm
0.4cm
Introduction
============
In this work we investigate the image set of integer-valued polynomials over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. The set of these polynomials is a ring usually denoted by: $${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\doteqdot\{f\in{\mathbb{Q}}[X]\;|\;f({\mathbb{Z}})\subset{\mathbb{Z}}\}.$$
Since an integer-valued polynomial $f(X)$ maps the integers in a subset of the integers, it is natural to consider the subset of the integers formed by the values of $f(X)$ over the integers and the ideal generated by this subset. This ideal is usually called the fixed divisor of $f(X)$. Here is the classical definition.
Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. The **fixed divisor** of $f(X)$ is the ideal of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ generated by the values of $f(n)$, as $n$ ranges in ${\mathbb{Z}}$: $$d(f)=d(f,{\mathbb{Z}})=(f(n)|n\in{\mathbb{Z}}).$$ We say that a polynomial $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is **image primitive** if $d(f)={\mathbb{Z}}$.
It is well-known that for every integer $n\geq1$ we have $$d(X(X-1)\ldots(X-(n-1)))=n!$$ so that the so-called binomial polynomials $B_n(X)\doteqdot X(X-1)\ldots(X-(n-1))/n!$ are integer-valued (indeed, they form a free basis of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module; see [@CaCh0]).
Notice that, given two integer-valued polynomials $f$ and $g$, we have $d(fg)\subset d(f)d(g)$ and we may not have an equality. For instance, consider $f(X)=X$ and $g(X)=X-1$; then we have $d(f)=d(g)={\mathbb{Z}}$ and $d(fg)=2{\mathbb{Z}}$. If $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ and $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, then directly from the definition we have $d(nf)=nd(f)$. If cont($F$) denotes the content of a polynomial $F\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, that is, the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of $F$, we have $F(X)=$cont$(F)G(X)$, where $G\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ is a primitive polynomial (that is, cont($G$)=1). We have the relation: $$d(F)=\mbox{cont}(F)d(G).$$ In particular, the fixed divisor is contained in the ideal generated by the content. Hence, given a polynomial with integer coefficients, we can assume it to be primitive. In the same way, if we have an integer-valued polynomial $f(X)=F(X)/N$, with $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ and $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we can assume that $($cont$(F),N)=1$ and $F(X)$ to be primitive.
The next lemma gives a well-known characterization of a generator of the above ideal (see [@ACaChS Lemma 2.7]).
\[fixdiv\] Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ be of degree $d$ and set
- $d_1=\sup\{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}\;|\;\frac{f(X)}{n}\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\}$
- $d_2=GCD\{f(n)\;|\;n\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$
- $d_3=GCD\{f(0),\ldots,f(d)\}$
then $d_1=d_2=d_3$.
Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. We remark that the value $d_1$ of Lemma \[fixdiv\] is plainly equal to: $$d_1=\sup\{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}\;|f\in n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\}.$$ Moreover, given an integer $n$, we have this equivalence that we will use throughout the paper, a sort of ideal-theoretic characterization of the arithmetical property that all the values attained by $f(X)$ are divisible by $n$: $$f({\mathbb{Z}})\subset n{\mathbb{Z}}\Longleftrightarrow f\in n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$$ ($n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is the principal ideal of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ generated by $n$). From 1) of Lemma \[fixdiv\] we see immediately that if $f(X)=F(X)/N$ is an integer-valued polynomial, where $F\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ and $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ coprime with the content of $F(X)$, then $d(f)=d(F)/N$, so we can just focus our attention on the fixed divisor of a primitive polynomial in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$.
We want to give another interpretation of the fixed divisor of a polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ by considering the maximal ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ containing $f(X)$ and looking at their contraction to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. We recall first the definition of unitary ideal given in [@McQ].
An ideal $I\subseteq{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is **unitary** if $I\cap{\mathbb{Z}}\not=0$.
That is, an ideal $I$ of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is unitary if it contains a non-zero integer, or, equivalently, $I{\mathbb{Q}}[X]={\mathbb{Q}}[X]$ (where $I{\mathbb{Q}}[X]$ denotes the extension ideal in ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]$). The whole ring ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is clearly a principal unitary ideal generated by $1$.
The next results are probably well-known, but for the ease of the reader we report them. The first lemma says that a principal unitary ideal $I$ is generated by a non-zero integer, which generates the contraction of $I$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}$. In particular, this lemma establishes a bijective correspondence between the nonzero ideals of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and the set of principal unitary ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. 0.3cm
\[1\] Let $I\subseteq{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ be a principal unitary ideal. If $I\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=n{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $n\not=0$ then $I=n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. In particular, $n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=n{\mathbb{Z}}$. Moreover, $n_1{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=n_2{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ with $n_1,n_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $n_1=\pm n_2$.
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}If $I=(f)$ for some $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ then $\deg(f)=0$ since a non-zero integer $n$ is in $I$. Since $f(X)$ is integer-valued it must be equal to an integer and so it is contained in $I\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=n{\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence we get the first statement of the lemma. If $n_1{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=n_2{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ then $n_1=n_2 f$ with $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$; this forces $f$ to be a non-zero integer, so that $n_1$ divides $n_2$. Similarly, we get that $n_2$ divides $n_1$. $\Box$ 0.4cm
\[2\] Let $I_1,I_2\subseteq{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ be principal unitary ideals. Then $I_1\cap I_2$ is a principal unitary ideal too.
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Suppose $I_i=n_i{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, where $n_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $n_i{\mathbb{Z}}=I_i\cap{\mathbb{Z}}$, for $i=1,2$. We have $n_1{\mathbb{Z}}\cap n_2{\mathbb{Z}}=n{\mathbb{Z}}$, where $n=\textnormal{lcm}\{n_1,n_2\}$. The ideal $I_1\cap I_2$ is unitary since $n\in I_1\cap I_2$. In particular, we have $I_1\cap I_2\supseteq n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. We have to prove that $I_1\cap I_2\subseteq n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. Let $f\in I_1\cap I_2$. Then $f({\mathbb{Z}})\subset n_1{\mathbb{Z}}\cap n_2{\mathbb{Z}}=n{\mathbb{Z}}$, so that $\frac{f(X)}{n}\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. $\Box$ 0.6cm The previous lemma implies the following decomposition for a principal unitary ideal generated by an integer $n$, with prime factorization $n=\prod_i p_i^{a_i}$. We have $$n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=\bigcap_i p_i^{a_i}{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=\prod_i p_i^{a_i}{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$$ where the last equality holds because the ideals $p_i^{a_i}{\mathbb{Z}}$ are coprime in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, hence they are coprime in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$.
We are now ready to give the following definition.
\[fixdivIZ\] Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. The **extended fixed divisor** of $f(X)$ is the minimal ideal of the set $\{n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\;|\;n\in{\mathbb{Z}},f\in n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\}$. We denote this ideal by $D(f)$.
0.3cm
Equivalently, in the above definition, we require that $n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ contains the principal ideal in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ generated by the polynomial $f(X)$. Lemma \[1\] and \[2\] show that the minimal ideal in the above definition does exist: it is equal to the intersection of all the principal unitary ideals containing $f(X)$. Notice that the extended fixed divisor is an ideal of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, while the fixed divisor is an ideal of ${\mathbb{Z}}$. The polynomial $f(X)$ is image primitive if and only if its extended fixed divisor is the whole ring ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. In the next sections we will study the extended fixed divisor by considering the $p$-part of it, namely the principal unitary ideals of the form $p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ being prime and $n$ a positive integer.
The following proposition gives a link between the fixed divisor and the extended fixed divisor: the latter is the extension of the former and conversely. So each of them gives information about the other one. 0.3cm
Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. Then we have:
- $D(f)\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=d(f)$
- $d(f){\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=D(f)$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Let $d,D\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be such that $d(f)=d{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $D(f)=D{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. Since $d(f){\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=d{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is a principal unitary ideal containing $f(X)$, from the definition of extended fixed divisor, we have $D(f)\subseteq d{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. In particular, $D\geq d$. We also have $f(X)/D\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ and so $d\geq D$, by characterization 1) of Lemma \[fixdiv\]. Hence we get a). From that we deduce that $d(f)\subseteq D(f)$, so statement b) follows. $\Box$ 0.5cm As already remarked in [@CaCh], the rings ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ share the same units, namely $\{\pm1\}$. Then [@CaCh Proposition 2.1] can be restated as follows. 0.3cm
Let $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ be irreducible in ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]$. Then $f(X)$ is irreducible in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ if and only if $f(X)$ is not contained in any proper principal unitary ideal of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$.
0.1cm The next lemma has been given in [@ChMcCl] and is analogous to the Gauss Lemma for polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ which are irreducible in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$.
Let $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ be a primitive polynomial. Then $f(X)$ is irreducible in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ if and only if it is irreducible in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ and image primitive.
0.3cm
For example, the polynomial $f(X)=X^2+X+2$ is irreducible in ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]$ and also in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ since it is primitive (because of Gauss Lemma). But it is reducible in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ since its extended fixed divisor is not trivial, namely it is the ideal $2{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. So in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ we have the following factorization: $$f(X)=2\cdot\frac{X^2+X+2}{2}$$ and indeed this is a factorization into irreducibles in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, since the latter polynomial is image primitive and irreducible in ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]$, and by [@CaCh Lemma 1.1], the irreducible elements in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ remain irreducible in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. So the study of the extended fixed divisor of the elements in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is a first step toward studying the factorization of the elements in this ring (which is not a unique factorization domain). 0.5cm Here is an overview of the content of the paper. At the beginning of the next section we recall the structure of the prime spectrum of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. Then, for a fixed prime $p$, we describe the contractions to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of the maximal unitary ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ containing $p$ (Lemma \[Mp\]). In Theorem \[pIZ\] we describe the ideal $I_p$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of those polynomials whose fixed divisor is divisible by $p$, namely the contraction to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of the principal unitary ideal $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, which is the ideal of integer-valued polynomials whose extended fixed divisor is contained in $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. It turns out that $I_p$ is the intersection of the aforementioned contractions. In the third section we generalize the result of the second section to prime powers, by means of a structure theorem of Loper regarding unitary ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. We consider the contractions to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of the powers of the prime unitary ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ (Lemma \[Mpn\]). In Remark \[primarydecpnRZ\] we give a description of the structure of the set of these contractions; that allows us to give the primary decomposition of the ideal $I_{p^n}=p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, made up of those polynomials whose fixed divisor is divisible by a prime power $p^n$. We shall see that we have to distinguish two cases: $p\leq n$ and $p>n$ (see also the examples in Remark \[Controesempi\]). In Theorem \[pnIZ\] we describe $I_{p^n}$ in the case $p\leq n$. This result was already known in a slightly different context by Dickson (see [@Dickson p. 22, Theorem 27]), but our different proof uses the primary decomposition of $I_{p^n}$ and that gives an insight to generalize the result to the second case. In Proposition \[Qp0p>n\] we give a set of generators for the primary components of $I_{p^n}$, in the case $p>n$. Finally in the last section, as an application, we explicitly compute the ideal $I_{p^{p+1}}$.
Fixed divisor via Spec(${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$)
============================================================
The study of the prime spectrum of the ring ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ began in [@Chab]. We recall that the prime ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ are divided into two different categories, unitary and non-unitary. Let $P$ be a prime ideal of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. If it is unitary then its intersection with the ring of integers is a principal ideal generated by a prime $p$.\
0.2cm **Non-unitary prime ideals:** $P\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=\{0\}$.\
In this case $P$ is a prime (non-maximal) ideal and it is of the form $$\frak{B}_q=q{\mathbb{Q}}[X]\cap{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$$ for some $q\in{\mathbb{Q}}[X]$ irreducible. By Gauss Lemma we may suppose that $q\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ is irreducible and primitive. 0.2cm **Unitary prime ideals:** $P\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=p{\mathbb{Z}}$.\
In this case $P$ is maximal and is of the form $$\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}=\{f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\;|\;f(\alpha)\in p{\mathbb{Z}}_p\}$$ for some $p$ prime in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and some $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$, the ring of $p$-adic integers. We have $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}=\frak{M}_{q,\beta}$ if and only if $(p,\alpha)=(q,\beta)$. So if we fix the prime $p$, the elements of ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ are in bijection with the unitary prime ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ above the prime $p$. Moreover, $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ is height $1$ if and only if $\alpha$ is transcendental over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. If $\alpha$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and $q(X)$ is its minimal polynomial then $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\supset\frak{B}_q$. We have $\frak{B}_q\subset\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ if and only if $q(\alpha)=0$. Every prime ideal of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is not finitely generated.
For a detailed study of Spec(${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$) see [@CaCh0]. 0.4cm If we denote by $d(f,{\mathbb{Z}}_p)$ the fixed divisor of $f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ viewed as a polynomial over the ring of $p$-adic integers ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ (that is, $d(f,{\mathbb{Z}}_p)$ is the ideal $(f(\alpha)\,|\,\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p)$), Gunji and McQuillan in [@GMcQ] observed that $$d(f)=\bigcap_{p}d(f,{\mathbb{Z}}_p)$$ where the intersection is taken over the set of primes in ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Moreover, $d(f,{\mathbb{Z}}_p)=d(f){\mathbb{Z}}_p\subset{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Remember that given an ideal $I\subset{\mathbb{Z}}$ and a prime $p$ we have $I{\mathbb{Z}}_p={\mathbb{Z}}_p$ if and only if $I\not\subset (p)$, so that in the previous equation we have a finite intersection. Since ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ is a DVR we have $d(f,{\mathbb{Z}}_p)=p^n{\mathbb{Z}}_p$, for some integer $n$ (which of course depends on $p$), so that the exact power of $p$ which divides $f({\mathbb{Z}})$ is the same as the power of $p$ dividing $f({\mathbb{Z}}_p)$. Without loss of generality, we can restrict our attention to the $p$-part of the fixed divisor of a polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. We begin our research by finding those polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ whose fixed divisor is divisible by a fixed prime $p$, namely the ideal $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. 0.5cm
\[Mp\] Let $p$ be a prime and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Then $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=(p,X-a)$, where $a\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ is such that $\alpha\equiv a\pmod p$. Moreover, if $\beta\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ is another $p$-adic integer, we have $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=\frak{M}_{p,\beta}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ if and only if $\alpha\equiv\beta\pmod p$.
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Let $a$ be an integer as in the statement of the lemma; it exists since ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is dense in ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ for the $p$-adic topology. We immediately see that $p$ and $X-a$ are in $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$. Then the conclusion follows since $(p,X-a)$ is a maximal ideal of ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ and $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ is not equal to the whole ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. The second statement follows from the fact that $(p,X-a)=(p,X-b)$ if and only if $a\equiv b\pmod p$. $\Box$ 0.6cm We have just seen that the contraction of $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ depends only on the residue class modulo $p$ of $\alpha$. So, if $p$ is a fixed prime, the contractions of $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ as $\alpha$ ranges through ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ are made up of $p$ distinct maximal ideals, namely $$\{\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]\;|\;\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p\}=\{(p,X-j)\,|\,j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}\}.$$ Conversely, the set of prime ideals of ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ above a fixed maximal ideal of the form $(p,X-j)$ is $\{\,\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\,|\,\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p\,,\,\alpha\equiv j\pmod p\}$, since $\frak{B}_q$ are non-unitary ideals and $p$ is the only prime integer in $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$.
For a prime $p$ and an integer $j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$, we set: $$\mathcal{M}_{p,j}=\mathcal{M}_{j}\doteqdot(p,X-j).$$ Whenever the notation $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$ is used, it will be implicit that $j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$.
The next lemma computes the intersection of the ideals $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$, for a fixed prime $p$, by finding an ideal whose primary decomposition is given by this intersection (and its primary components are precisely the $p$ ideals $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$). From now on we will omit the index $p$.
\[pRZx\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime. Then we have $$\bigcap_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{M}_{j}=\left(p,\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j)\right).$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Let $J$ be the ideal on the right-hand side. If $P$ is a prime minimal over $J$, then we see immediately that $P=\mathcal{M}_{j}$ for some $j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$, since $\mathcal{M}_{j}$ is a maximal ideal. Conversely, every such a maximal ideal contains $J$ and is minimal over it. Then the minimal primary decomposition of $J$ is of the form $$J=\bigcap_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}Q_j$$ where $Q_j$ is an $\mathcal{M}_{j}$-primary ideal. Since $X-i\not\in\mathcal{M}_{j}$ for all $i\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}\setminus\{j\}$, we have $(X-j)\in Q_j$, so indeed $Q_j=(p,X-j)$ for each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$. $\Box$
0.7cm The next proposition characterizes the principal unitary ideals in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ generated by a prime $p$.
\[pR\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime. Then the principal unitary ideal $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is equal to $$p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=\bigcap_{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p}\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}.$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}We trivially have that $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is contained in the above intersection, since $p$ is in every ideal of the form $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$. On the other hand, this intersection is equal to $\{f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}|f({\mathbb{Z}}_p)\subset p{\mathbb{Z}}_p\}$. If $f(X)$ is in this intersection, since $f(X)$ is integer-valued and $p{\mathbb{Z}}_p\cap{\mathbb{Z}}=p{\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $f({\mathbb{Z}})\subset p{\mathbb{Z}}$. This is equivalent to saying that $f(X)/p\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$, that is, $f\in p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. $\Box$\
0.2cm In particular, the previous proposition implies that ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ does not have the finite character property (we recall that a ring has this property if every non-zero element is contained in a finite number of maximal ideals).
From the above results we get the following theorem, which characterizes the ideal of polynomials with integer coefficients whose fixed divisor is divisible by a prime $p$, that is, the ideal $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$.
\[pIZ\] Let $p$ be a prime. Then $$p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=\left(p,\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j)\right).$$
0.4cm Notice that Lemma \[pRZx\] gives the primary decomposition of $p{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, so $\mathcal{M}_{j}$ for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$ are exactly the prime ideals belonging to it. As a consequence of this theorem we get the following well-known result: if $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ is primitive and $p$ is a prime such that $d(f)\subseteq p$ then $p\leq\deg(f)$. This immediately follows from the theorem, since the degree of $\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j)$ is $p$.
We remark that by Fermat’s little theorem the ideal on the right-hand side of the statement of Theorem \[pIZ\] is equal to $\left(p,X^p-X\right)$. This amounts to saying that the two polynomials $X\cdot\ldots\cdot(X-(p-1))$ and $X^p-X$ induce the same polynomial function on ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Contraction of primary ideals {#contrprimary}
=============================
0.5cm We remark that Proposition \[pR\] also follows from a general result contained in [@Loper]: every unitary ideal in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ is an intersection of powers of unitary prime ideals (namely the maximal ideals $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$). In particular, every $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$-primary ideal is a power of $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ itself, since $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$ is maximal. From the same result we also have the following characterization of the powers of $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$, for any positive integer $n$: $$\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n=\{f\in{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\;|\;f(\alpha)\in p^n{\mathbb{Z}}_p\}.$$ This fact implies the following expression for the principal unitary ideal generated by $p^n$: $$\label{pnR}
p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}=\bigcap_{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p}\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n.$$ We remark again that the previous ideal is made up of those integer-valued polynomials whose extended fixed divisor is contained in $p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$. Similarly to the previous case $n=1$ (see Theorem \[pIZ\]) we want to find the contraction of this ideal to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, in order to find the polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ whose fixed divisor is divisible by $p^n$. We set: $$\label{Ipn}
I_{p^n}\doteqdot p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X].$$ Notice that by (\[pnR\]) we have $I_{p^n}=\bigcap_{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p}(\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X])$.
Like before, we begin by finding the contraction to ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n$, for each $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. The next lemma is a generalization of Lemma \[Mp\]. 0.4cm
\[Mpn\] Let $p$ be a prime, $n$ a positive integer and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Then $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=(p^n,X-a)$, where $a\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ is such that $\alpha\equiv a\pmod{p^n}$. The ideal $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ is $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$-primary, where $j\equiv\alpha\pmod p$. Moreover, if $\beta\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ is another $p$-adic integer, we have $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=\frak{M}_{p,\beta}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ if and only if $\alpha\equiv\beta\pmod{p^n}$.
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}The case $n=1$ has been done in Lemma \[Mp\]. For the general case, let $a\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be such that $a\equiv\alpha\pmod{p^n}$ (again, such an integer exists since ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is dense in ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ for the $p$-adic topology). We have $(p^n,X-a)\subset\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ (notice that if $n>1$ then $(p^n,X-a)$ is not a prime ideal). To prove the other inclusion let $f\in\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. By the Euclidean algorithm in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ (the leading coefficient of $X-a$ is a unit) we have $$f(X)=q(X)(X-a)+f(a)$$ Since $f(\alpha)\in p^n{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ and $p^n|a-\alpha$ we have $p^n|f(a)$. Hence, $f\in(p^n,X-a)$ as we wanted. Since $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n$ is an $\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}$-primary ideal in ${\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}$ and the contraction of a primary ideal is a primary ideal, by Lemma \[Mp\] we get the second statement. Finally, like in the proof of Lemma \[Mp\], we immediately see that $(p^n,X-a)=(p^n,X-b)$ if and only if $a\equiv b\pmod{p^n}$, which gives the last statement of the lemma. $\Box$\
0.6cm
\[divresto\] It is worth to write down the fact that we used in the above proof: given a polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, we have $$\label{**}
f\in(p^n,X-a)\Longleftrightarrow f(a)\equiv0\pmod{p^n}$$
0.9cm
\[primarydecpnRZ\] If $p$ is a fixed prime and $n$ is a positive integer, the Lemma \[Mpn\] implies $$\mathcal{I}_{p,n}\doteqdot\{\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]\;|\;\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p\}=\{(p^n,X-i)\;|\;i=0,\ldots,p^n-1\}.$$ Let us consider an ideal $I=\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}^n\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]=(p^n,X-i)$ in $\mathcal{I}_{p,n}$, with $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $i\equiv\alpha\pmod{p^n}$. It is quite easy to see that $I$ contains $(\frak{M}_{p,\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X])^n=\mathcal{M}_{p,j}^n=(p,X-j)^n$, where $j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$, $j\equiv\alpha\pmod{p}$ (notice that $j\equiv i\pmod p$). If $n>1$ this containment is strict, since $X-i\not\in(p,X-j)^n$. We can group the ideals of $\mathcal{I}_{p,n}$ according to their radical: there are $p$ radicals of these $p^n$ ideals, namely the maximal ideals $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$, $j=0,\ldots,p-1$. This amounts to making a partition of the residue classes modulo $p^n$ into $p$ different sets of elements congruent to $j$ modulo $p$, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$; each of these sets has cardinality $p^{n-1}$. Correspondingly we have: $$\mathcal{I}_{p,n}=\bigcup_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{I}_{p,n,j}$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{p,n,j}\doteqdot\{(p^n,X-i)\;|\;i=0,\ldots,p^n-1,i\equiv j\pmod p\}$, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$. Every ideal in $\mathcal{I}_{p,n,j}$ is $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$-primary and it contains the $n$-th power of its radical, namely $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}^n$.
Now we want to compute the intersection of the ideals in $\mathcal{I}_{p,n}$, which is equal to the ideal $I_{p^n}$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ (see (\[pnR\]) and (\[Ipn\])). We can express this intersection as an intersection of $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$-primary ideals as we have said above, in the following way (in the first equality we make use of equation (\[pnR\]) and Lemma \[Mpn\]): $$\label{intIpn}
I_{p^n}=\bigcap_{i=0,\ldots,p^n-1}(p^n,X-i)=\bigcap_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{Q}_{p,n,j}$$ where $$\mathcal{Q}_{p,n,j}\doteqdot\bigcap_{i\equiv j(\textnormal{mod } p)}(p^n,X-i)$$ (notice that the intersection is taken over the set $\{i\in\{0,\ldots,p^n-1\} \mid i\equiv j\pmod p\}$). The ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{p,n,j}$ is an $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$-primary ideal, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$, since the intersection of $M$-primary ideals is an $M$-primary ideal. We will omit the index $p$ in $\mathcal{Q}_{p,n,j}$ and in $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$ if that will be clear from the context. The $\mathcal{M}_{p,j}$-primary ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ is just the intersection of the ideals in $\mathcal{I}_{p,n,j}$, according to the partition we made. It is equal to the set of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ which modulo $p^n$ are zero at the residue classes congruent to $j$ modulo $p$ (see (\[\*\*\]) of Remark \[divresto\]). We remark that (\[intIpn\]) is the minimal primary decomposition of $I_{p^n}$. Notice that there are no embedded components in this primary decomposition, since the prime ideals belonging to it (the minimal primes containing $I_{p^n}$) are $\{\mathcal{M}_{j}\,|\,j=0,\ldots,p-1\}$, which are maximal ideals.
We recall that if $I$ and $J$ are two coprime ideals in a ring $R$, that is $I+J=R$, then $IJ=I\cap J$ (in general only the inclusion $IJ\subset I\cap J$ holds). The condition for two ideals $I$ and $J$ to be coprime amounts to saying that $I$ and $J$ are not contained in a same maximal ideal $M$, that is, $I+J$ is not contained in any maximal ideal $M$. If $M_1$ and $M_2$ are two distinct maximal ideals then they are coprime, and the same holds for any of their respective powers. If $R$ is Noetherian, then every primary ideal $Q$ contains a power of its radical and moreover if the radical of $Q$ is maximal then also the converse holds (see [@North]). So if $Q_i$ is an $M_i$-primary ideal for $i=1,2$ and $M_1,M_2$ are distinct maximal ideals, then $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are coprime.
Since $\{\mathcal{M}_{j}\}_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}$ are $p$ distinct maximal ideals, for what we have just said above we have $$\bigcap_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}=\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}.$$
0.3cm Now we want to describe the $\mathcal{M}_{j}$-primary ideals $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$. The next lemma gives a relation of containment between these ideals and the $n$-th powers of their radicals. 0.3cm
\[Qpj\] Let $p$ be a fixed prime and $n$ a positive integer. For each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$, we have $$\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}\supseteq\mathcal{M}_{j}^n.$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}The statement follows from Remark \[primarydecpnRZ\]. $\Box$ 0.7cm As a consequence of this lemma, we get the following result:
\[pnIZcontpprodn\] Let $p$ be a fixed prime and $n$ a positive integer. Then we have: $$I_{p^n}\supseteq\Big(p,\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j)\Big)^n.$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}By (\[intIpn\]) and Lemma \[Qpj\] we have $$I_{p^n}=\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}\supseteq\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{M}_{j}^n$$ where the last containment follows from Lemma \[Qpj\]. Finally, by Lemma \[pRZx\], the product of the ideals $\mathcal{M}_{j}^n$ is equal to $$\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{M}_{j}^n=\Big(p,\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j)\Big)^n$$ Notice that the product of the $\mathcal{M}_{j}$’s is actually equal to their intersection, since they are maximal coprime ideals. $\Box$ 0.3cm The last formula of the previous proof gives the primary decomposition of the ideal $(p,\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-j))^n$.
0.7cm
\[Controesempi\] In general, for a fixed $j\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$, the reverse containment of Lemma \[Qpj\] does not hold, that is, the $n$-th power of $\mathcal{M}_{j}$ can be strictly contained in the $\mathcal{M}_{j}$-primary ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$. For example (again, we use (\[\*\*\]) to prove the containment): $$X(X-2)\in\left(\bigcap_{k=0,\ldots,3}(2^3,X-2k)\right)\setminus(2,X)^3$$ Because of that, in general we do not have an equality in Corollary \[pnIZcontpprodn\]. For example, let $p=2$ and $n=3$. We have $$X(X-1)(X-2)(X-3)\in I_{2^3}\setminus(2,X(X-1))^3.$$ It is also false that $$\bigcap_{i=0,\ldots,p^n-1}(p^n,X-i)=\left(p^n,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p^n-1}(X-i)\right).$$ See for example: $p=2$, $n=2$: $2X(X-1)\in \bigcap_{i=0,\ldots,3}(4,X-i)\setminus\left(4,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,3}(X-i)\right)$.
0.4cm
We want to study under which conditions the ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ is equal to $\mathcal{M}_{j}^n$. Our aim is to find a set of generators for $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$. For $f\in\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$, we have $f\in(p^n,X-i)$ for each $i\equiv j \pmod p$, $i\in\{0,\ldots,p^n-1\}$. By (\[\*\*\]) that means $p^n|f(i)$ for each such an $i$. Equivalently, such a polynomial has the property that modulo $p^n$ it is zero at the $p^{n-1}$ residue classes of ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^n{\mathbb{Z}}$ which are congruent to $j$ modulo $p$.
Without loss of generality, we proceed by considering the case $j=0$. We set $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_{0}=(p,X)$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{n}=\mathcal{Q}_{n,0}=\bigcap_{i\equiv0\pmod p}(p^n,X-i)$. Let $f\in \mathcal{Q}_{n}$, of degree $m$. We have $$\label{k=1}
f(X)=q_1(X)X+f(0)$$ where $q_1\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ has degree equal to $m-1$. Since $f\in(p^n,X)$ we have $p^n|f(0)$.
Since $f\in(p^n,X-p)$, we have $p^n|f(p)=q_1(p)p+f(0)$, so $p^{n-1}|q_1(p)$. By the Euclidean algorithm, $$\label{k=1.1}
q_1(X)=q_2(X)(X-p)+q_1(p)$$ for some polynomial $q_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of degree $m-2$. So $$f(X)=q_2(X)(X-p)X+q_1(p)X+f(0).$$ We set $R_1(X)=q_1(p)X+f(0)$. Then $R_1\in\mathcal{M}^n$, since $p^{n-1}|q_1(p)$ and $p^n|f(0)$. Since $f\in(p^n,X-2p)$, we have $p^n|f(2p)=q_2(2p)2p^2+q_1(p)2p+f(0)$. If $p>2$ then $p^{n-2}|q_2(2p)$, because $p^{n}|q_1(p)2p+f(0)$. If $p=2$ then we can just say $p^{n-3}|q_2(2p)$. By the Euclidean algorithm again, we have $$q_2(X)=q_3(X)(X-2p)+q_2(2p)$$ for some $q_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$. So we have $$f(X)=q_3(X)(X-2p)(X-p)X+q_2(2p)(X-p)X+q_1(p)X+f(0).$$ Like before, if we set $R_2(X)=q_2(2p)(X-p)X+q_1(p)X+f(0)$, we have $R_2\in\mathcal{M}^n$ if $p>2$, or $R_2\in\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ if $p=2$.
We define now the following family of polynomials:
\[Gk\] For each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $k\geq1$, we set $$G_{p,0,k}(X)=G_{k}(X)\doteqdot\prod_{h=0,\ldots,k-1}(X-hp).$$ We also set $G_0(X)\doteqdot1$.
From now on, we will omit the index $p$ in the above notation.
Notice that the polynomials $G_k(X)$, whose degree for each $k$ is $k$, enjoy these properties:
- For every $t\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $G_k(tp)=p^k t(t-1)\ldots(t-(k-1))$. Hence, the highest power of $p$ which divides all the integers in the set $\{G_k(tp)\,|\,t\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$ is $p^{k+v_p(k!)}$. It is easy to see that $k+v_p(k!)=v_p((pk)!)$.
- $G_k(X)=(X-kp)G_{k-1}(X).$
- since for every integer $h$, $X-hp\in\mathcal{M}$, we have $G_k(X)\in\mathcal{M}^k$. We remark that $k$ is the maximal integer with this property, since $\deg(G_k)=k$ and $G_k(X)$ is primitive (since monic).
Recall that, by Lemma \[Qpj\], for every integer $n$ we have $\mathcal{Q}_n\supseteq\mathcal{M}^n$. By property iii) above $G_k\in\mathcal{M}^n$ if and only if $n\leq k$. By property i) we have $G_k\in\mathcal{Q}_n$ if and only if $k+v_p(k!)\geq n$. From these remarks, it is very easy to deduce that, in the case $p\geq n$, if $G_k\in\mathcal{Q}_n$ then $G_k\in\mathcal{M}^n$. In fact, if that is not the case, it follows from above that $k<n$. Since $n\leq p$ we get $k+v_p(k!)=k$. Since $G_k\in\mathcal{Q}_n$, we have $n\leq k$, contradiction.
The next lemma gives a sort of division algorithm between an element of $\mathcal{Q}_n$ and the polynomials $\{G_k(X)\}_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$. In particular, we will deduce that $\mathcal{Q}_n=\mathcal{M}^n$, if $p\geq n$.
\[qGR0+1\] Let $p$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer. Let $f\in\mathcal{Q}_{p,n,0}=\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ be of degree $m$. Then for each $1\leq k\leq m$ there exists $q_k\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of degree $m-k$ such that $$f(X)=q_k(X)G_k(X)+R_{k-1}(X)$$ where $R_{k-1}(X)\doteqdot\sum_{h=1,\ldots,k-1}q_h(hp)G_h(X)$ for $k\geq2$ and $R_0(X)\doteqdot f(0)$. We also have $q_k(X)=q_{k+1}(X)(X-kp)+q_k(kp)$ for $k=1,\ldots,m-1$. Moreover, for each such a $k$ the following hold:
- $p^{n-v_p((pk)!)}|q_k(kp)$, if $v_p((pk)!)<n$.
- $q_k(kp)G_k(X)\in\mathcal{Q}_n$ and if $k<p$ then $q_k(kp)G_k(X)\in\mathcal{M}^n$.
- If $m\leq p$ then $R_{k-1}\in\mathcal{M}^n$ for $k=1,\ldots,m$.\
If $m>p$ then $R_{k-1}\in\mathcal{M}^n$ for $k=1,\ldots,p$ and $R_{k-1}\in\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ for $k=p+1,\ldots,m$.
0.5cm [[**Proof :** ]{}]{}We proceed by induction on $k$. The case $k=1$ follows from (\[k=1\]), and by (\[k=1.1\]) we have the last statement regarding the relation between $q_1(X)$ and $q_2(X)$. Suppose now the statement is true for $k-1$, so that $$f(X)=q_{k-1}(X)G_{k-1}(X)+R_{k-2}(X)$$ with $R_{k-2}(X)\doteqdot\sum_{h=1,\ldots,k-2}q_h(hp)G_h(X)$ and
- $p^{n-v_p((p(k-1))!)}|q_{k-1}((k-1)p)$, if $v_p((p(k-1)!))<n$,
- $q_{k-1}((k-1)p)G_{k-1}(X)$ belongs to $\mathcal{Q}_n$ and if $k-1<p$ it belongs to $\mathcal{M}^n$,
- $R_{k-2}\in\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ and if $k-2<p$ then $R_{k-2}\in\mathcal{M}^n$.
We divide $q_{k-1}(X)$ by $(X-(k-1)p)$ and we get $$q_{k-1}(X)=q_{k}(X)(X-(k-1)p)+q_{k-1}((k-1)p)$$ for some polynomial $q_k\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of degree $m-k$. We substitute this expression of $q_{k-1}(X)$ in the equation of $f(X)$ at the step $k-1$ and we get: $$\label{fk}
f(X)=q_{k}(X)(X-(k-1)p)G_{k-1}(X)+R_{k-1}(X),$$ where $R_{k-1}(X)\doteqdot q_{k-1}((k-1)p)G_{k-1}(X)+R_{k-2}(X)$. This is the expression of $f(X)$ at step $k$, since $(X-(k-1)p)G_{k-1}(X)$ is equal to $G_k(X)$. By the inductive assumption, $R_{k-1}\in\mathcal{Q}_n$ and if $k-1<p$ we also have $R_{k-1}\in\mathcal{M}^n$. We still have to verify i) and ii).
We evaluate the expression (\[fk\]) in $X=kp$ and we get $$f(kp)=q_k(kp)G_k(kp)+R_{k-1}(kp)=q_k(kp)p^k k!+R_{k-1}(kp).$$ Since $p^n$ divides both $f(kp)$ and $R_{k-1}(kp)$ (by definition of $\mathcal{Q}_n$), if $v_p((pk)!)<n$ we get that $q_k(kp)$ is divisible by $p^{n-v_p((pk)!)}$, which is statement i) at the step $k$. Notice that $q_k(kp)G_k(X)$ is zero modulo $p^n$ on every integer congruent to zero modulo $p$; hence, $q_k(kp)G_k(X)\in\mathcal{Q}_n$. Moreover, $k<p\Leftrightarrow v_p(k!)=0$, so in that case $q_k(kp)G_k(X)\in\mathcal{M}^n$. So ii) follows. $\Box$
0.8cm
Notice that by formula (\[\*\*\]) of Remark \[divresto\], under the assumptions of Lemma \[qGR0+1\] we have for each $k\in\{1,\ldots,p-1\}$ that $$q_k\in(p^{n-k},X-kp)$$ (see i) of Lemma \[qGR0+1\]: in this case $v_p((pk)!)=k$). If $k=m=\deg(f)$ then $q_k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence, we get the following expression for a polynomial $f\in\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ in the case $p\geq n>m$ (this assumption is not restrictive, since $X^n\in\mathcal{Q}_n$): $$\label{***}
f(X)=q_m G_m(X)+R_{m-1}(X)=q_m G_m(X)+\sum_{k=1,\ldots, m-1}q_k(kp)G_k(X)$$ where $q_m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ is divisible by $p^{n-m}$ and $R_{m-1}(X)$ is in $\mathcal{M}^n$.
The next proposition determines the primary components $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ of $I_{p^n}$ of (\[intIpn\]) in the case $p\geq n$. It shows that in this case the containment of Lemma \[Qpj\] is indeed an equality. 0.6cm
\[Qp0p<=n\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer such that $p\geq n$. Then for each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$ we have $$\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}=\mathcal{M}_{j}^n.$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}It is sufficient to prove the statement for $j=0$: for the other cases we consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$-automorphisms $\pi_j(X)=X-j$, for $j=1,\ldots,p-1$, which permute the ideals $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{j}$. Let $\mathcal{Q}_{n}=\mathcal{Q}_{n,0}$ and $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_{0}$.
The inclusion $(\supseteq)$ follows from Lemma \[Qpj\]. For the other inclusion $(\subseteq)$, let $f(X)$ be in $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$. We can assume that the degree $m$ of $f(X)$ is less than $n$, since $X^n$ is the smallest monic monomial in $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$. By equation (\[\*\*\*\]) above, $f(X)$ is in $\mathcal{M}^n$, since $p^{n-m}$ divides $q_m$, $G_m\in\mathcal{M}^m$ and $R_{m-1}\in \mathcal{M}^n$ by Lemma \[qGR0+1\] (notice that $m-1<p$). $\Box$ 0.5cm
In the case $p\geq n$, Lemma \[qGR0+1\] implies that $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ is generated by $\{p^{n-m}G_m(X)\}_{0\leq m\leq n}$: it is easy to verify that these polynomials are in $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ (using (\[\*\*\]) again) and (\[\*\*\*\]) implies that every polynomial $f\in\mathcal{Q}_n$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear combination of $\{p^{n-m}G_m(X)\}_{0\leq m\leq n}$, since $q_{m}(mp)$ is divisible by $p^{n-m}$, for each of the relevant $m$.
The following theorem gives a description of the ideal $I_{p^n}$ in the case $p\geq n$. In this case the containment of the Corollary \[pnIZcontpprodn\] becomes an equality.
0.5cm
\[pnIZ\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer such that $p\geq n$. Then the ideal in ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ of those polynomials whose fixed divisor is divisible by $p^n$ is equal to $$I_{p^n}=\Big(p,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-i)\Big)^n.$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{} By Proposition \[Qp0p<=n\], for each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$ the ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ is equal to $\mathcal{M}_j^n$. So, by the last formula of the proof of Corollary \[pnIZcontpprodn\], we get the statement. $\Box$ 0.8cm As a consequence, we have the following remark. Let $p$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer less than or equal to $p$. Let $f\in I_{p^n}$ such that the content of $f(X)$ is not divisible by $p$. Then $\deg(f)\geq np$, since $np=\deg(\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-i)^n)$. Another well-known result in this context is the following: if we fix the degree $d$ of such a polynomial $f$, then the maximum $n$ such that $f\in I_{p^n}$ is bounded by $n\leq\sum_{k\geq1} [d/p^k] =v_p(d!)$.
If we drop the assumption $p\geq n$, the ideal $\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ may strictly contain $\mathcal{M}_{j}^n$, as we observed in Remark \[Controesempi\]. The next proposition shows that this is always the case, if $p<n$. This result follows from Lemma \[qGR0+1\] as Proposition \[Qp0p<=n\] does, and it covers the remaining case $p<n$. It is stated for the case $j=0$. Remember that $\mathcal{M}=(p,X)$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{n}=\bigcap_{i\equiv0\pmod p}(p^n,X-i)$.
\[Qp0p>n\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer such that $p<n$. Then we have $$\mathcal{Q}_{n}=\mathcal{M}^n+(q_{n,p}G_p(X),\ldots,q_{n,n-1}G_{n-1}(X))$$ where, for each $k=p,\ldots,n-1$, $q_{n,k}$ is an integer defined as follows: $$q_{n,k} \doteqdot \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
p^{n-v_p((pk)!)} & \text{, if } v_p((pk)!)<n\\
1 & \text{, otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$ In particular, $\mathcal{M}^n$ is strictly contained in $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$.
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}We begin by proving the containment $(\supseteq)$. Lemma \[Qpj\] gives $\mathcal{M}^n\subseteq\mathcal{Q}_{n}$. We have to show that the polynomials $q_{n,k}G_k(X)$, for $k\in\{p,\ldots,n-1\}$, lie in $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$. This follows from property i) of the polynomials $G_k(X)$ and the definition of $q_{n,m}$.
Now we prove the other containment $(\subseteq)$. Let $f\in\mathcal{Q}_{n}$ be of degree $m$. If $m<p$ then $f\in\mathcal{M}^n$ (see Lemma \[qGR0+1\] and in particular (\[\*\*\*\])). So we suppose $p\leq m$. By Lemma \[qGR0+1\] we have $$\label{finQ}
f(X)=\sum_{k=p,\ldots,m}q_k(kp)G_k(X)+R_{p-1}(X)$$ where $R_{p-1}(X)=\sum_{k=1,\ldots,p-1}q_k(kp)G_k(X)\in\mathcal{M}^n$ and $q_{m}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, so that $q_m(mp)=q_{n,m}$. Then, since $q_{n,k}=p^{n-v_p((pk)!)}|q_k(kp)$ if $v_p((pk)!)<n$, it follows that the first sum on the right-hand side of the previous equation belongs to the ideal $(q_{n,p}G_p(X),\ldots,q_{n,n-1}G_{n-1}(X))$. For the last sentence of the proposition, we remark that the polynomials $\{q_{n,k}G_k(X)\}_{k=p,\ldots,n-1}$ are not contained in $\mathcal{M}^n$: in fact, for each $k\in\{p,\ldots,n-1\}$, by property iii) of the polynomials $G_k(X)$ we have that the minimal integer $N$ such that $q_{n,k}G_k(X)$ is contained in $\mathcal{M}^N$ is $n-v_p(k!)$ if $v_p((pk)!)=k+v_p(k!)<n$ and it is $k$ otherwise. In both cases it is strictly less than $n$ (since $v_p(k!)\geq1$, if $k\geq p$). $\Box$ 0.5cm
The following remark allows us to obtain another set of generators for $\mathcal{Q}_{n}$. We set $$\label{m}
\overline{m}=\overline{m}(n,p)\doteqdot\min\{m\in{\mathbb{N}}\;|\;v_p((pm)!)\geq n\}$$ Remember that $v_p((pm)!)=m+v_p(m!)$. If $p\geq n$ then $\overline{m}=n$ and if $p<n$ then $p\leq \overline{m}< n$.
Suppose now $p<n$. Then for each $m\in\{\overline{m},\ldots,n\}$ we have $v_p((pm)!)\geq n$, since the function $e(m)=m+v_p(m!)$ is increasing. So for each such $m$ we have $q_{n,m}=1$, hence $G_m\in(G_{\overline{m}}(X))$. So we have the equalities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Qn}
\mathcal{Q}_{n}&=\mathcal{M}^n+(q_{n,m}G_m(X)\;|\;m=p,\ldots,\overline{m})\\
&=(q_{n,m}G_m(X)\;|\;m=0,\ldots,\overline{m})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{n,m}=p^{n-m}$, for $m=0,\ldots,p-1$, and for $m=p,\ldots,\overline{m}$ is defined as in the statement of Proposition \[Qp0p>n\]. The containment $(\supseteq)$ is just an easy verification using the properties of the polynomials $G_m(X)$; the other containment follows by (\[finQ\]).
0.5cm We can now group together Proposition \[Qp0p<=n\] and \[Qp0p>n\] into the following one:
\[Qp0\] Let $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a prime and $n$ a positive integer. Then we have $$\mathcal{Q}_{n}=(q_{n,0}G_0(X),\ldots,q_{n,\overline{m}}G_{\overline{m}}(X))$$ where $\overline{m}=\min\{m\in{\mathbb{N}}\;|\;v_p((pm)!)\geq n\}$ and for each $m=0,\ldots,\overline{m}$, $q_{n,m}$ is an integer defined as follows: $$q_{n,m} \doteqdot \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
p^{n-v_p((pm)!)} &, m<\overline{m}\\
1 &, m=\overline{m}
\end{array} \right.$$
0.5cm It is clear what the primary ideals $\mathcal{Q}_j$, for $j=1,\ldots,p-1$, look like: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}=\bigcap_{i\equiv j(\textnormal{mod } p)}(p^n,X-i)&=\mathcal{M}_{j}^n+(q_{n,p}G_p(X-j),\ldots,q_{n,\overline{m}}G_{\overline{m}}(X-j))\\
&=(q_{n,0} G_0(X-j),\ldots,q_{n,\overline{m}}G_{\overline{m}}(X-j))\end{aligned}$$ In fact, for each $j=1,\ldots,p-1$, it is sufficient to consider the automorphisms of ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ given by $\pi_j(X)=X-j$. It is straightforward to check that $\pi_j(I_{p^n})=I_{p^n}$. Moreover, $\pi(\mathcal{Q}_{n,0})=\mathcal{Q}_{n,j}$ and $\pi(\mathcal{M}_{0})=\mathcal{M}_{j}$ for each such a $j$, so that $\pi_j$ permutes the primary components of the ideal $I_{p^n}$.
The ideal $I_{p^n}=p^n{\textnormal{Int(${\mathbb{Z}}$)}}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ was studied in [@Band] in a slightly different context, as the kernel of the natural map $\varphi_n:{\mathbb{Z}}[X]\to\Phi_n$, where the latter is the set of functions from ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^n{\mathbb{Z}}$ to itself. In that article a recursive formula is given for a set of generators of this ideal. Our approach gives a new point of view to describe this ideal.
For other works about the ideal $I_{p^n}$ in a slightly different context, see [@KellOls], [@Lewis], [@NivWar]. This ideal is important in the study of the problem of the polynomial representation of a function from ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^n{\mathbb{Z}}$ to itself.
Case $I_{p^{p+1}}$
==================
As a corollary we give an explicit expression for the ideal $I_{p^n}$ in the case $n=p+1$. By Proposition \[Qp0p>n\] the primary components of $I_{p^{p+1}}$ are $$\label{Qp+1j}
\mathcal{Q}_{p+1,j}=\mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}+(G_{p}(X-j))$$ for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$.
$$I_{p^{p+1}}=\Big(p,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-i)\Big)^{p+1}+(H(X))$$ where $H(X)=\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p^2-1}(X-i)$.
0.3cm We want to stress that the polynomial $H(X)$ is not contained in the first ideal of the right-hand side of the statement. In [@Band] a similar result is stated with another polynomial $H_2(X)$ instead of our $H(X)$. Indeed the two polynomials, as already remarked in [@Band], are congruent modulo the ideal $(p,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-i))^{p+1}$. 0.3cm [[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Like before, we set $\mathcal{Q}_{p,p+1,j}=\mathcal{Q}_{p+1,j}$. The containment $(\supseteq)$ follows from corollary \[pnIZcontpprodn\] and because the polynomial $H(X)$ is equal to $\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}G_p(X-j)$ and for each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$ the polynomial $G_p(X-j)$ is in $\mathcal{Q}_{p+1,j}$ by Proposition \[Qp0p>n\]. Since $\mathcal{Q}_{p+1,j}$, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$, are exactly the primary components of $I_{p^{p+1}}$ (see (\[intIpn\])), we get the claim.
Now we prove the other containment $(\subseteq)$. Let $f\in I_{p^{p+1}}=\bigcap_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}\mathcal{Q}_{p+1,j}$. By (\[Qp+1j\]) we have: $$f(X)\equiv C_{p,j}(X)G_p(X-j)\pmod{\mathcal{M}_{j}^{p+1}}$$ for some $C_{p,j}\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$, for $j=0,\ldots,p-1$.
Since the ideals $\{\mathcal{M}_{j}^{p+1}=(p,X-j)^{p+1}\,|\,j=0,\ldots,p-1\}$ are pairwise coprime (because they are powers of distinct maximal ideals, respectively), by the Chinese Remainder Theorem we have the following isomorphism: $$\label{CRT}
{\mathbb{Z}}[X]/\left(\prod_{j=0}^{p-1} \mathcal{M}_{j}^{p+1}\right)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}[X]/\mathcal{M}_0^{p+1}\times\ldots\times{\mathbb{Z}}[X]/\mathcal{M}_{p-1}^{p+1}$$
We need now the following lemma, which tells us what is the residue of the polynomial $H(X)$ modulo each ideal $\mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}$: 0.5cm
\[resHp+1\] Let $p$ be a prime and let $H(X)=\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1}G_p(X-j)$. Then for each $k=0,\ldots,p-1$ we have $$H(X)\equiv-G_p(X-k)\pmod{\mathcal{M}_{k}^{p+1}}$$
[[**Proof :** ]{}]{}Let $k\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\}$ and set $I_k=\{0,\ldots,p-1\}\setminus\{k\}$. For each $j\in I_k$ we have $G_p(k-j)\equiv(k-j)^p\pmod p$. We have $$H(X)+G_p(X-k)=G_p(X-k)[1+\prod_{j\in I_k}G_p(X-j)]$$ Since $G_p(X-k)\in\mathcal{M}_{k}^{p}$ we have just to prove that $T_k(X)=1+\prod_{j\in I_k}G_p(X-j)\in\mathcal{M}_{k}$. By formula (\[\*\*\]) in Remark \[divresto\] it is sufficient to prove that $T_k(k)$ is divisible by $p$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
T_k(k)&\equiv1+\prod_{j\in I_k}(k-j)^p\pmod p\\
&\equiv1+(\prod_{s=1,\dots , p-1}s)^p\pmod p\\
&\equiv1+(p-1)!^p\pmod p\\
&\equiv(1+(p-1)!)^p\pmod p\end{aligned}$$ which is congruent to zero by Wilson’s theorem. $\Box$ 0.3cm We finish now the proof of the corollary.
By the Chinese Remainder Theorem, there exists a polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$ such that $P(X)\equiv-C_{p,j}(X)\pmod{\mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}}$, for each $j=0,\ldots,p-1$. Then by the previous lemma $P(X)H(X)\equiv C_{p,j}(X)G_p(X-j)\pmod{\mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}}$ and so again by the isomorphism (\[CRT\]) above we have $$f(X)\equiv P(X)H(X)\pmod{\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1} \mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}}$$ so we are done since $\prod_{j=0,\ldots,p-1} \mathcal{M}_j^{p+1}=(p,\prod_{i=0,\ldots,p-1}(X-i))^{p+1}$ (see the proof of Corollary \[pnIZcontpprodn\]). $\Box$
1.1cm
**Acknowledgments** {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
-------------------
I want to thank the referee for his/her suggestions. I wish also to thank Sophie Frisch for the useful references. I deeply thank Elvira Carlotti for her continuous and strenuous help. The author was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF), Project Number P23245-N18.
0.5cm
[99]{}
D. F. Anderson, P.-J. Cahen, S.T. Chapman and W. Smith, *Some factorization properties of the ring of integer-valued polynomials.*, Zero-dimensional commutative rings (Knoxville, TN, 1994), 125-142, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 171, Dekker, New York, 1995. A. Bandini. *Functions $f:{\mathbb{Z}}/p^n{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathbb{Z}}/p^n{\mathbb{Z}}$ induced by polynomials of ${\mathbb{Z}}[X]$*. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 181 (2002), no.1, pp. 95-104. J.-L. Chabert, *Anneaux de polyn[ô]{}mes [à]{} valeurs enti[è]{}res et anneaux de Fatou*, Bull. Soc. Math. France 99 (1971), 273-283. P.-J. Cahen, J.-L. Chabert, *Integer-valued polynomials*, Math. Surv. Monogr., vol. 48, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1997. P.-J. Cahen, J.-L. Chabert, *Elasticity for integral-valued polynomials.*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 103 (1995), no. 3, 303-311. S.T.Chapman, B. McClain. *Irreducible polynomials and full elasticity in rings of integer-valued polynomials*, J. Algebra 293 (2005), no. 2, 595-610. L. E. Dickson. *Introduction to the theory of numbers.* Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1929. H. Gunji and D. L. McQuillan. *On a class of ideals in an algebraic number field*. J. Number Theory 2 (1970) 207–222. G. Keller and F.R. Olson. *Counting polynomial functions (mod $p^n$)*. Duke Math. J. 35 (1968), 835-838. D. J. Lewis. *Ideals and Polynomial Functions*, Amer. J. Math. 78 (1956), 71-77. K. A. Loper. *Ideals of integer-valued polynomial rings*, Comm. Algebra 25 (1997), no. 3, 833-845. D. L. McQuillan. *On Prüfer domains of polynomials*. J. reine angew. Math. 358 (1985), 162-178. I. Niven, L. J. Warren. *A generalization of Fermat’s theorem*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 306-313. D. G. Northcott. *Ideal Theory*. Cambridge University Press, 1953.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'LUNASKA (Lunar UHE Neutrino Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array) is a theoretical and experimental project developing the lunar Cherenkov technique for the next generation of giant radio-telescope arrays. Here we report on a series of observations with ATCA (the Australia Telescope Compact Array). Our current observations use three of the six 22m ATCA antennas with a 600 MHz bandwidth at 1.2-1.8 GHz, analogue dedispersion filters to correct for the typical night-time ionospheric dispersion, and state-of-the-art 2 GHz FPGA-based digital pulse detection hardware. We have observed so as to maximise the UHE neutrino sensitivity in the region surrounding the galactic centre and to Centaurus A, to which current limits on the highest-energy neutrinos are relatively weak.'
address:
- 'Dept. of Physics, School of Chemistry & Physics, Univ. of Adelaide, SA 5005, AUSTRALIA'
- 'Australia Telescope National Facility, Epping, NSW 1710, AUSTRALIA'
- 'Dept. Física de Partículas & IGFAE, Univ. Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago, SPAIN'
- 'School of Physics, Univ. of Melbourne, VIC 3010,AUSTRALIA'
author:
- 'C.W. James'
- 'R.D. Ekers'
- 'J. Alvarez-Muñiz'
- 'R.J. Protheroe'
- 'R.A. McFadden'
- 'C.J. Phillips'
- 'P. Roberts'
title: Status Report and Future Prospects on LUNASKA Lunar Observations with ATCA
---
UHE neutrino detection ,coherent radio emission ,lunar Cherenkov technique ,UHE neutrino flux limits ,detectors–telescopes
Introduction {#intro}
============
The Lunar Cherenkov (LC) technique, in which radio-telescopes search for pulses of microwave-radio radiation produced via the Askaryan effect [@askaryan62] from UHE particle interactions in the Lunar regolith, is a promising method for detecting the highest energy cosmic rays (CR) and neutrinos. Proposed by Dagkesamanskii and Zheleznykh [@Dagkesamanskii] and first attempted by Hankins, Ekers & O’Sullivan [@Parkes96] using the Parkes radio telescope, subsequent experiments at Goldstone (GLUE) [@Gorham04], Kalyazin [@Beresnyak05], and Westerbork [@Scholten08] have placed limits on an isotropic flux of UHE neutrinos.
The Square Kilometre Array (SKA; [@SKAwebsite]), a giant radio array of total collecting area $1$ km$^2$ to be completed by $\sim$2020, will offer unprecedented sensitivity, and have the potential to observe both a cosmogenic neutrino flux from GZK interactions of UHE CR and the UHE CR themselves [@Ekers08]. One aim of the LUNASKA project (Lunar UHE Neutrino Astrophysics with the SKA) is to develop experimental methods scalable to giant, broad-bandwidth radio arrays such as the SKA. For this purpose, we have been using the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), a radio interferometer of six $22$-m dishes along a $6$ km E-W baseline located in New South Wales, Australia. Here we report on our techniques, which have allowed us to achieve a lower detection threshold than other LC experiments, and have the greatest exposure to $10^{21}-3\times10^{22}$ eV neutrinos coming from the vicinity of Centaurus A and the Galactic centre over all detection experiments.
Experimental Set-Up {#setup}
===================
We have implemented the hardware described below on three of the six ATCA antennas, CA01, CA03, and CA05, with a maximum baseline of $750$ m. In each, we installed specialised pulse de-dispersion and detection hardware, with the full signal path at each antenna shown in Fig. \[block\_diagram\]. We have been utilising an FPGA-based back-end, the “CABB digitiser board”, installed as part of the on-going Compact Array BroadBand upgrade, which allows us to process the full $600$ MHz ($1.2$-$1.8$ GHz) bandwidth provided by the standard ATCA L-band signal path. This is split into dual linear polarisations, passed through an analogue de-dispersion filter to correct for the effects of the Earth’s ionosphere, and then $8$-bit-sampled at $2.048$-GHz. A simple threshold trigger algorithm is then applied which sends back a $256$ sample ($125$ ns) buffer of both polarisations to the control room — along with antenna-specific clock times accurate to $0.5$ ns — should the voltage on either polarisation exceed an adjustable threshold.
![Diagram of the signal path at each antenna. Our customised hardware is described in text.[]{data-label="block_diagram"}](fig1.eps){width="6cm"}
To coherently dedisperse our full $600$ MHz bandwidth and recover our full sensitivity, we have made use of innovative new analogue dedispersion filters. The filters consist of $1$ m of tapered microwave waveguide wrapped for easy of storage into a spiral pattern, with the continuous sum of reflections along their length producing a frequency-dependent delay varying contrary to (and thus correcting for) the delay induced by the Earth’s ionosphere. While the filters can only correct for a fixed delay, the ionosphere over the antenna during night-time hours (at least near solar cycle minimum) is relatively stable, producing a typical $4$ ns of dispersion across our bandwidth at zenith. Therefore we set the filters to correct for $5$ ns of dispersion, i.e. the expected value when the Moon is at $53^{\circ}$ elevation.
For the observations reported here, the full continuous bandwidth could not be returned to a central location for coincident triggering, though this will not be the case for future observations. Hence our use of only three antennas — until we combine information from all antennas in real-time, we are limited by the sensitivity of each, which we can only partially recover with by increasing our trigger rate. We currently set the thresholds so that each polarisation channel would be triggering at $\sim 30$ Hz of a maximum $3000$ Hz, for an effective dead-time on a three-fold trigger of approximately $6$%.
Observations {#obs}
============
A summary of our observation runs is given in Tbl. \[obstbl\], covering a trial period in May 2007, and our main observing runs in February and May 2008. The 2007 and February 2008 runs were tailored to ‘target’ a broad ($\gtrsim 20^{\circ}$) region of the sky near the galactic centre, harbouring the closest supermassive black hole and potential accelerator of UHE CR. Therefore for these runs we pointed the antenna towards the lunar centre, since this mode maximises coverage of the lunar limb (from which we expect to see the majority of pulses) and hence we achieve the greatest total effective aperture. Our May 2008 observing period targeted Centaurus A only, a nearby active galaxy which could potentially account for two of the UHE CR events observed by the Pierre Auger observatory [@AugerScience07]. Regardless of their source, this suggests the likelihood of an accompanying excess of UHE neutrinos, and we do not exclude the possibility of seeing the UHE CR themselves. We therefore pointed the antenna at that part of the lunar limb closest to Cen A in order to maximise sensitivity to UHE particles from this region [@LUNASKA_theory].
May ’07
---------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Day $7^{th}$ $26^{th}$ $27^{th}$ $28^{th}$ $17^{th}$ $18^{th}$ $19^{th}$
$t_{\rm obs}$ (mins) 210 275 330 255 320 370 435
: Observation dates (nights thereof) and total time $t_{\rm obs}$ spent observing the Moon in detection mode of our observing runs.[]{data-label="obstbl"}
For each period, we observed nominally between the hours of $10$ pm and $6$ am local time. Since we were utilising new equipment in the midst of an upgrade, we did not have ns timing available for our 2007 observations. In 2008 we had to align the clocks manually by observing the bright quasar 3C273 and correlating the emission between antennas. Since $T_{\rm sys}$ measurements were available over only part of our bandwidth, we used the Moon as our absolute sensitivity calibrator by setting trigger levels to zero to collect an unbiased sample of data when pointing both on and off the Moon.
Analysis
========
Our off-line processing involves searching through the candidate triggered events for three-fold coincidences with timing, duration, dispersion, and polarisation consistent with coherent Cherenkov pulses arriving from the direction of the Moon. We have found the timing constraint to be both the strongest, most reliable, and most easily automated, with the remaining events typically few enough to sort manually.
For our $2007$ observations, the analysis is complete. Since we did not have accurate clocks at each antenna, we had to utilise PC clocks with $\pm 1$ ms accuracy only, and thus did not have enough discriminatory power to accept candidate events as having lunar origin. However, our rejection power was still great, and out of $150,000$ candidates for each antenna we were left with only $4$ with consistent polarisation, arrival times simultaneous to within $1$ ms, and having pulse-like structure. Since we expected $\sim 6$ random events from purely thermal noise to fulfil these criteria we do not have reason to suspect any of these candidates to be of real lunar origin. Fig. \[applims\] plots our calculations of the effective aperture to UHE $\nu$ calculated for this run, assuming a correct dedispersion. The broad bandwidth of our observations compensates for our lower collecting area when compared with previous experiments at Parkes and Goldstone. Since we see the entire Lunar limb, our effective aperture is greater than previous lunar Cherenkov experiments (as discussed in detail by [@Ekers08], except in the $E_{\nu} > 3 \times 10^{23}$ eV range where NuMoon dominates [@Scholten08].
![ Effective aperture of the (inferior) $2007$ LUNASKA lunar observations under the assumption of no positive detections. Also shown are our calculations [@JP] for the Parkes experiment and GLUE.[]{data-label="applims"}](fig2.eps){width="7cm"}
For the $2008$ observations, we have of order $6 \times 10^{6}$ candidate events for each antenna, and the analysis is not yet complete (all calculations shown here are based on the sensitivity of our inferior 2007 observations). Except during periods of intense RFI, we can readily cross-correlate the buffers to achieve timing to $1$ ns accuracy, an example of which is shown in Fig. \[timing\]. Assuming the candidates are all random thermal events, our timing gives a false detection probability over our entire experiment of less than $10^{-5}$. A preliminary analysis indicates that a large fraction are due to terrestrial RFI. Although to a $1$-D baseline some ground-based RFI received through an antenna side-lobe may coincidentally appear to come from the Moon, these can be eliminated on the dispersion, polarisation and duration criteria.
![ The sum of $200$ cross-correlations of buffers from antennas CA01, CA03, and CA05, triggered near-simultaneously while pointing at the bright quasar 3C273, and corrected for the quasar position. []{data-label="timing"}](fig3.eps){width="7cm"}
{width="12cm"}
While our expected limit on an isotropic flux of UHE $\nu$ will not be competitive with that from ANITA, our goal was to target specific regions of the sky. Using preliminary calculations based off our $2007$ sensitivity, Fig. \[exposure\] shows an exposure map for our observations (see [@LUNASKA_theory]), while Tbl. \[exposuretbl\] shows the improvement in exposure to Cen A and Sgr A\* over that of Parkes and GLUE.
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Energy (eV) $10^{21}$ $10^{22}$ $10^{23}$ $10^{21}$ $10^{22}$ $10^{23}$
Sgr A\* 0.5 14 175 3.7 75 565
Cen A 0.015 2.1 43 9.3 145 970
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: Our accumulated exposure (km$^2$-days) to Cen A and Sag A from the Parkes experiment and GLUE (our calculations), and for our LUNASKA observations with ATCA, based on the inferior $2007$ sensitivity. See [@JP].[]{data-label="exposuretbl"}
Conclusions
===========
Our LUNASKA lunar observations are continuously improving, both as new hardware becomes available, and as we become more experienced at observing in a ns radio environment. We have already achieved the greatest sensitivity for a Lunar Cherenkov experiment, and accumulated the greatest exposure to UHE neutrinos in the $10^{21}-10^{23}$ eV range from the vicinity of Sgr A\* and Cen A. We have also demonstrated that an array of antennas observing over a broad bandwidth is extremely efficient for disciminating between terrestrial RFI and true Lunar pulses. The next stage is to implement real-time coincidence logic between antennas and improve the RFI filtering, so we expect our $2009$ observations — for which time has been allocated — to be the most sensitive yet.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project funding scheme (project numbers DP0559991 and DP0881006). The Australia Telescope Compact Array is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. J.A-M thanks Xunta de Galicia (PGIDIT 06 PXIB 206184 PR) and Consellería de Educación (Grupos de Referencia Competitivos – Consolider Xunta de Galicia 2006/51).
[99]{}
G.A. Askar’yan, Soviet Physics JETP [**14,2**]{}, 441 (1962); Soviet Physics JETP [**48**]{}, 988 (1965).
R.D. Dagkesamanskii, I. M. Zheleznykh, Sov.Phys. JETP Let. 50 (1989) 233.
T. Hankins [*et al.*]{} Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. [**283**]{}, 1027 (1996); C.W. James [*et al.*]{} Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. [**379**]{}, 1037 (2007).
P.W. Gorham [*et al.*]{}, PRL [**93**]{}, 041101 (2004).
A.R. Beresnyak, R.D. Dagkesamanskii, I.M. Zheleznykh, A.V. Kovalenko, V.V. Oreshko, Astronomy Reports [**49**]{}, 127 (2005).
O. Scholten, these proceedings.
www.skatelescope.org
R.D. Ekers [*et al.*]{}, these proceedings.
The Pierre Auger Collaboration (Abraham [*et al.*]{}), Science [**318**]{}, 938 (2007).
C.W. James, R.J. Prothere, these proceedings.
C.W. James, R.J. Protheroe, arXiv:0802.3562 (accepted by Astropart.Phys. Oct. 2008); arXiv:0803.3653 (2008; submitted to Astropart.Phys.)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A hierarchical clustering algorithm based on Gaussian mixture model is presented. The key difference to regular hierarchical mixture models is the ability to store objects in both terminal and non-terminal nodes. Upper levels of the hierarchy contain sparsely distributed objects, while lower levels contain densely represented ones. As it was shown by experiments, this ability helps in noise detection (modelling). Furthermore, compared to regular hierarchical mixture model, the presented method generates more compact dendrograms with higher quality measured by adopted F-measure.'
author:
- '[Ł]{}ukasz P. Olech'
- Mariusz Paradowski
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Hierarchical Gaussian Mixture Model with Objects Attached to Terminal and Non-terminal Dendrogram Nodes'
---
Introduction
============
This paper addresses the topic of [*hierarchical data clustering*]{} which is a countertype to [*flat clustering*]{}. Flat clustering approaches generate groups without structural connections between them. Hierarchical clustering algorithms generate groups and arrange them in a tree structured manner. In such a tree structure (known as a [*dendrogram*]{}) all child clusters are attached to their parent cluster. Clusters without any further children are called [*terminal nodes*]{} or [*tree leaves*]{}. Clusters with attached child clusters are called [*non-terminal*]{} or [*internal nodes*]{}.
Hierarchical clustering algorithms can be divided into two categories depending on the objects attachment to the generated groups. The first category represents methods that attach objects only to [*terminal nodes*]{}, and [*non-terminal*]{} nodes of the hierarchy remain empty. This kind of methods are the majority of hierarchical data clustering methods. It is possible to fill an internal node with objects, by gathering all objects belonging to its child nodes. The second category represents methods attaching objects both to [*internal nodes*]{} and [*tree leaves*]{}. All tree leaves need to have at least one attached object. Internal nodes can have attached objects or remain empty. The [*key difference*]{} is that if an object is attached to the internal node, it is [*not attached*]{} to any of its child nodes. Methods belonging to this category are the minority. The presented research addresses this category.
This paper is organized as follows. In following subsections we give the necessary background of clustering problems. The proposed method is introduced in the second section. The third section presents the experimental results and comparison with regular hierarchical Gaussian mixture model. Finally, the fourth section summarises this paper.
Hierarchical approaches to clustering
-------------------------------------
One of the earliest approaches of hierarchical clustering is [*hierarchical agglomerative clustering*]{} (HAC) [@murtagh-1983]. HAC creates a dendrogram with all objects attached to its leaves. At each level of the hierarchy, two groups are merged. As a result, the created structure is an [*unbalanced binary tree*]{}. Various merging schemes are available, e.g., [*Ward criterion*]{} [@ward-1963], [*single-link*]{} [@sibson-1973] or [*complete-link*]{} [@defays-1977].
Both binary and non-binary hierarchies can be constructed using various extensions of the [*k-means*]{} algorithm [@hartigan-1979; @jain-2010]. Usage of hierarchical k-means leads to two major consequences comparing to flat k-means. First, the clustering process is [*much faster*]{} because the number of groups in a tree path is much lower. This is especially important if the number of clusters and the volume of data are high. Second, the overall quality of clustering tends to be [*worse*]{}, because cluster centers are not optimized simultaneously. One of the key problems of k-means clustering (both flat and hierarchical) is estimation of the number of clusters. There are many attempts to address this issue, e.g. [*x-means*]{} algorithm [@dan-2000].
Hierarchical clustering using a probabilistic approach is also possible, e.g., [@liu-2002]. The milestone in probabilistic clustering was the formulation of the [*expectation maximization*]{} (EM) algorithm [@dempster-1977]. Hierarchical setup of mixture models can be trained using modified EM [@carneiro-2007]. One of the most common choices for mixture components is multivariate normal distribution.
Clustering in the presence of noise
-----------------------------------
Yet another important issue is clustering of data in the presence of [*noise*]{} or [*outliers*]{}. There are two common solutions to this problem. The first solution consists of two stages, e.g., [@byers-1998]. In the initial stage data is filtered in order to detect and remove outliers. Then in the second stage clusterisation is performed only on the accepted data. The second solution is to directly incorporate the noise model into the clustering process. Usually, the type or distribution of noise or outliers is not known. Various assumptions regarding these distributions have to be made. Exemplary, DBSCAN [@ester-1996] and OPTICS [@ankerst-1999] clustering algorithms assume a minimum density of the meaningful data. In probabilistic clustering, noise can be directly modeled by appropriate mixture components, e.g., [@campbell-1997; @fraley-2002].
Problem formulation, motivation and contribution
------------------------------------------------
Probabilistic approach to clustering can be formulated using the parametric model. The key issue is the formulation of an appropriate [*probability density function*]{} (PDF). There are several forms of the probabilistic density function. [*Gaussian mixture model*]{} is one of the most prominent [@fraley-2002]. Let the [*Gaussian mixture model*]{} $G$ with $n$ mixture components be defined as: $$G(w, \mu, \Sigma) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}w_iN(\mu_i, \Sigma_i), \quad w_i \in {\langle}0, 1\rangle, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i = 1,
\label{gaussian-mixture}$$ and $N(\mu, \Sigma)$ represents the multivariate normal distribution, $w = [w_1,...,w_n]$, $\mu = [\mu_1, ..., \mu_n]$, $\Sigma = [\Sigma_1,...,\Sigma_n]$. In such case clustering problem becomes a probability density function estimation problem, where PDF parameters maximize [*likelihood*]{} $\mathcal{L}$: $$\left\langle w^*, \mu^*, \Sigma^* \right\rangle = \arg\max_{\left\langle w, \mu, \Sigma \right\rangle} \mathcal{L}(w, \mu, \Sigma | x_1,...,x_m),
\label{likelihood}$$ where: $x_1,...,x_m$ are the data vectors. This is typically solved by the EM algorithm, but other methods are also available, e.g., [@figueiredo-2002; @verbeek-2003; @zivkovic-2004].
Gaussian mixture model fits to data distributed among several clusters, but does not model [*outliers*]{} [@fraley-2002]. Data not fitting to the assumed distribution can be interpreted in several ways, including: [*noise*]{}, [*measurement errors*]{} or [*sparser representation of meaningful objects*]{}. Statistical modelling of noisy data requires making assumptions on the noise distribution. The data distribution is usually combined with noise distribution, e.g., [@minka-2001].
In the presented approach we follow the third interpretation of the not fitting data, i.e., sparser representation of meaningful objects. We do not want to reject the data, we want to model it on some level of the generated hierarchy. Data bound to the parent clusters should have lesser density comparing to the data bound to the child clusters. In the paper we show a simple approach to adapt hierarchical Gaussian mixture model to handle objects attached to any node in the tree. Similar to noise modelling [@campbell-1997; @fraley-2002] we add an additional mixture component to the mixture model. But unlike that approaches, we do not estimate it, but [*directly take it from the higher level of the hierarchy*]{}. As a consequence, parameters of the adapted mixture model are estimated in an identical manner as for the classic mixture model. They can be estimated both using EM or any other appropriate approach.
Proposed approach
=================
The proposed approach is an extension of a hierarchical setup of Gaussian mixture models. At each level of the hierarchy an additional mixture component, called [*background component*]{}, is introduced. This component is responsible for capturing outliers at a given level. Unlike all other mixture components, it is not estimated, but directly inherited from the higher level of the hierarchy. Root level also has this additional component. Its parameters are estimated (by definition) from all available data.
Formal model of the hierarchy
-----------------------------
Let us define the model of the hierarchy in a [*recursive*]{} way. Any [*parent node*]{} has all its [*child nodes*]{}. A tree node $T$ generated from a data set $X$ is defined as: $$\label{tree-node-reccursive-form}
T(X) : {\langle}n, G_B, B \subseteq X, [T_1(X_1),...,T_n(X_n)]{\rangle},$$ where: $$B \cup \bigcup_{i = 1}^{n}{X_i} = X, \quad \forall_{i \in [1, n]} B \cap {X_i} = \emptyset, \quad \forall_{i, j \in [i, n]} i \neq j \Rightarrow X_i \cap X_j = \emptyset$$ and: $n$ is the maximum number of child nodes (and mixture components), $G_B$ is the [*Gaussian mixture model with background component*]{} $N(\mu_B, \Sigma_B)$: $$\begin{aligned}
G_B(\alpha, w, \mu_B, \mu, \Sigma_B, \Sigma) = \alpha N(\mu_B, \Sigma_B) + (1 - \alpha) G(w, \mu, \Sigma) = \nonumber \\
=\alpha N(\mu_B, \Sigma_B) + \sum_{i=1}^{n}(1 - \alpha)w_iN(\mu_i, \Sigma_i), \\
\alpha \in {\langle}0,1{\rangle}, {\quad} \mu_B = E[X], {\quad} \Sigma_B = Var[X],
\label{background-gaussian-mixture}\end{aligned}$$ $B \subseteq X$ is the data subset attached to the node $T$, related to background mixture component $N(\mu_B, \Sigma_B)$, $T_1, ..., T_n$ are child nodes or [*void*]{}. Mixture component $G_B$ and set $B$ are representing the data that remain in tree node $T$. They are the key difference when comparing to classic hierarchical clustering methods.
Hierarchy generation
--------------------
Cluster hierarchy generation is done in an recursive way. First, the top level is generated and its parameters are estimated. Later on, child levels are added sequentially in [*breadth-first*]{} manner. For each level the process terminates if a stop criterion is reached. This process is similar to the one used in hierarchical k-means approach [@steinbach-2000]. It allows a dynamic generation of the hierarchical structure.
As shown in the formal model, each level of the hierarchy contains only a subset of the data. The top level starts with all the data. Expectation maximization method is used to estimate the Gaussian mixture model. Because the proposed method is iterative, stochastic, and strongly depended on cluster initialization, several cluster reinitialisations should be performed. Thus the number of cluster reinitialization $R$ and number of EM iterations $N$ are the parameters.
Clusters initialization is based on choosing random $n$ distinct points from the data and set them as initial centres $\mu$ of new clusters. Initial covariances $\Sigma$ of that clusters are the same as parent cluster covariance. Full covariance matrices are used. When covariance matrix is non-invertible, regularization is introduced. Mixing coefficients (see eq. \[background-gaussian-mixture\]) are initialized as equal values: $$\label{initial-mixing-coef}
\alpha = \frac{1}{n+1}, \quad (1 - \alpha)w_i = \frac{1}{n+1}.$$ The denominator takes into account $n$ newly created clusters and a background cluster. The data is distributed to all mixture components, according to data probability assignments. A single data instance is assigned to the mixture component with highest probability of generating that instance. As a result, some mixture components, including the background component, may remain empty. After initialisation, the EM algorithm works through $N$ iterations, changing initial values of $\mu, \Sigma, w$ and $\alpha$. After performing $R$ reinitialisations, a solution with the largest likelihood is chosen (see eq. \[likelihood\]) as the final one.
All mixture components with assigned data instances generate child nodes. The above process repeats for every generated node. In case a mixture component does not receive any data, it also does not generate a child node. The child nodes generation process is terminated when a stop criterion is reached. There are two stop criteria and each of them terminates the method. The first stop criterion is connected with the content of current leaf nodes. The clustering process proceeds only on those leaf nodes that contain at least $k$ different data samples. The algorithm terminates when there are no leaf nodes to split or all data is assigned to background mixture component $B$. The second criterion occurs when provided $W$ overall number of nodes was created.
Experimental verification
=========================
Experimental verification of the proposed approach consists of two parts. In the first part we give illustrative examples to demonstrate the idea behind the method. Manually prepared toy datasets are used for visualization purposes. In the second part we test the proposed approach on a set of benchmark datasets from UCI repository [@uci-2013]. We choose well-known *iris, wine, glass identification* and *image segmentation* datasets varying in number of classes, attributes and instances, as shown in Table \[uci-dataset-stats\].
dataset name instances attributes classes
---------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------
iris 150 4 3
wine 178 13 3
glass identification 214 9 6
image segmentation 2100 19 7
: Original (without additional noise) UCI dataset statistics.
\[uci-dataset-stats\]
Since the mentioned datasets do not contain any noise points we added them manually. Noise points are uniformly distributed among original points. In each dataset, the number of noise points is equal to the half of the number of original points. The proposed approach is compared to a standard hierarchical set-up of Gaussian mixture model.
In order to compare the obtained results on the benchmark datasets we use a metric based on [*F-measure*]{} [@larsen-1999]. It takes a class attribute into consideration and yield a grouping quality by considering the whole dendrogram, not only a chosen level. This makes the measure adequate for hierarchical methods. *F-measure* is calculated for each generated group $B$ with respect to each class $C$: $$P(X_i, C_c) = \frac{N_{ic}}{|X_i|},\quad R(X_i, C_c) = \frac{N_{ic}}{N_{C_c}},$$ $$F_{ic} = \frac{2P(X_i, C_c)R(X_i, C_c)}{P(X_i, C_c)+R(X_i, C_c)},$$ where: $F_{ic}$ – *F-measure* for *i-th* group and *c-th* class, $P(X_i, C_c)$ – precision and $R(X_i, C_c)$ – recall, for *i-th* group with respect to *c-th class*, $N_{ic}$ is the number of objects from *c-th* class which are within *i-th* group, $N_{C_c}$ is the number of object from *c-th* class in the entire tree and $|X_i|$ is the number of objects that are within *i-th* cluster. Noise points are not regarded as an additional class, they are only counted in each $|X_i|$. Given the above definitions, F-measure for a chosen class $C_c$ is defined as the maximum value of the measure over all nodes of the tree: $$\label{f-measure-for-each-class}
F(C_c) = \max_{i} F_{ic}.$$ Finally, it is averaged over all classes giving F-Measure for whole hierarchy: $$\label{hierarchy-f-measure}
F = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{c=1}^{|C|}N_{C_c}F(C_c),$$ where: $|C|$ is number of classes used in dataset, $N$ is the total number of objects (including noise points) and $N_{C_c}$ is the number of data objects of class $c$. Proposed evaluation criterion has the ability to explore hierarchy structure, which is a key point in the proposed method. $F$ maximum value is 1 and minimum is 0. Better hierarchies have higher $F$ values.
Manually generated data with noise – an illustration
----------------------------------------------------
All results presented in this section are two dimensional toy examples. Their sole purpose is to illustrate the behavior of the proposed method. The following examples are presented:
1. three groups with a large central group and a small amount of noise ([*LC*]{}),
2. small circular data clusters with a small amount of noise ([*LN*]{}),
3. small circular data clusters with a large amount of noise ([*HN*]{}).
\
\
Both the data and clustering results for the toy datasets are shown in Fig. \[generated-data-noise\]. The method has some ability to capture less dense data. This data is attached to the intermediate nodes of the hierarchy. The additional background model component captures these instances. In consequence they are automatically bound to the node related to the background component. At the same time, densely distributed data is moved to the bottom of the hierarchy. This can be observed (to some extent) at all presented test cases.
UCI benchmark datasets
----------------------
The second part of the experiments addresses the clustering of the UCI benchmark datasets. Instances of all processed datasets have both feature vectors and class assignment. Feature vectors without class information are used in the clustering process. Available class assignment is used in the evaluation process.
Two methods are compared: (1) the proposed Gaussian mixture model with outlier modelling and (2) classic Gaussian mixture model. The first method is denoted as *B* and the second as *G*. Both methods are trained using the same expectation-maximization routine. Hierarchies of both models are constructed in the same manner. Two quality estimates are shown: (1) log-likelihood values to address data fitting to the distribution, (2) f-measure values to check if the generated groups are meaningful.
--------- ------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------ -------------- ------- --------
dataset no of
name nodes $\mu_{B}$ $\sigma_{B}$ $\mu_{G}$ $\sigma_{G}$ $\mu_{B}$ $\sigma_{B}$ $\mu_{G}$ $\sigma_{G}$ $U$ winner
2 $247$ ${7}$ $107$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.59$ ${0.045}$ $0.36$ ${0.000}$ 0 B
3 $359$ ${0}$ $288$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.75$ ${0.002}$ $0.62$ ${0.000}$ 0 B
4 $359$ ${1}$ $355$ ${14}$ $\bf 0.75$ ${0.003}$ $0.62$ ${0.000}$ 0 B
5 $490$ ${24}$ $429$ ${37}$ $\bf 0.77$ ${0.013}$ $0.67$ ${0.061}$ 0 B
6 $483$ ${27}$ $503$ ${53}$ $\bf 0.77$ ${0.081}$ $0.69$ ${0.062}$ 830 B
7 $480$ ${28}$ $584$ ${5}$ $\bf 0.77$ ${0.058}$ $0.75$ ${0.001}$ 1385 B
8 $601$ ${29}$ $623$ ${23}$ $\bf 0.79$ ${0.044}$ $0.74$ ${0.006}$ 697 B
9 $629$ ${24}$ $642$ ${29}$ $\bf 0.80$ ${0.046}$ $\bf 0.80$ ${0.071}$ 3760 B
10 $614$ ${19}$ $680$ ${43}$ $\bf 0.80$ ${0.046}$ $0.78$ ${0.070}$ 2679 B
2 $366$ ${1}$ $307$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.40$ ${0.002}$ $0.37$ ${0.000}$ 0 B
3 $402$ ${2}$ $392$ ${1}$ $\bf 0.42$ ${0.005}$ $0.41$ ${0.005}$ 2033 B
4 $403$ ${2}$ $445$ ${21}$ $\bf 0.42$ ${0.003}$ $0.41$ ${0.005}$ 1539 B
5 $466$ ${8}$ $478$ ${20}$ $\bf 0.42$ ${0.005}$ $\bf 0.42$ ${0.017}$ 5298 –
6 $466$ ${11}$ $529$ ${8}$ $0.42$ ${0.005}$ $\bf 0.43$ ${0.016}$ 6188 G
7 $470$ ${8}$ $561$ ${8}$ $0.42$ ${0.004}$ $\bf 0.44$ ${0.005}$ 10000 G
8 $527$ ${19}$ $588$ ${23}$ $0.42$ ${0.010}$ $\bf 0.44$ ${0.006}$ 9372 G
9 $524$ ${20}$ $599$ ${20}$ $0.42$ ${0.008}$ $\bf 0.44$ ${0.008}$ 9766 G
10 $531$ ${20}$ $617$ ${31}$ $0.42$ ${0.008}$ $\bf 0.44$ ${0.010}$ 9753 G
2 $809$ ${1}$ $338$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.41$ ${0.000}$ $0.29$ ${0.000}$ – B
3 $1121$ ${1}$ $1121$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.40$ ${0.001}$ $\bf 0.40$ ${0.000}$ 4950 B
4 $1275$ ${28}$ $1227$ ${15}$ $\bf 0.45$ ${0.045}$ $0.40$ ${0.000}$ 600 B
5 $1299$ ${48}$ $1274$ ${36}$ $\bf 0.46$ ${0.044}$ $0.45$ ${0.050}$ 5084 –
6 $1314$ ${49}$ $1372$ ${19}$ $0.44$ ${0.043}$ $\bf 0.46$ ${0.054}$ 5537 –
7 $1469$ ${23}$ $1432$ ${5}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.008}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.027}$ 8715 G
8 $1477$ ${19}$ $1465$ ${15}$ $0.49$ ${0.022}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.038}$ 6476 G
9 $1495$ ${5}$ $1501$ ${19}$ $0.49$ ${0.010}$ $\bf 0.51$ ${0.015}$ 9032 G
10 $1532$ ${14}$ $1533$ ${16}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.013}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.022}$ 7632 G
2 $-6605$ ${11}$ $-6678$ ${0}$ $\bf 0.29$ ${0.012}$ $ 0.28$ ${0.000}$ – –
3 $-6466$ ${3}$ $-6481$ ${1}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.000}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.001}$ 495 B
4 $-6466$ ${3}$ $-5413$ ${154}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.000}$ $\bf 0.50$ ${0.000}$ 600 –
5 $-5348$ ${76}$ $-5406$ ${268}$ $ 0.50$ ${0.001}$ $\bf 0.52$ ${0.042}$ 5084 –
6 $-5643$ ${1001}$ $-4524$ ${72}$ $ 0.49$ ${0.017}$ $\bf 0.54$ ${0.042}$ 5537 –
7 $-5470$ ${710}$ $-4483$ ${115}$ $ 0.50$ ${0.014}$ $\bf 0.56$ ${0.038}$ 8715 G
8 $-5257$ ${715}$ $-4388$ ${366}$ $0.50$ ${0.019}$ $\bf 0.56$ ${0.038}$ 6476 G
9 $-5342$ ${763}$ $-4253$ ${359}$ $0.50$ ${0.026}$ $\bf 0.57$ ${0.049}$ 9032 G
10 $-5257$ ${850}$ $-3959$ ${278}$ $ 0.50$ ${0.018}$ $\bf 0.58$ ${0.050}$ 7632 G
--------- ------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------ -------------- ------- --------
: Comparison of the proposed model ($\mu_{B}$, $\sigma_{B}$) with the reference Gaussian mixture model ($\mu_{G}$, $\sigma_{G}$). Both log-likelihood values are F-measure values are shown. Higher F-measure values are marked in bold.
\[uci-reference-results\]
Performed experiments consider mentioned quality estimators when $W$ parameter vary between $2$ and $10$. In all conducted experiments we set *n* parameter as a constant equal to $2$. First of all, we found the best parameters configuration ($N$ and $R$) for each method per single dataset instance and $W$ value. Then, because of stochastic nature of both methods, we have performed 100 trials for each of dataset and $W$ parameter value, calculating mean value $\mu$ and sample standard deviation $\sigma$. Moreover we conducted the *Wilcoxon rank-sum test* [@mann-1947] on calculated F-measure in order to show the statistic significance of the obtained results. Statistic value $U$ is calculated with alpha level ($\alpha$) equal to $0.05$. Null hypotheses $H_0$ are equality of population distributions and alternative hypotheses $H_A$ may vary (depending on the corresponding F-measure $\mu$ values). When F-measure mean values $\mu$ were different, then we performed a one-tailed test whereas equal means results in two-tailed. Achieved results are shown in Tab. \[uci-reference-results\]. In that table the *winner* column shows whether there is statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis and assume an alternative one.
Experiments results in Tab. \[uci-reference-results\] shows that the proposed background component improves the quality of generated dendrograms, when considering data class labels. This is especially visible when maximum number of nodes *W* is less than 5. Our method, though has the ability of creating compact dendrograms with better quality than the method without the background component. It is desired, because shorter trees have better generalisation abilities. Moreover, considering the *iris* dataset, the background component helps obtaining higher F-measure in all cases, comparing to regular hierarchical Gaussian mixture model. Proposed method reaches statistically higher average F-measure results in 16 cases whereas the regular method wins only 13 times. There have been 7 draws.
Summary
=======
A hierarchical grouping method is presented. It has the ability to attach objects both to terminal and non-terminal nodes. It is an extension of the classic Gaussian mixture model. The mixture is extended with an additional component responsible for outlier modelling. Parameters of this mixture component are not estimated, but directly inherited from higher levels of the hierarchy.
Conducted experiments show that the proposed modification allows to treat part of the data as sparser representation of meaningful objects. Though upper levels of hierarchy consist of sparsely distributes data. This can be used in noise or outliers modelling. Comparison between regular hierarchic GMM and hierarchic GMM with proposed modification shows that the background component helps to improve the quality of short hierarchies in real datasets with random noise.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Single image super-resolution (SR) via deep learning has recently gained significant attention in the literature. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are typically learned to represent the mapping between low-resolution (LR) and high-resolution (HR) images/patches with the help of training examples. Most existing deep networks for SR produce high quality results when training data is abundant. However, their performance degrades sharply when training is limited. We propose to regularize deep structures with prior knowledge about the images so that they can capture more structural information from the same limited data. In particular, we incorporate in a tractable fashion within the CNN framework, natural image priors which have shown to have much recent success in imaging and vision inverse problems. Experimental results show that the proposed deep network with natural image priors is particularly effective in training starved regimes.'
address: 'Dept. of Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'Biblio-Database.bib'
title: Deep Image Super Resolution via Natural Image Priors
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A popular branch of image reconstruction methods is image Super-Resolution (SR), which focuses on the enhancement of image resolution. Single image SR methods consider generating the HR image only based on a *single* low-resolution image as input. Classically, the solution to this problem is based on example-based methods exploiting nearest neighbor estimations [@Freeman:ExampleBasedSR_CompGraph2002; @Glasner:SRSingle2009ICCV]. In addition, many machine learning techniques have been developed attempting to capture the co-occurrence of low-resolution (LR) and high-resolution (HR) image patches [@Sun:HallucinationSR_CVPR2003; @Chang:NeighborEmbeddingSR_CVPR2004]. Generally, SR task is a severely ill-posed problem due to information loss and hence the solution is not unique. The use of prior information about the expected HR image has been suggested to yield realistic and robust solutions in traditional SR set-ups [@Tappen:SparsePriorSR_2003; @Fattal:SRstatistic_ACM2007; @Dai:edgeSR_CVPR2007; @mousavi2016ColorSR_ICIP].
Sparsity-based methods have in particular been widely applied to the single image SR problem. Essentially in these techniques, examples of corresponding HR and LR patches are collected as columns of two dictionaries (matrices). A sparse code is obtained for LR patches via its corresponding dictionary but applied to the HR dictionary to yield a HR image patch [@YangAndWright:SparseSR_TIP2010]. Other sparsity-based methods include single image scale-up [@Zeyde:SR_Springer2012], Anchored Neighborhood Regression (ANR) [@Timofte:AnchoredANR_ICCV2013; @Timofte:AnchoredARN+_ACCV2014] and color SR [@mousavi2017ColorSR_TIP].
Deep learning based SR has been of recent interest and has been shown to improve results over sparsity based methods which were previously considered state of the art for SR. Deep learning promotes the design of large-scale networks [@hinton2006fast; @bengio2007greedy; @poultney2006efficient] for a variety of problems including SR. Invariably, a network, e.g. a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) or auto-encoder is trained to learn the relationship between LR and HR image patches. Among the first deep learning based super-resolution methods, Dong *et al.* [@dong2014learning] trained a deep convolution neural network (SRCNN) to accomplish the image SR task. Among other such methods we can name coupled auto-encoders [@tiantong16deep], Wavelet SR [@guo2017DWSR_CVPR], cascaded networks [@cui2014deep], Deep Joint Super Resolution (DJSR) [@wang2015self], and self-example networks [@huang2015single]. Recently, residual net [@he2016deep] has shown great ability at reducing training time and faster convergence rate. Based on this idea, a Very Deep Super-Resolution (VDSR) [@Kim_2016_VDSR] method is proposed which emphasizes on reconstructing the residuals between LR and HR images.
[**Motivation:**]{} The performance improvements in the sense of image quality for SR deep networks have been facilitated by abundant training, which means that thousands or millions of training LR and HR pairs are available. We investigate the performance of existing SR deep structures in low training regime and show that their performance drops significantly. Note that the assumption of limited availability of training data is very reasonable in many image processing and vision applications, namely the enhancement of resolution of medical images such as MRI and CT. We propose a remedy for this performance degradation by developing a Deep network with Natural Image Priors (DNIP) for the SR task.
The **main contributions** of this paper are the following: 1) we propose to incorporate Natural Image Priors (NIP) [@kim2010single; @tappen2003exploiting] into the learning of a CNN for the SR task, 2.) a regularization term is developed which involves making suitable approximations to the prior and results in a penalty function that is smooth and differentiable and hence usable with backpropogation schemes 3) experimental validation reveals that DNIP outperforms competing methods particularly in the low-training regime even with a simpler network structure viz. smaller number of layers.
Integrating Natural Image Priors in Deep SR Networks {#sec:img_priors}
====================================================
Natural images have many unique statistical properties [@zontak2011internal; @weiss2007makes]. One of the most well known such properties is that they exhibit heavy-tailed distribution when applying derivative filters onto them. Intuitively, natural images are locally smooth; therefore, local differences will be small and the distribution will decrease faster than the Gaussian. On the other hand, natural images have many structural details such as edges, where the derivative response can be large and it contributes to the heavier tails than the Gaussian distribution. This prior knowledge has been successfully applied in a wide range of applications, including image denoising [@weiss2007makes], deblurring [@field1987relations] and super-resolution with sparse regression models [@kim2010single]. The heavy-tail characteristics of images can be captured using the following probability distribution as prior: $P({\pmb{y}}) \propto \exp \Big( -\frac{\|\nabla {\pmb{y}} \|_\alpha^\alpha }{\eta^2} \Big)$ where $\nabla {\pmb{y}}$ represents the gradient of the image ${\pmb{y}}$ and the norm $\|{\pmb{y}}\|_\alpha^\alpha$ is defined as $\|{\pmb{y}}\|_\alpha^\alpha = \sum_i |y_i|^\alpha$. The parameter $\alpha$ determines the family of priors being applied. For example, the most classical image prior is the Gaussian model with $\alpha=2$. It is widely used due to its simplicity; however, it usually fails to produce satisfying solutions as it smooth-out the image. To overcome this problem and preserve the edge structure, Laplacian prior is used which has been proved to preserve image discontinuities better. Laplacian priors are related to $\ell_1$-norm regularization with $\alpha=1$ which promote the sparsity in the solution. Such priors can preserve edges in the image; however, resulting images look piecewise linear. This is due to the fact that natural images follow a distribution with heavier tails than Laplacian or Gaussian. Therefore, hyper-Laplacian distribution is introduced for the edges [@zhang2012generative; @krishnan2009fast] with $\alpha < 1$. In this paper, we take the image priors as suggested by Kim *et al.* [@kim2010single; @tappen2003exploiting] and improve upon them for SR task. The above prior tries to capture natural image characteristics and the reconstruction model in one framework. ${\pmb{y_h}}$ represents the estimated high resolution image and ${\pmb{y_l}}$ denotes the corresponding low resolution image and $\mathcal{N}(i,j)$ represents a neighborhood of pixels at location $(i,j)$. For a given image, the second product term is a reconstruction constraint and ensures that when the same downsampling kernel $\mathbb{T}$ (blurring and sub-sampling) is applied on the super resolution result (${\pmb{y_h}}$), it is prevented from flowing far away from the input low resolution image ${\pmb{y_l}}$. While the first product term (NIP term) tends to penalize pixel value differences in a neighborhood of each pixel $(i,j)$. Subsequently, this distribution prefers a strong edge rather than a set of small edges (such as ringing artifacts) and can be used to resolve the problem of smooth edges.
**Incorporating NIP in a CNN Framework:** To adapt the NIP prior and the reconstruction constraint to SR in a deep learning-based framework, we propose to revise the prior distribution in . This is done to ensure that the reconstruction constraint is penalizing the difference between the estimated HR image (${\pmb{y}}_h$) and the ground truth HR image (${\pmb{y}}_g$). We then rewrite the NIP as follows: \[Eq:NIP\_prior\]
Also, note that in the revised NIP prior no downsampling/blurring kernel ($\mathbb{T}$) is used. In our version of NIP prior, which is specific to deep SR, we want the inferred super-resolution result to be statistically close to the ground truth image. The NIP prior provides a MAP framework where we can take the negative log-likelihood of the posterior and find its minimum. Essentially, maximizing the posterior using NIP priors leads to the following minimization problem: \[Eq:NIP\_cost2\] Rewriting the MAP estimation in the form above helps us interpret the cost function often used for image super-resolution and also implement the new NIP cost function in an efficient manner using convolutions. The second sum in is essentially summing up pixel level square differences between the estimated HR image and the HR ground truth image. This can be easily captured by $\| {\pmb{y_h}} - {\pmb{y_g}} \|_F^2$. It is noteworthy to mention that this is the most commonly used cost function for image SR in the deep learning frameworks On the other hand, the first term in is a *local* error constraint on pixel values and summed for all the pixels in the images. If we assume a simple neighbourhood $\mathcal{N}(i,j)$ to be the 8-neighbourhood vicinity around any pixel $(i,j)$, the NIP prior as defined above can be written as summation over $8$ filtered images that are also passed through a special non-linear activation function. Since the aforementioned filters (${\pmb{F}}_k$) are simple difference filters and linear, they can be implemented with eight convolution filters (shown in Fig. \[Fig:Filters\]) and followed by a non-linear activation function i.e. $|\cdot|^\alpha$. This is more efficient for implementation purposes in the deep leaning structures using CNNs. The overall cost function can be rewritten as: y\_h = &\_ & (\_[k=1]{}\^[8]{} \_\^) + - \_F\^2 \[Eq:NIP\_cost3\]
![ 8 convolution filters used to implement the NIP loss[]{data-label="Fig:Filters"}](figs/8Filters.png){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
To optimize a deep network using the cost function in , we need to make sure the cost function is differentiable so the error can propagate back through the network using a back-propagation approach. However, for $\alpha <1$, the cost function in is not differentiable at zero since it has an infinite slope. To mitigate this problem, we propose to approximate the $\alpha$-norm function with something that has a large but finite derivative at zero. In particular, we approximate $|x|_\alpha$ for $\alpha=0.1$ with $0.1 \log\Big((e^{10}-1)|x|+1\Big)$.
**Network Structure:** The proposed network structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:NIP\_network\], which consists of an SR network for generating the super-resolution result and also a few additional convolutional layers to impose the NIP prior. The “SR Network" in Fig. \[fig:NIP\_network\] can be chosen to be any network specific for SR task and here we pick variants of the Very Deep Super Resolution (VDSR) [@Kim_2016_VDSR] as one of the state-of-the-art methods for validating our idea. However, this idea can be applied to any other SR network such as SRCNN, etc. VDSR is a residual network with $N$ convolutional layers that takes the input LR image as input and generates the output residuals that needed to be added to the input image in order to generate the HR output image. Each layer has $64$ filters of size $3\times 3\times c$, where $c$ is the number of required channels.
![The network structure for imposing NIP priors[]{data-label="fig:NIP_network"}](figs/NIP_conv1.png){width="\columnwidth"}
The output of the “SR Network" goes into another layer of convolution with 8 non-learnable filters of size $3\times 3$ that are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Filters\] and passed through the nonlinear equivalent of $\alpha$-norm to form a data cube with 8 channels. The output cube is summed across channels and then across spatial dimensions to provide the NIP part of the loss function in . Although the filters in the last layer are not learnable and are fixed, the error that is caused by NIP layers propagates back to the main SR network and hence the SR network weights are optimized with the knowledge of the NIP. This network is equipped with image priors so that it can capture image statistics from the training data and generate output images with respect to the natural image prior. Especially, in scenarios where training data is limited and generic deep SR networks fail to provide satisfying results for super-resolution, our DNIP is capable of recovering HR images using the prior knowledge that is incorporated into the network.
Experimental Results
====================
In this section, we provide the experimental results and procedures corresponding to our DNIP method. We evaluate our method in high training and low training scenarios to show the benefits of regularizing deep networks with image priors.
Dataset Preparation and Training Procedure
-------------------------------------------
For training dataset, we use the 291 images from [@schulter2015fast] which contains natural images. Data Augmentation, including flipping, rotation, and scaling, was performed. To train the network, the HR training images are scaled down and up by bicubic interpolation with a scaling factor of $3$ from which $140,000+$ patches of size $41\times 41$ pixels are extracted. For the test scenario, we use the ‘set 14’ [@Zeyde:SR_Springer2012] dataset for a scaling factor of $3$. The training procedure of DNIP is chosen to be similar to VDSR [@Kim_2016_VDSR]. Additional convolutional layers with non-learnable (fixed) weights are also added to compute the loss function corresponding to NIP. Training uses batches of size 64 and momentum and weight decay parameters are set to $0.9$ and $0.0001$. Also, gradient clipping is used as proposed by [@Kim_2016_VDSR] to prevent gradients from exploding. We train all experiments over 300 epochs over all training data (no matter how much training data is used). The learning rate was initially set to $0.1$ and then decreased by a factor of 10 at epochs 60 and 140. Similar to other recent SR methods, our framework applies bicubic interpolation to color components and only the luminance channel is fed to the deep network.
DNIP with Variable Training and Variable Depth
-----------------------------------------------
We compare the performance of DNIP and VDSR with $N=20, 12, 5$ layers and with varying amount of training data. We show that when generous training is available (using $100\%$ of available training) both methods show comparable performance. Fig. \[Fig:HighTr\_lenna\] shows the the output of VDSR-20 and DNIP-20 (both with $N=20$ layers) when using $100\%$ of training patches. Numbers in parenthesis denote the PSNR and SSIM values, respectively. Also, the last two columns of Table \[Table:All\_depth\_all\_percentages\] shows the same but averaged over Set-14. Additionally, Table \[Table:All\_depth\_all\_percentages\] also reports results with different number of layers in the network varying from $5$ to $20$ with varying amount of training. It may be inferred that despite different networks’ depths, there is no significant difference between the two networks when using $100\%$ of training data. However, when we decrease the amount of training data, the benefits of DNIP are readily apparent.
\[Table:All\_depth\_all\_percentages\]
{width="\columnwidth"}
\[Fig:HighTr\_lenna\]
{width="\columnwidth"}\
{width="\columnwidth"}
\[Fig:VDSR\_DNIP\_20\_4percent\]
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
\[Fig:PSNR\_plot\_all\_layers\_all\_percentages\]
Fig. \[Fig:VDSR\_DNIP\_20\_4percent\] shows the comparison of VDSR-20 and DNIP-20 networks when trained only with $4\%$ of training patches. Clearly, DNIP-20 shows a significant boost in terms of PSNR and SSIM for both “ppt3" and “monarch" images. Also, much less artifacts around edges are seen in the result of DNIP which now uses the prior knowledge compared to VDSR network which does not do so.
We also carried out another experiment which examines the effect of the number of layers on the performance of DNIP and exploiting prior knowledge. We show that in the limited training scenarios, regardless of the number of layers in each network, regularizing our DNIP network with prior knowledge results in better performance than VDSR. Essentially, when less training data is available the more helpful are the incorporated priors in our DNIP network. For instance, Fig. \[Fig:PSNR\_plot\_all\_layers\_all\_percentages\] shows when the available training data is decreasing, the performance of both VDSR-5 and DNIP-5 decays; however, DNIP exhibits a more graceful decay.
An interesting observation here is that as the amount of training data decreases, networks with fewer number of layers begin to show better performance compared to deeper structures. This shows for limited data the shallower networks are more capable of capturing statistical and geometrical structures in the training process. This observation is aligned with the fact that deeper networks need more training data for learning and shallower networks with less parameters can be learned with less training data. However, both cases can benefit from incorporating prior knowledge.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we analyze deep network structures for the SR task in the absence of abundant training data and showed that their performance significantly drops under such conditions. To overcome this problem, we develop a novel deep network that is regularized with prior knowledge of images (natural image priors). We propose suitable approximations to the prior so that it results in a regularization term that fits with existing backpropogation schemes and hence enables tractable learning of a deep CNN with image priors (DNIP). Experiments confirm that our proposed DNIP is capable of capturing more structural image details from limited training data. More elaborate priors may be investigated in future work and from an experimental viewpoint the impact of incorporating priors on the complexity of the network structure (e.g. number of layers) may be investigated in greater detail.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**The Differential Geometry and Physical Basis for the Applications of Feynman Diagrams[^1]**]{}\
.3in
Samuel L. Marateck\
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences\
New York University\
New York, N.Y. 10012\
email: [email protected]\
.3in
[**Abstract**]{}
> This paper recalls the development of gauge theory culminating in Yang-Mills theory, and the application of differential geometry including connections on fiber bundles to field theory. Finally, we see how the preceding is used to explain the Feynman diagrams appearing on the Feynman postage stamp released in May 2005. Version 2 included the Feynman diagrams, Version 3 corrected typos and Version 4 included an appendix for the derivation of the Yang-Mills transformation and field strength. Version 5 indicates that the article has been published in the Notices of the AMS and in July 2009 appears in Chinese translation in a journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It also corrects some typos and adds to the appendix a hueristic derivation of the Yang-Mills field strength.
On May 11, the late Richard Feynman’s birthday, a stamp was dedicated to Feynman at the Post Office in Far Rockaway, New York City, Feynman’s boyhood home. (At the same time, the United States Postal Service issued three other stamps honoring the scientists Josiah Willard Gibbs and Barbara McClintock, and the mathematician John von Neumann.)\
The design of the stamp tells a wonderful story. The Feynman diagrams on it show how Feynman’s work originally applicable to QED, for which he won the Nobel prize, was then later used to elucidate the electroweak force. The design is meaningful to both mathematicians and physicists. For mathematicians, it demonstrates the application of differential geometry; for physicists, it depicts the verification of QED, the application of the Yang-Mills equations and the establishment and experimental verification of the electroweak force, the first step in the creation of the standard model. The physicists used gauge theory to achieve this and were for the most part unaware of the developments in differential geometry. Similarly mathematicians developed fiber-bundle theory without knowing that it could be applied to physics. We should, however, remember that in general relativity, Einstein introduced geometry into physics. And as we will relate below, Weyl did so for electromagnetism. General relativity sparked mathematicians interest in parallel transport, eventually leading to the development of fiber-bundles in differential geometry. After physicists achieved success using gauge theory, mathematicians applied it to differential geometry. The story begins with Maxwell’s equations. In this story the vector potential [**A**]{} goes from being a mathematical construct used to facilitate problem solution in electromagnetism to taking center stage by causing the shift in the interference pattern in the Aharonov-Bohm solenoid effect. As the generalized four-vector $A_\mu$, it becomes the gauge field that mediates the electromagnetic interaction, and the electroweak and strong interactions in the standard model of physics – $A_\mu$ is understood as the connection on fiber-bundles in differential geometry. The modern reader would be unaccustomed to the form in which Maxwell equations first appeared. They are easily recognizable when expressed using vector analysis in the Heaviside-Gibbs formulation.\
[**Maxwell’s Equations**]{}
The equations used to establish Maxwell’s equations [*in vacuo*]{} expressed in Heaviside-Lorentz rationalized units are:\
(1) $\nabla \cdot \vec {\bf E} = \rho$ (Gauss’s law)\
(2) $\nabla \cdot \vec {\bf B}= 0$ (No magnetic monpoles)\
(3) $\nabla \times \vec {\bf B}= \vec {\bf J}$ (Ampere’s law)\
(4) $\nabla \times \vec {\bf E}= - \partial \vec {\bf B}/ \partial {t}$ ((Faraday’s and Lenz’s law)\
where $\vec {\bf E}$ and $\vec {\bf B}$ are respectively the electric and magnetic fields; $\rho$ and $\vec {\bf J}$ are the charge density and electric current. The continuity equation which dictates the conservation of charge:\
(5) $\nabla \cdot \vec {\bf J} + \partial {\rho}/ \partial {t} = 0 $\
indicates that Maxwell’s equations describe a local theory since you cannot destroy a charge locally and recreate it at a distant point instantaneously. The concept that the theory should be local is the corner-stone of the gauge theory used in quantum field theory, resulting in the Yang-Mills theory, the basis of the standard model.
Maxwell realized that since:\
(6) $\nabla \cdot \nabla \times \vec {\bf B}= 0$\
equation (3) is inconsistent with (5), he altered (3) to read\
(3’) $\nabla \times \vec {\bf B}= \vec {\bf J} + \partial \vec {\bf E}/ \partial {t} $\
Thus a local conservation law mandated the addition of the $\partial \vec {\bf
E}/ \partial {t} $ term. Although equations (1), (2), (3’) and (4) are collectively known as Maxwell’s equations, Maxwell himself was only responsible for (3’).\
Maxwell calculated the speed of a wave propagated by the final set of equations, and found its velocity very close to the speed of light. He thus hypothesized that light was an electromagnetic wave. Since the curl of a vector cannot be calculated in two-dimensions, Maxwell’s equations indicate that light, as we know it, cannot exist in a two-dimensional world. This is the first clue that electromagnetism, is bound up with geometry. In fact equation (6) is the vector analysis equivalent of the differential geometry result stating that if [**$\beta$**]{} is a p-form, and [**d$\beta$**]{} is its exterior derivative, then [**d(d$\beta$)**]{}, or ${\bf d^2 \beta}$ = 0.\
Unlike the laws of newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s equations carry over to relativistic frames. The non-homogeneous equations, (1) and (3’), become\
(7) $\partial_{\mu} F^{\mu \nu} = J^ {\nu}$\
while the homogeneous equations, (2) and (4) become\
(8) $\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \partial_{\beta} F_{\gamma \delta}
= 0$\
where $\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $F^{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu}A^{\nu} - \partial^{\nu}A^{\mu}$, and $A^0$ is the scalar potential and $A^i$’s ($i=$ 1, 2, 3) the components of the vector potential $\vec {\bf A}$. Note that both equations (7) and (8) are manifestly covariant. Yang[^2] remarked that equation (8) is related to the geometrical theorem that the boundary of a region has no boundary. In a later section, we will show that equation (8) is due to the principle $d^2\omega = 0$, where [**$\omega$**]{} is a p-form. Yang’s geometrical explanation can be understood in differential geometry terms using the generalized Stoke’s theorem: $\int_M d\omega =
\int_{\partial M} \omega$, where $\omega$ is an n-form and $M$ is an $n+1$ dimension oriented manifold with boundary $\partial M$. For the purposes of this article a manifold is simply a surface that is locally Euclidean. Because $d^2\omega = 0$, this leads to $ \int_ M d^2\omega = \int_{\partial M} d\omega
= \int_{\partial^2 M} \omega = 0$, where $\partial^2 M$ indicates the boundary of a boundary of a region. If we assume that $\omega$ is non-vanishing, then $\partial^2 M$ is $\oslash$. The M$\ddot{o}$bius strip can be used as another example of the theorem Yang cites.
[**Gauge Invariance**]{}
In a 1918 article, Hermann Weyl[^3] tried to combine electromagnetism and gravity by requiring the theory to be invariant under a local scale change of the metric $g_{\mu \nu} \rightarrow g_{\mu \nu}e^{\alpha(x)}$, where $x$ is a 4-vector. This attempt was unsuccessful and was criticized by Einstein for being inconsistent with observed physical results. It predicted that a vector parallel transported from point $p$ to $q$ would have a length that was path dependent. Similarly, the time interval between ticks of a clock would also depend on the path on which the clock was transported. The article did, however, introduce\
- The term “gauge invariance”, his term was [*Eichinvarianz*]{}. It refers to invariance under his scale change. The first use of “gauge invariance” in English[^4] was in Weyl’s 1929 English version[^5] of his famous 1929 paper.
- The geometric interpretation of electromagnetism,
- The beginnings of non-abelian gauge theory. The similarity of Weyl’s theory to non-abelian gauge theory is more striking in his 1929 paper.
By 1929 Maxwell’s equations had been combined with quantum mechanics to produce the start of quantum electrodynamics. Weyl in his 1929 article[^6] turned from trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity to following a suggestion originally thought to have been made by Fritz London in his 1927 article[^7], and introduced as a phase factor an exponential in which the phase $\alpha$ is preceded by the imaginary unit $i$, e.g., $e^{+iq\alpha({\bf x})}$, in the wave function for the wave equations (for instance, the Dirac equation is $(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\psi =
0$). It is here that Weyl correctly formulated gauge theory as a symmetry principle from which electromagnetism could be derived. It was to become the driving force in the development of quantum field theory. In their 2001 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} paper Jackson and Okun point out that in a 1926 paper[^8] pre-dating London’s, Fock showed that for a quantum theory of charged particles interacting with the electromagnetic field, invariance under a gauge transformation of the potentials required multiplication of the wave function by the now well-know phase factor. Many subsequent authors incorrecty cited the date of Fock’s paper as 1927. Weyl’s 1929 article along with his 1918 one and Fock’s and London’s, and other key articles appear in translation in a work by O’Raifeartaigh[^9] with his comments. Yang[^10] discusses Weyl’s gauge theory results as reported by Pauli[^11], as a source for Yang-Mills gauge theory (although Yang didn’t find out until much later that these were Weyl’s results):
> I was very much impressed with the idea that charge conservation was related to the invariance of the theory under phase changes, an idea, I later found out, due originally to H. Weyl. I was even more impressed with the fact the gauge-invariance determined all the electromagnetic interactions.
For the wave equations to be gauge invariant, i.e., have the same form after the gauge transformation as before, the local phase transformation $\psi({\bf
x}) \rightarrow \psi(x)e^{+iq\alpha({\bf x})}$ has to be accompanied by the local gauge transformation\
(9) ${\bf A_\mu} \rightarrow {\bf A_\mu} - {\bf \partial_{\mu}\alpha({\bf x})}$\
(The phase and gauge transformations are local because $\alpha({\bf x})$ is a function of [**x**]{}.) This dictates that the $\partial_\mu$ in the wave equations be replaced by $\partial_\mu + iqA_\mu$ in order for the ${\bf
\partial_{\mu}\alpha({\bf x})}$ terms to cancel each other. Thus gauge invariance determines the type of interaction – here, the inclusion of the vector potential. This is called the [*gauge principle*]{} and $A_\mu$ is called the [*gauge field*]{} or [*gauge potential*]{}. Gauge invariance is also called [*gauge symmetry.*]{} In electromagnetism, [**A**]{} is the space-time vector potential representing the photon field, while in electroweak theory, [**A**]{} represents the intermediate vector bosons $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ fields and in the strong interaction, [**A**]{} represents the colored gluon fields. The fact that the $q$ in $\psi(x)e^{+iq\alpha({\bf x})}$ must be the same as the q in $\partial_\mu + iqA_\mu$ to insure gauge invariance, means that the charge q must be conserved.[^12] Thus gauge invariance dictates charge conservation. By Noether’s theorem, a conserved current is associated with a symmetry. Here the symmetry is the non-physical rotation invariance in an internal space called a [*fiber*]{}. In electromagnetism the rotations form the group U(1), the group of unitary 1-dimensional matrices. U(1) is an example of a [*structure group*]{} and the fiber is $S^1$, the circle.
A [*fiber bundle*]{} is determined by two manifolds and the structure group $G$ which acts on the fiber: the first manifold, called the total space [*E*]{} consists of many copies of the fiber [*F*]{}, one for each point in the second manifold, the base manifold [*M*]{} which for our discussion is the space-time manifold. The fibers are said to project down to the base manifold. A [*principal fiber bundle*]{}[^13] is a fiber bundle in which the structure group, [*G*]{}, is a Lie group that acts on the total space [*E*]{} in such a way that each fiber is mapped onto itself and the action of an individual fiber looks like the action of the structure group on itself by left-translation. In particular, the fiber [*F*]{} is diffeomorphic to the structure group $G$.
The gauge principle shows how electromagnetism can be introduced into quantum mechanics. The transformation $\partial_\mu \rightarrow \partial_\mu + iqA_\mu
$ is also called the [*minimal principle*]{} and the operation $\partial_\mu +
iqA_\mu$ is the covariant derivative of differential geometry, ${\bf D} = {\bf
d + iqA}$, where [**A**]{} is the connection on a fiber bundle. A connection on a fiber bundle allows one to identify fibers over points $b_i$ $\epsilon M$ via parallel transport along a path $\gamma$ from $b_1$ to $b_2$. In general, the particular identification is path dependent. It turns out that the parallel transport depends only on the homotopy class of the path if and only if the curvature of the connection vanishes identically. Recall that two paths are homotopic if one can be deformed continuously onto the other keeping the end points fixed.
Weyl in his 1929 paper also includes an expression for the curvature ${\bf
\Omega}$ of the connection [**A**]{}, namely Cartan’s second structural equation which in modern differential geometry notation is ${\bf \Omega = dA + A \wedge
A}$. It is the same form as the equation used by Yang and Mills which in modern notation is ${\bf \Omega = dA + [A, A]}$, where \[\] is the Lie bracket. Since the transformations in (9) form an abelian group U(1), the space-time vector potential [**A**]{} commutes with itself. Thus in electromagnetism the curvature of the connection [**A**]{} is just\
(10) ${\bf \Omega = dA}$.\
which, as we will see in the next section, is the field strength [**F**]{} defined as [**F = dA**]{}.
[**Differential Geometry**]{}
Differential geometry principly developed by Levi-Civita, Cartan, Poincaré, de Rham, Whitney, Hodge, Chern, Steenrod and Ehresmann led to the develpment of fiber-bundle theory which is used in explaining the geometric content of Maxwell’s equations. It was later used to explain Yang-Mills theory and to develop string theory. The successes of gauge theory in physics sparked mathematicians interest in it. In the 1970’s Sir Michael Atiyah initiated the study of the mathematics of the Yang-Mills equations and in 1983 his student Simon Donaldson using Yang-Mills theory discovered a unique property of smooth manifolds[^14] in $\mathbb{R}^4$. Michael Freedman went on to prove that there exists multiple exotic differential structures only on $\mathbb{R}^4$. It is known that in other dimensions, the standard differential structure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is unique.
In 1959 Aharonov and Bohm[^15] established the primacy of the vector potential by proposing an electron diffraction experiment to demonstrate a quantum mechanical effect: A long solenoid lies behind a wall with two slits and is positioned between the slits and paralled to them. An electron source in front of the wall emits electrons that follow two paths. One path through the upper slit and the other path through the lower slit. The first electron path flows above the solenoid and the other path flows below it. The solenoid is small enough so that when no current flows through it, the solenoid doesn’t interfere with the electrons’ flow. The two paths converge and form a diffraction pattern on a screen behind the solenoid. When the current is turned on, there is no magnetic or electric field outside the solenoid so the electrons cannot be effected by these fields; however there is a vector potential $\vec {\bf A}$ and it effects the interference pattern on the screen. Thus Einstein’s objection to Weyl’s 1918 paper can be understood as saying that there is no Aharonov$-$Bohm effect for gravity. Because of the necessary presence of the solenoid, the upper path cannot be continuously deformed into the lower one. Therefore, the two-paths are not homotopically equivalent.
The solution of $(1\slash 2m)(-i\hbar\nabla - q{\bf A}\slash c)^2\psi + qV\psi =
E\psi $, the time-independent Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger’s equation for a charged particle, is $\psi_0({\bf x}) e^{(iq\slash c\hbar)\int^{\bf s(x)} {\bf A(y)}
d{\bf s^{'}(y)} }$ where $\psi_0({\bf x})$ is the solution of the equation for [**A**]{} equals zero and [**s(x)**]{} represents each of the two paths. Here $c$ is the speed of light and $\hbar$ is Plank’s constant divided by $2\pi$. The interference term in the superposition of the solution for the upper path and that for the lower path produces a difference in the phase of the electron’s wave function called a [*phase shift*]{}. Here the phase shift is $(q\slash
c\hbar)\oint {\bf A(x)} d{\bf x}$. By Stoke’s theorem, the phase shift is $(q\slash c\hbar)\phi$ where $\phi$ is the magnetic flux in the solenoid, $\int
\vec {\bf B} \cdot d\vec {\bf S}$. Mathematically, their proposal corresponds to the fact that even if the curvature \[the electromagnetic field strength\] of the connection vanishes \[as it does outside of the solenoid\] parallel transport along non-homotopic paths can still be path-dependent \[producing a shift in the diffraction pattern\].
Chambers[^16] performed an experiment to test the Aharonov and Bohm (AB) effect. The experiment, however, was criticized because of leakage from a tapered magnetic needle. Tonomura[^17] et. al. performed beautiful experiments that indeed verified the AB prediction. Wu and Yang[^18] analyzed the prediction of Aharonov and Bohm and comment that different phase shifts $(q\slash c\hbar)\phi$ may describe the same interference pattern, whereas the phase factor $e^{(iq\slash c\hbar)\phi}$ provides a unique description. The equation $e^{2\pi Ni} = 1$, where $N$ is an integer means that $e^{(iq\slash c\hbar)(\phi + 2\pi Nc\hbar\slash q)}$ = $e^{(iq\slash
c\hbar)\phi}e^{2\pi Ni}$ = $e^{(iq\slash c\hbar)\phi}$. Thus flux of $\phi,
\phi + 2\pi c\hbar\slash q, \phi + 4\pi c\hbar\slash q ...$ all describe the same interference pattern. Moreover, they introduced a dictionary relating gauge theory terminology to bundle terminology. For instance, the gauge theory phase factor corresponds to the bundle parallel transport; and as we shall see, the Yang-Mills gauge potential corresponds to a connection on a principal fiber bundle.
Let’s see how using the primacy of the four-vector potential [**A**]{}, we can derive the homogeneous Maxwell’s equations from differential geometry simply by using the gauge transformation. Then we’ll get the non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations for source-free ([**J**]{} = 0) electromagnetism using the fact that our world is a four-dimensional (space-time) world.
We will also show that Maxwell’s equations are invariant under the transformations ${\bf A_\mu} \rightarrow {\bf A_\mu} + {\bf \partial_{\mu}
\alpha({\bf x})}$, or expressed in differential geometry terms, ${\bf A}
\rightarrow {\bf A} + {\bf d \alpha({\bf x})}$. We want $\alpha({\bf x})$ to vanish when a function of [**A**]{} is assigned to the $\vec {\bf E}$ and $\vec
{\bf B}$ fields. Taking the exterior derivative of [**A**]{} will do this since ${\bf d^2\alpha({\bf x}) = 0}$. Set [**A**]{} to the 1-form [**A**]{} = -$A_0{\bf
d}t + A_x{\bf d}x + A_y{\bf d}y + A_z{\bf d}z$. Evaluating [**dA**]{} and realizing that the wedge product ${\bf d}x^i \wedge {\bf d}x^j = - {\bf d}x^j
\wedge {\bf d}x^i$ and therefore ${\bf d}x^j \wedge {\bf d}x^j = 0$ where ${\bf
d}x^0$ is ${\bf d}t$, ${\bf d}x^1$ is ${\bf d}x$, ${\bf d}x^2$ is ${\bf d}y$ and ${\bf d}x^3$ is ${\bf d}z$, produces the 2-form [**dA**]{} consisting of terms like $(\partial_xA_0 + \partial_tA_x)dtdx$ and $(\partial_x A_y -
\partial_y A_x)dxdy$. When all the components are evaluated, these terms become respectively $\nabla {\bf A_0} + \partial \vec {\bf A}/ \partial_t$ and $\nabla \times \vec {\bf A}$. The analysis up to now has been purely mathematical. To give it physical significance we associate these terms with the field strengths $\vec {\bf B}$ and $\vec {\bf E}$. In electromagnetic theory, two fundamental principles are $\nabla \cdot \vec {\bf B}= 0$ (no magnetic monopoles) and for time-independent fields $\vec {\bf E} = - \nabla
A_0$ (the electromagnetic field is the gradient of the scalar potential), so consistency dictates that in the time-dependent case, we assign the two terms to $\vec {\bf B}$ and $\vec {\bf E}$ respectively:\
(11) $\vec {\bf B} = \nabla \times \vec {\bf A}$ and $\vec {\bf E} = - \nabla A_0 - \partial_t \vec {\bf A}$\
The gradient, curl and divergence are spatial operators – they envolve the differentials dx, dy and dz. The exterior derivative of a scalar is the gradient, the exterior derivative of a spatial 1-form is the curl, and the exterior derivative of a spatial two-form is the divergence. In the 1-form [**A**]{}, the -$A_0{\bf d}t$ is a spatial scalar and when the exterior derivative is applied gives rise to $\nabla A_0$. The remaining terms in [**A**]{} are the coefficients of $dx^i$ constituting a spatial 1-form and thus produce $\nabla
\times \vec {\bf A}$.
We define the field strength, [**F**]{} as [**F = dA**]{} and from equation (10), we see that the field strength is the curvature of the connection [**A**]{}. Using the equations in (11) and the 2-form [**dA**]{} we get\
(12) [**F**]{} = $E_x{\bf d}x{\bf d}t + E_y{\bf d}y{\bf d}t + E_z{\bf d}z{\bf d}t
+ B_x{\bf d}y{\bf d}z + B_y{\bf d}z{\bf d}x + B_z{\bf d}x{\bf d}y$\
where for example ${\bf d}x{\bf d}t$ is the wedge product ${\bf d}x \wedge {\bf
d}t$. Since ${\bf d^2A = 0}$\
(13) ${\bf dF = 0}$\
Evaluating [**dF**]{} gives the homogeneous Maxwell’s equations. In equation (12) since the [**E**]{} part is a spatial 1-form, when the exterior derivative is applied, it produces the $\nabla \times \vec {\bf E}$ part of Maxwell’s homogenous equations. Since the [**B**]{} part of equation (12) is a spatial 2-form, it results in the $\nabla \cdot \vec {\bf B}$ part. Since ${\bf dF =
0}$, [**F**]{} is said to be a closed 2-form.
To get the expression for the non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations, i.e., the equivalent of equation (7), we use\
(14) [**J**]{} = $\rho{\bf d}t + J_x{\bf d}x + J_y{\bf d}y + J_z{\bf d}z$\
and calculate the Hodge dual using the Hodge star operator. The Hodge Duals are defined[^19] by $^*F_{\alpha \beta} =
1/2\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} F^{\gamma \delta}$ and $^*J_{\alpha
\beta \gamma} = \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} J^{\delta}$. The Hodge star[^20] operates on the differentials in equation (12) and (14) using $^*(dx^idt) = dx^jdx^k$ and $^*(dx^jdx^k) = - dx^idt$ where i, j, and k refer to x, y and z, and are taken in cyclic order. The metric used is (-+++). Thus the Hodge star takes a spatial 1-form $dx^idt$ into a spatial 2-form and vice versa with a sign change.
The non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations are then expressed by\
(15) [**d\*F**]{} = 0 (source-free)\
(15’) [**d\*F**]{} = [**J**]{} (non-source-free)\
where the 2-form [**F**]{} and the 3-form [**J**]{} are respectively the Hodge duals of [**F**]{} and [**J**]{}. [**F**]{} and [**J**]{} are defined as\
(16) [**F**]{} = $-B_x{\bf d}x{\bf d}t -B_y{\bf d}y{\bf d}t -B_z{\bf d}z{\bf d}t
+ E_x{\bf d}y{\bf d}z + E_y{\bf d}z{\bf d}x + E_z{\bf d}x{\bf d}y$\
(17) [**J**]{} = $\rho{\bf d}x{\bf d}y{\bf d}z - J_x{\bf d}t{\bf d}y{\bf d}z -
J_y{\bf d}t{\bf d}z{\bf d}x - J_z{\bf d}t{\bf d}x{\bf d}y$\
Thus the Hodge star reverses the rolls of $\vec {\bf E}$ and $\vec {\bf B}$ from what they were in [**F**]{}. In [**F**]{} the coefficient of the spatial 1-form is now $-\vec {\bf B}$ which will produce the curl in the non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations, and the coefficient of the spatial 2-form is $\vec {\bf E}$ which will produce the divergence. In $\mathbb{R}^n$, the Hodge star operation on a p-form produces an (n-p)-form. Thus the form of Maxwell’s equations is dictated by the fact that we live in a four-dimensional world. When the 1-form [**A**]{} undergoes the local gauge transformation ${\bf
A} \rightarrow {\bf A} + {\bf d\alpha({\bf x})}$, [**dA**]{} remains the same since ${\bf d^2\alpha} = 0$. Since $\vec {\bf B}$ and $\vec {\bf E}$ are unchanged, Maxwell’s theory is gauge invariant.
[**The Dirac and Electromagnetism Lagrangians**]{}\
To prepare for the discussion of the Yang-Mills equations, let’s investigate the Dirac and Electromagnetism Lagrangians The Dirac equation is\
(20) $(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\psi = 0$\
where the speed of light, $c$, and Plank’s constant $\hbar$ are set to one. Its Lagrangian density is\
(21) ${\mathcal L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\psi$\
The Euler-Lagrange equations minimize the action [**S**]{} where $S = \int
{\mathcal L} {\bf dx}$. Using the Euler-Lagrange equation where the differentiation is with respect to $\bar{\psi}$, i.e.,\
(22) $ \partial_{\mu} {\textstyle
( \frac {\partial {\mathcal L}} {\partial(\partial_\mu
\bar {\psi})})- \frac {\partial {\mathcal L}} {\partial \bar{\psi}}} = 0$\
yields equation (20).
The same gauge invariant argument used in the Gauge Invariance section applies here. In order for the Lagrangian to be invariant under the phase transformation $\psi({\bf x}) \rightarrow \psi(x)e^{+i\alpha({\bf x})}$, this transformation has to be accompanied by the local gauge transformation ${\bf
A_\mu} \rightarrow {\bf A_\mu} - e^{-1}{\bf \partial_{\mu}\alpha({\bf x})}$ and $\partial_\mu$ has to be replaced by $\partial_\mu + ieA_\mu$. The Lagrangian density becomes\
(23) ${\mathcal L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\psi -
e \bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu \psi A_\mu $\
The last term is the equivalent of the interaction energy with the electromagnetic field, $j^\mu A_\mu$. In order for the Euler-Lagrangian equation differentiated with respect to $A_\mu$ to yield the inhomogeneous Maxwell equation (7) we must add $-(\frac {1} {4})(F_{\mu \nu})^2$ getting\
(24) ${\mathcal L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\psi -
e \bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu \psi A_\mu -(\frac {1} {4})(F_{\mu \nu})^2$\
The Euler-Lagrange equation yields\
(25) $\partial_{\mu} F^{\mu \nu} = e \bar{\psi}\gamma^\nu \psi$\
which equals $J^{\nu}$. Note that the gauge field $A_\mu$ does not carry a charge and there is no gauge field self-coupling which would be indicated by an $[A_\mu, A_\nu]$ term in (25). The Lagrangian density does not yield the homogeneous Maxwell equations. They are satisfied trivially because the definition of $F^{\mu \nu}$ satisfies the homogeneous equations automatically.[^21]\
From this it is apparent that the Lagrangian density for the electromagnetic field alone\
(26) ${\mathcal L} = -J^\mu A_\mu -(\frac {1} {4})(F_{\mu \nu})^2$\
yields all of Maxwell’s equations.\
In differential geometry, if $j = 0$, this Lagrangian density becomes\
(27) ${\mathcal L} = (\frac {1} {2}F \wedge *F)$\
[**The Yang-Mills Theory**]{}
The Yang-Mills theory incorporates isotopic spin symmetry introduced in 1932 by Heisenberg who observed that the proton and neutron masses are almost the same (938.272 MeV versus 939.566 MeV respectively). He hypothesized that if the electromagnetic field was turned off, the masses would be equal and the proton and neutron would react identically to the strong force, the force that binds the nucleus together and is responsible for the formation of new particles and the rapid (typically their lifetimes are about$10^{-20}$ seconds) decay of others. In a non-physical space (also known as an internal space) called [*isospin space*]{}, the proton would have isospin up, for instance, and the neutron, isospin down; but other than that, they would be identical. The wave function for each particle could be transformed to that for the other by a rotation using the spin matrices of the non-abelian group SU(2). Because of charge independence, the strong interactions are invariant under rotations in isospin space. Since the ratio of the electromagnetic to strong force is approximately $\alpha$, where $\alpha = e^2/4\pi\hbar c$ = 1/137, to a good approximation we can neglect the fact that the electromagnetic forces break this symmetry. By Noether’s theorem, if there is a rotational symmetry in isospin space, the total isotopic spin is conserved. This hypothesis enables us to estimate relative rates of the strong interactions in which the final state has a given isospin. The spin matrices turn out to be the Pauli matrices $\sigma_i$. The theory just described is a global one, i.e., the isotopic spin is independent of the space-time coordinate and thus no connection is used. We will see that Yang and Mills[^22] elevated this global theory to a local one. In 1954 they proposed applying the isospin matrices to electromagnetic theory in order to describe the strong interactions. Ultimately their theory was used to describe the interaction of quarks in the electroweak theory[^23] and the gluons fields of the strong force. In the next section we will give an example using the up quark $u$ which has a charge of $\frac {2} {3}e$ and down quark $d$ which has a charge of -$\frac {1} {3}e$.
We have seen that the field strength (which is also the curvature of the connection on the fiber) is given by ${\bf F = dA + A \wedge A}$. In electromagnetism [**A**]{} is a 1-form with scalar coefficients for ${\bf d}x^i$ so ${\bf A \wedge A}$ vanishes. If, however, the coefficients are non-commuting matrices ${\bf A \wedge A}$ does not vanish and provides for gauge field self-coupling. Yang and Mills formulated the field strength, using the letter $B$ instead if $A$, so we will follow suit. The field is\
(28) $F_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu} - \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}) +i\epsilon
(B_\mu B_\nu - B_\nu B_\mu)$\
or equivalently $F_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}B_{\mu})
+i\epsilon [B_\mu, B_\nu]$, where $B$ is the connection on a principal fiber bundle, i.e., the gauge potential. So as opposed to the electromagnetic field strength which is linear, their field strength is non-linear. They proposed using a local phase. For instance, one could let\
(29) $\psi({\bf x}) \rightarrow \psi(x)e^{i\alpha_j({\bf x})\sigma^j}$\
where $\sigma^j$ are the Pauli matrices and $j$ goes from 1 to 3. Thus the exponent includes the dot product (or inner product) in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The Pauli matrices do not commute, $[\frac {\sigma^i}{2}, \frac {\sigma^j}{2}] = i
\epsilon^{ijk} \frac{\sigma^k}{2}.$ Since $B_\mu = \frac {1}{2}b^i_\mu
\sigma_i$ or $B_\mu = \frac {1}{2}\vec {\bf b}\cdot \vec{\bf \sigma}$ (where $b^i_\mu$ is called the isotopic spin vector gauge field) the four-vectors $B_\mu$ and $B_\nu$ in (28) do not commute. The purpose of the Pauli spin matrices in the connection $B$ is to rotate the particles in isospin space so that they retain their identities at different points in $\mathbb{R}^4$. Equation (28) can be rewritten so that the curvature is defined as ${\bf F =
dB + i\epsilon [B, B]}$. As opposed to the Maxwell’s equations case, the exterior derivative of the curvature ${\bf dF}$, does not equal zero because of the commutator in the expression for the curvature. Thus the exterior derivative for the 2-form ${\bf F}$ has to be altered to include the connection [**B**]{}.
The Lagrangian\
(30) ${\mathcal L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu (D_\mu - m)\psi - (\frac {1}
{4})Tr(F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu})$\
is invariant under the gauge transformation for the covariant derivative given as\
(32) $D_\mu = \partial_{\mu} -i\epsilon B_\mu$
where $\epsilon$ is the coupling constant analagous to $q$ in (9). The connection $B_\mu$ transforms as\
(33) ${B_\mu} \rightarrow {B_\mu} +\epsilon^{-1} \partial_{\mu}{\bf
\alpha} + [{\bf \alpha}, {B_\mu}]$,\
the fiber is the sphere, $S^2$ and the structure group is SU(2).
Since there are three components of the vector gauge field $b^i_\mu$, there are three vector gauge fields representing three gauge particles having spin one. They were later identified as the intermediate vector bosons $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ which mediate the electroweak interactions. The fact that there are three gauge particles is dictated by the fact that the gauge field is coupled with the three Pauli spin matrices. Also, since the charges of the up quark and down quark differ by one, the gauge field particles that are absorbed and emitted by them in quark-quark interactions can have charges of $\pm$1 or zero. It’s astonishing that Yang and Mills in their 1954 paper predicted the existence of the three intermediate vector bosons.
The gauge particles predicted by the Lagrangian (30) have zero mass since any mass term added to (30) would make the Lagrangian non-invariant under a local gauge transformation. So the force associated with the particles would have infinite range as the photons of the electromagnetic interaction do. Of course the weak force (the force responsible for particle decaying slowly, typically their lifetimes are about $10^{-10}$ seconds or much less) and strong nuclear force are short range. This discrepency was corrected some years later by the introduction of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak $SU(2) \times
U(1)$ theory of Weinberg, Salam and Glashow (WSG) using the Higgs mechanism. The WSG theory, which explains the electromagnetic and weak forces, predicts the existence of four gauge bosons: the three massive ones, $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$, and the photon. Moreover, it predicts the mass of the $W^\pm$ (80.37 $\pm$0.03 GeV) and $Z^0$ (92 $\pm$ 2 GeV), where GeV represents a billion electron volts. The $W^\pm$ was discovered[^24] in 1983 (its mass is now reported at 80.425 Gev $\pm$ 0.033 GeV) and later that year the $Z^0$ was discovered[^25] (its mass is now reported at a mass of 91.187 $\pm$ 0.002 GeV).
The Euler-Lagrange equations for equation (30) give the Dirac equation\
(34) $\gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu -ie B_\mu)\psi + m\psi = 0$\
and also the vector equation for the vector field [**F**]{}, namely\
(35) $\partial^{\mu} {\bf F}_{\mu \nu} - i \epsilon [{\bf B}^\mu, {\bf F}_{\mu
\nu}] = - \frac {1} {2}\epsilon \bar{\psi}\gamma_\nu {\bf \sigma}\psi
= -{\bf J}_\nu$\
which, if it weren’t for the commutator, is the same form as the non-homogeneous four-vector Maxwell equation. The commutator causes the gauge particles to interact with themselves.
The effect of these equation is explained by ’t Hooft [^26] who with Veltman proved the renormalizability of Yang-Mills theories.
> ...The [*B*]{} quanta would be expected to be exchanged between any pair of particles carrying isospin, generating not only a force much like the electro-magnetic force, but also a force that rotates these particles in isospin space, which means that elementary reactions envolving the transmutation of particles into their isospin partners will result. A novelty in the Yang-Mills theory was that the [*B*]{} quanta are predicted to interact directly with one another. These interactions originate from the commutator term in the ${\bf F}_{\mu \nu}$ field \[equation (35)\], but one can understand physically why such interactions have to occur: in contrast with ordinary photons, the Yang-Mills quanta also carry isospin, so they will undergo isospin transitions themselves, and furthermore, some of them are charged, so the neutral components of the Yang-Mills fields cause Coloumb-like interactions between these charged particles.
So the Yang-Mills equations indicate that for instance for the up quark down quark doublet, the $W^-$ generates a force that rotates the $d$ into the $u$ in isospin space exhibited by the transition $d \rightarrow u + W^-$. The commutator in equation (35) is responsible for interactions like $W \rightarrow
W + Z$ occurring[^27], and the $W$ can radiate producing a photon in $W \rightarrow W +
\gamma$.
The Yang-Mills equations can be derived from the differential geometry Lagrangian density, where $k$ is a constant\
(36) ${\mathcal L} = -k Tr(F \wedge *F)$.\
The Euler-Lagrange equations produce $d_B F =0$ (the Bianchi identity) and in the absence of currents, $d_B *F =0$ where $d_B$ is the exterior covariant derivative. These are the Yang-Mills equations in compact form.
[**The Feynman Stamp**]{}\
In QED after Schwinger, Tomonaga and Feynman addressed the singularites produced by the self-energy of the electron by renormalizing the theory, they were then exceedingly successful in predicting phenomena such as the Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.\
Feynman introduced[^28] schematic diagrams, today called [*Feynman diagrams*]{}, to facilitate calculations of particle interaction parameters. External particles, represented by lines (edges) connected to only one vertex are real, i.e., observable. They are said to be on the mass shell, meaning their four-momentum squared equals their actual mass, i.e., $m^2 = E^2 -p^2$. Internal particles are represented by lines that connect vertices and are therefore intermediate states – that’s why they are said to [*mediate*]{} the interaction. They are virtual and are considered to be off the mass shell. This means their four-momentum squared differs from the value of their actual mass. This is done so that four-momentum is conserved at each vertex. The rationale for this difference is the application of the uncertainty principle $\Delta E \cdot
\Delta t = \hbar$. Since $\Delta t$, the time spent between external states is very small, for that short time period, $\Delta E$ and thus the difference between the actual and calculated mass can be large. In the following Feynman diagrams, the time axis is vertical upwards.
The diagram on the upper-left of the stamp (Figure 1) is a vertex diagram, and as such represents a component of a Feynman diagram. It illustrates the creation of an electron-positron pair from a photon, $\gamma$; it’s called [*pair production.*]{} The $\gamma$ is represented by a wavy line. The Feynman-Stuckelberg interpretation of negative-energy solutions indicates that here the positron, the electron’s antiparticle, which is propagating forward in time is in all ways equivalent to an electron going backwards in time. If all the particles here were external, the process would not conserve energy and momentum. To see this you must first remember that since the photon has zero mass – due to the gauge invariance of electromagnetic theory– its energy and momentum are equal. Thus $\beta$ which equals $\frac {p} {E}$ has the value 1; but $\beta$ = $\frac {v} {c}$ so that the photon’s velocity is always c, the speed of light. In the electron-positron center of mass frame (more aptly called the center of momentum frame, since the net momentum of all the particles is zero there), the electron and positron momenta are equal and are in opposite directions. The photon travels at the speed of light and therefore its momentum cannot be zero; but there is no particle to cancel its momentum, so the interaction cannot occur (for it to occur requires a Coloumb field from a nearby nucleus to provide a virtual photon that transfers momentum producing a nuclear recoil). Therefore the $\gamma$ in the diagram is internal. Its mass is off the mass shell and cannot equal its normal value, i.e., zero.
The diagram on the lower-left of the stamp (Figure 2) is also a vertex diagram and represents an electron-positron pair annihilation producing a $\gamma$. Again, if all the particles are external, conservation energy and momentum prohibits the reaction from occurring, So the $\gamma$ must be virtual.
The diagram (Figure 3) on the bottom to the right of Feynman was meant to represent an electron-electron scattering with a single photon exchange. This is called M[ø]{}ller scattering. (It can, however, represent any number of interactions exchanging a photon.) The diagram represents the $t$-channel of M[ø]{}ller scattering; there is another diagram not shown here representing the $u$-channel contribution where $u$, $t$ and another variable $s$ are called the [*Mandelstam variables*]{}. They are used in general to describe 2-body $\rightarrow$ 2-body interactions. If you rotate the diagram in Figure 3 by $90^o$ you have the $s$-channel diagram for electron-positron scattering called Bhabha scattering shown in Figure 4 but not on the stamp. Here an electron and positron annihilate producing a virtual photon which in turn produces an electron-positron pair. There is also a $t$-channel contribution to Bhabha scattering. The cross section for Bhabha scattering can be easilly obtained from the one for M[ø]{}ller scattering by interchanging the $s$ and $u$ in the cross section expression in a process called [*crossing*]{}. Small angle Bhabha scattering is used to test the luminosity in $e^+$-$e^-$ colliding beam accelerators.
To the right of the M[ø]{}ller scattering diagram is a vertex correction to electron scattering shown in Figure 5 where the extra photon forms a loop. It is used to calculate both the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and muon, also the anomalous magnetic moment contribution to the Lamb shift[^29]. The other two contributions to the Lamb shift are the vacuum polarization and the electron mass renormalization. The Lamb shift explains the splitting in the spectrum of the $2S_ \frac {1} {2}$ and $2P_ \frac {1} {2}$ levels of hydrogen; whereas Dirac theory alone incorrectly predicted that these two levels should be degenerate.
The low-order solution of the Dirac equation predicts a value of 2 for the g-factor used in the expression for the magnetic moment of the electron. The vertex correction shown in Figure 5, however, alters the g-factor producing an anomalous magnetic moment contribution written as $\frac {g - 2} {2}$. When this and higher order contributions are included, the calculated value of $\frac {g - 2} {2}$ for the electron is 1159 652 460(127)(75) $\times$ $10^{-12}$ and the experimental value is 1159 652 193(10) $\times$ $10^{-12}$ where the numbers in parenthesis are the errors. This seven-significant figure agreement is a spectacular triumph for QED. We need not emphasise that the calculations for all these diagrams use the gauge principal for quantum electrodynamics.
The other diagrams on the stamp are all vertex diagrams and show how Feynman’s work originally applicable to QED was then later used to elucidate the electroweak force. This is exemplified on the stamp by flavor changing transitions, e.g., $d \rightarrow W^- + u $ shown in Figure 6 and flavor conserving transitions, e.g., $d \rightarrow Z^0 + d $ of the electroweak force – the $u$ and $d$ quarks have different values of flavor. The process in Figure 6 occurs for instance in $\beta$ decay where a neutron (udd) decays into a proton (udu) and electron and an anti-neutrino. What happens is that the transition $d \rightarrow u + W^-$ corresponds to a rotation in isospin space. This rotation is caused by the virtual $W^-$ which mediates the decay. It in turn decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. The calculations for these transitions all use the Yang-Mills equations. Although the quarks are confined in the hadrons – particles that undergo strong interactions like the proton and neutron – they are free to interact with the intermediate vector bosons.
[**Who Designed The Stamp?**]{}\
Feynman’s daughter Michelle was sent a provisional version of the stamp by the United States Postal Service and advised on the design of the stamp by among others, Ralph Leighton, coauthor with Richard Feynman of two popular books; and Cal Tech’s Steven Frautschi and Kip Thorne. Frautschi and Leighton edited the Feynman diagrams, and Frautschi rearranged them and composed the final design. The person who chose the original Feynman diagrams that form the basis for the stamp remains a mystery.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
The author thanks Jeff Cheeger, Bob Ehrlich, J. D. Jackson and C. N. Yang, for their advice on the article.
[**Appendix A: Yang-Mills Derivation**]{}
We begin by performing a phase transformation
(A1) $\psi ' = S\psi$\
where $S = e^{i{\bf \alpha(x) \cdot \sigma}}$ and use the covariant derivative $D_\mu = \partial_\mu -i\epsilon B_\mu$ which transforms in the same way as indicated in equation (A2)\
(A2) $D'\psi' = SD\psi$. Then\
(A3) $(\partial_\mu -i\epsilon B'_\mu)S\psi= (\partial_\mu S)\psi +
S\partial_\mu \psi -i\epsilon B'_\mu \psi$\
But (A3) equals $S\partial_\mu\psi -i\epsilon SB_\mu \psi.$\
Cancelling $S\partial_\mu\psi$ on both sides we get,\
(A4) $(\partial_\mu S) \psi -i\epsilon B'_\mu S\psi = -i\epsilon SB_\mu \psi$, or\
(A5) $-i\epsilon B'_\mu S = -i\epsilon SB_\mu - (\partial_\mu S) $ or $ B'_\mu S = SB_\mu + (\partial_\mu S)/(i\epsilon) $, thus\
(A6) $ B'_\mu S = SB_\mu -i(\partial_\mu S)/\epsilon $ or\
(A7) $ B'_\mu = SB_\mu S^{-1} -i(\partial_\mu S)S^{-1}/\epsilon $\
For $\alpha$ infinitesimal, $S = 1 + i\alpha \cdot \sigma$, so\
(A8) $B'_\mu = (1 + i\alpha \cdot \sigma)B_\mu (1 - i\alpha \cdot \sigma ) -
i(1/\epsilon) \partial_\mu (1 + i\alpha \cdot \sigma ) (1 - i\alpha \cdot
\sigma)$ and\
Remembering that $(a \cdot \sigma)(b \cdot \sigma) = a \cdot b + i\sigma \cdot
(a \times b)$, setting $B_\mu = \sigma \cdot b_\mu$, and since $\alpha$ is infintessimal, we drop terms of order $\alpha^2$ getting\
(A9) $b'_\mu \cdot \sigma = b_\mu \cdot \sigma + i[(\alpha \cdot \sigma)(b_\mu
\cdot \sigma), (b_\mu \cdot \sigma)(\alpha \cdot \sigma)] + (1/\epsilon)
\partial_\mu (\alpha \cdot \sigma )$ and finally\
(A10) $b'_\mu = b_\mu + 2(b_\mu \times \alpha) + (1/\epsilon) \partial_\mu
\alpha$, which is equation (10) in the Yang-Mills paper.\
Pauli, in equation (22a) of Part I of his 1941 Rev. Mod. Phys. article gives the electromagnetic field strength as $[D_\mu, D_\nu] = -i\epsilon F_{\mu \nu}$ which apart from the minus sign agrees with our conventions and where $D_\mu =
\partial_\mu -i\epsilon A_\mu$. So by following suit, the field strength for the Yang-Mills strength can be obtained from the commutator\
(A11) $[D_\mu, D_\nu] = (\partial_\mu - i\epsilon B_\mu)(\partial_\nu -
i\epsilon B_\nu) - (\partial_\nu - i\epsilon B_\nu)(\partial_\mu - i\epsilon
B_\mu)$\
operating on the wave function $\psi$. Note that $ -\partial_\mu (B_\nu \psi)
= -(\partial_\mu B_\nu) \psi - B_\nu \partial_\mu \psi$. So we get an apparently extra $- B_\nu \partial_\mu$ and a $B_\mu \partial_\nu$ term. Thus expanding (A11) we get\
(A12) $\partial_\mu \partial_\nu - i\epsilon \partial_\mu B_\nu - i\epsilon
B_\mu \partial_\nu - i\epsilon B_\nu \partial_\mu - \epsilon^2 B_\mu B_\nu -
\partial_\nu \partial_\mu + i\epsilon \partial_\nu B_\mu + i\epsilon B_\nu
\partial_\mu + i\epsilon B_\mu \partial_\nu + \epsilon^2 B_\nu B_\mu $\
which reduces to\
(A13) $i\epsilon (\partial_\nu B_\mu - \partial_\mu B_\nu) - \epsilon^2
[B_\mu, B_\nu]$ or\
(A14) $[D_\mu, D_\nu] = i\epsilon F_{\mu \nu}$ where $F_{\mu \nu}$ is given by equation (28).\
If we let $B_\mu = \sigma \cdot b_\mu$ we can rewrite the equation $F_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu} - \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}) +i\epsilon
(B_\mu B_\nu - B_\nu B_\mu)$ as\
(A15) $F_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu} - \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}) + i\epsilon
(2i\sigma \cdot b_{\mu} \times b_{\nu})$\
If we further let $F_{\mu \nu} = f_{\mu \nu} \cdot \sigma$, we get\
(A16) $f_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\nu}b_{\mu} - \partial_{\mu}b_{\nu}) - 2 \epsilon
b_{\mu} \times b_{\nu}$\
which is equation (9) in the Yang-Mills paper.
[**Appendix B, Finding the Field Strength**]{}
We reconstruct how one can go about determining the field strength. Since
$$F'_{\mu \nu} = S^{-1}F_{\mu \nu}S$$
under an isotopic gaude transformation, let’s start off with the electromagnetic-like field strength in the primed syst em
$$F'_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\nu}B'_{\mu} -\partial_{\mu}B'_{\nu}
\label{eq:F}$$
and express it in terms of the non-primed system fields. We calculate $\partial_{\nu}B'_{\mu}$ from $B'_\mu = S^{-1}B_\mu S +
iS^{-1}(\partial_\mu S)/\epsilon$, equation (A7), obtaining
$\partial_{\nu}B'_{\mu}=-S^{-1}(\partial_{\nu}S)S^{-1}B_{\mu}S+
S^{-1}(\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu})S+S^{-1}B_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}S$ +
$$i/\epsilon[-S^{-1}(\partial_{\nu}S)S^{-1}\partial_{\mu}S+
S^{-1}\partial_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}S]$$
So
$\partial_{\nu}B'_{\mu} -\partial_{\mu}B'_{\nu} = -S^{-1}
[(\partial_{\nu}S)S^{-1}B_{\mu}- (\partial_{\mu}S)S^{-1}B_{\nu}]S$
$+S^{-1}[\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu}- \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}]S+
S^{-1}[B_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}- B_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}]S+$
$$i/\epsilon[-S^{-1}(\partial_{\nu}S)S^{-1}\partial_{\mu}S +
S^{-1}(\partial_{\mu}S)S^{-1}\partial_{\nu}S]$$
We see that the $+S^{-1}[\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu}- \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}]S$ term satisfies equation (1) if the field strength only had the electromagnetic-like contribution. The other terms must either represent the transformed non-electromagnetic-like part of $F_{\mu \nu}$ or be cancelled by adding the non-electromagnetic terms to equation (2). Since $S$ is only used for the transformation, it should not appear in the expression for $F_{\mu \nu}$.
The $i/\epsilon$ term in equations (4) dictates that a term multiplied by $i\epsilon$ be added to equation (2). Since $S^{-1}(\partial_{\mu}S)$ and $S^{-1}\partial_{\nu}S$ appear in the expressions for $B'_\mu$ and $B'_\nu$ respectively, the product of $S^{-1}(\partial_{\mu}S)$ and $S^{-1}\partial_{\nu}S$ that appears in the last term of equation (4) suggests that we should start our quest to eliminate extra terms in equation (4) by adding $i\epsilon B'_\mu B'_\nu$ to that equation. This product gives
$i\epsilon B'_\mu B'_\nu = i\epsilon[S^{-1}B_\mu S +
iS^{-1}(\partial_\mu S)/\epsilon]*$
$$[ S^{-1}B_\nu S + iS^{-1}(\partial_\nu S)/\epsilon]$$
which equals\
\
$i\epsilon S^{-1} B_\mu B_\nu S -i/\epsilon S^{-1}(\partial_\mu S)S^{-1}
\partial_\nu S -$
$$S^{-1} B_\mu \partial_\nu S - S^{-1}(\partial_\mu S)
S^{-1}B_\nu S$$
All but the first term (which represents the transformation of $i\epsilon B_\mu
B_\nu$) cancel components of the extraneous terms in equation (4). And $i\epsilon (B'_\mu B'_\nu - B'_\nu B'_\mu)$ cancels all of the extraneous terms except the transformation of $i\epsilon(B_\mu B_\nu - B_\nu B_\mu)$.
After performing the cancellation, we get
$ \partial_{\nu}B'_{\mu} -\partial_{\mu}B'_{\nu} +i\epsilon(B'_\mu B'_\nu -
B'_\nu B'_\mu)
= $
$$S^{-1}[\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu} -\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu} +i\epsilon(B_\mu B_\nu
- B_\nu B_\mu)]S$$
which satisfies equation (1).
[^1]: This paper appears in published form in [*The Notices of the AMS*]{}. [**53**]{} 744 (2006) and the Chinese translation in [*Mathematical Advance in Translation*]{}, Chinese Acad. of Sciences, [**2**]{} 97, (2009).
[^2]: Yang, C.N., (1980), [*Physics Today*]{}, 6 42
[^3]: Weyl, Hermann, (1919), [*Sitzwingsber. Preuss. Akad.*]{}, Berlin, 465
[^4]: See Jackson, J. D. and Okun, L. B., (2001). [*Rev. Mod. Physics*]{}, 73, 663.
[^5]: Weyl, H. (1929). [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*]{}, 15, 32.
[^6]: Weyl, Hermann, (1929). [*Zeit. f. Physic*]{}, 330 56.
[^7]: London, Fritz, (1927). [*Zeit. f. Physic*]{}, 42 375.
[^8]: Fock, V., (1926). [*Z. Phys*]{}, 39 226.
[^9]: O’Raifeartaigh L., (1997) [*The Dawning of Gauge Theory,*]{} Princeton University.
[^10]: Yang, C.N., (2005) [*Selected Papers (1945-1980) With Commentary*]{}, p19, World Scientific.
[^11]: Pauli, W., (1941). [*Rev. Mod. Physics*]{}, 13, 203.
[^12]: See section 4.6 of Aitchison, I.J.R., and Hey, A.J.G., (1989) [*Gauge Theories in Particle Physics*]{}, Adam Hilger.
[^13]: In giving these definitions, we restrict attention to the smooth manifolds which is adequate for our discussion.
[^14]: Donaldson, S. K. (1983), [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 8, 81.
[^15]: Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, (1959) [*Phys. Rev.*]{} 115, 485.
[^16]: Chambers, R. G., (1960) [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 5, 3
[^17]: Tonomura, Akira, et. al., (1982) [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 48, 1443, and (1986) [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 56, 792
[^18]: Wu, T. T. and Yang, C. N., (1975) [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, 12, 3845
[^19]: Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A., (1973) [*Gravitation*]{}. Freeman, San Francisco.
[^20]: Flanders, H., (1963). [*Differential Forms*]{}. Academic Press.
[^21]: Jackson, J. D., (1998). [*Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Ed, p600*]{}. John Wiley and Sons.
[^22]: Yang, C. N. and Mills, R. L., (1954). [*Phys. Rev.*]{} 96, p91
[^23]: The weak and electromagnetic forces are the two manifestations of the electroweak force
[^24]: Arnison, G. et. al., (1983). [*Phys. Lett.*]{} 122B, 103
[^25]: Arnison, G. et. al., (1983). [*Phys. Lett.*]{} 126B, 398
[^26]: ’t Hooft, Gerardus, editor, (2005) [*50 Years of Yang-Mills Theory*]{}, World Scientific.
[^27]: This is indicated in Figure 1 of the Yang-Mills paper
[^28]: Feynman, R. P., (1949), [*Phys. Rev.*]{} 76, 769
[^29]: See for instance p156, Griffith, David, (1987) [*Introduction to Elementary Particles*]{} John Wiley and Sons.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A simple quasi-static model applicable to a wide class of wire media is developed that explains strong non-locality in the dielectric response of wire media in clear physical terms of effective inductance and capacitance per unit length of a wire. The model is checked against known solutions and found to be in excellent agreement with the results obtained by much more sophisticated analytical and numerical methods. Special attention is given to suppression of the spatial dispersion effects in wire media.'
author:
- 'Stanislav I. Maslovski'
- 'Mário G. Silveirinha'
title: 'Non-local permittivity from a quasi-static model for a class of wire media'
---
Introduction
============
Wire media are structured materials formed by many conducting wires embedded in a host medium. The wires are normally considered to be very long compared to the wavelength in the host medium, but the diameter of the wires is only a small fraction of the lattice constant. The known analytical models of wire media [@Pendry_plasmons_PRL_1996; @Pendry_plasmons_JPCM_1998; @Belov_wiremedium_JEWA_2002; @Maslovski_quasistatic_MOTL_2002; @Efros_WM_PRB_2002; @Shvets_wires_PSPIE_2003; @Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003; @Constantin_WM; @Silveirinha_3dconnected_I3EMTT_2005; @Silveirinha_ENG_Plasmonic_2006; @Silveirinha_crosswires_PRB_2009] treat them as crystals of infinitely long conducting cylinders. The cylinders may be arranged in different types of lattices resulting in different types of anisotropy of the wire crystals. It is known that wire media may exhibit strong spatial dispersion, so that the permittivity dyadic $\=\E(\omega, \_k)$ in such media depends on both frequency and wave vector. For instance, the permittivity dyadic of uniaxial wire medium with one set of thin ideally conducting wires oriented along $\_z_0$ reads [@Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003] = Ī\_[t]{} + (1 - [k\_[p]{}\^2 k\_0\^2 - k\_z\^2]{})\_z\_0\_z\_0, ł[epsilon]{} where $k_0=\omega\sqrt{\E_0\M_0}$, $\E_0$ and $\M_0$ are the permittivity and the permeability of the host medium, $k_{\rm p}$ is the plasma wavenumber, $k_z$ is the wave vector component along $\_z_0$, and $\=I_{\rm t}$ is the unit dyadic in the plane orthogonal to $\_z_0$.
It is well known that the wire medium supports propagation of transverse electromagnetic modes (TEM) which are basically the modes of a multi-wire transmission line.[@Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003; @Silveirinha_ENG_Plasmonic_2006] Such modes propagate along the wires with the velocity equal to the speed of light in the host medium. The distribution of the microscopic $\_E$ and $\_H$ fields associated with the TEM modes is static-like in the planes orthogonal to the wires, with the electric force lines emerging from and ending at the surfaces of the wires. It can be easily proven that there is electrical charge accumulated on the wires associated with these modes. In Ref. it was shown (for the uniaxial wire medium case) that when this charge and the related potential are taken into account it is possible to obtain Eq. from simple quasi-static considerations similar to those used in Ref. . Thus, it was shown that the strong spatial dispersion in wire media can be correctly described in a quasi-static approximation. In this paper we extend these considerations to a wide class of wire media, and propose an analytical model based on the effective inductance and capacitance per unit length of a wire.
The other motivation for this study is the suppression of the nonlocal effects in wire media. In a recent paper by Demetriadou [*et al.*]{}[@Demetriadou_taming_JPCM_2008] the charge accumulated on the wires together with the rather small capacitance of thin wires were identified as the reasons for the spatial dispersion in wire mesh: a metamaterial formed by three sets of wires oriented along three Cartesian coordinate axes and joined at the crossing points. A rigorous analytical model of such medium was developed in Refs. . The authors of Ref. make use of this model and full wave simulations to justify their main claims. They also propose certain ways how to decrease the spatial dispersion effects. The basic idea is to increase the capacitance of the wires by periodically loading them with metallic bodies or patches, or alternatively to increase the inductance per unit length by coating the wires with a magnetic material. Somehow related to this work, it was shown in Refs. that for a substrate formed by a wire medium slab capped with an array of patches (the so-called mushroom substrate [@Sievenpiper_Mushrooms_MTT_1999]) the response of the wire medium is essentially local. A different strategy to reduce the spatial dispersion was reported in Ref. , where it was shown that at infrared frequencies the plasmonic properties of metals may enable the design of artificial plasmas that mimic more closely a continuous local isotropic medium with negative permittivity.
In this work, we generalize the theories reported in previous studies, [@Pendry_plasmons_PRL_1996; @Pendry_plasmons_JPCM_1998; @Belov_wiremedium_JEWA_2002; @Maslovski_quasistatic_MOTL_2002; @Shvets_wires_PSPIE_2003; @Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003; @Efros_WM_PRB_2002; @Silveirinha_ENG_Plasmonic_2006; @Silveirinha_3dconnected_I3EMTT_2005; @Constantin_WM; @Silveirinha_crosswires_PRB_2009] and propose a quasi-static homogenization model that accurately characterizes the nonlocal dielectric function of a wide class of wire media (both arrays of parallel wires, and arrays of connected wires), including the case where the wires are periodically loaded with conducting metallic bodies. In particular, we demonstrate that our analytical theory models accurately the electric response of a uniaxial wire medium loaded with patches, and we discuss the physics of the suppression of spatial dispersion in such structures.
Uniaxial wire medium \[SecWires\] {#uniaxial}
=================================
We will start with the simplest possible case of the uniaxial wire medium with one set of wires oriented along the $z$-axis. We will follow the treatment presented in Ref. .
We are interested in the longitudinal (*zz*) component of the permittivity dyadic. To get an expression for it in the quasi-static limit we assume that the radius of the wires $r_0$ and the distance between the wires (the lattice period) $a$ are much less than the wavelength in the medium. Let us note that for the model we are going to develop the exact arrangement of the wires is not important, it is just enough to know the average distance between a pair of neighboring wires in a structure.
Denoting the average (macroscopic) electric field along $z$ axis in the medium by $\langle E_z\rangle$, one can write the following relation between this field component and the current in the wires $I_z$: E\_z = (jøL + Z\_w) I\_z + [z]{}, ł[main\_uni]{} where $L$ is the effective inductance per unit length of the wire, $Z_w$ is the self-impedance of the wire per unit length which accounts for the finite conductivity of metallic wires at microwave frequencies or plasmonic behavior at optical frequencies, and $\varphi$ is the additional potential due to charges on the wires.
This relation can be obtained integrating the microscopic electric field over a path shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. The path goes first along the surface of a wire then to the middle line in a pair of two neighboring wires, then along this middle line and, finally, back to the surface of the wire. The circulation of the microscopic electric field $\_E(x,z)$ over this path reads $$\begin{gathered}
\oint\_E\.\_{dl} = \int\limits_{z}^{z+\Delta z}\!\!E_z(r_0, z')\,dz'
-\!\!\int\limits_{z}^{z+\Delta z}\!\!E_z(a/2, z')\,dz'
+\int\limits_{r_0}^{a/2}E_x(x,z+\Delta z)\,dx
-\int\limits_{r_0}^{a/2}E_x(x,z)\,dx. \l{circint}\end{gathered}$$ The first integral in this relation represents the voltage drop along the surface of the wire and, therefore, can be expressed in terms of the wire current and the wire self-impedance per unit lenght. The second integral is the voltage drop along the symmetry line shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. In the same manner as it was done in Ref. we relate this voltage drop with the macroscopic electric field in the medium. After doing this the circulation of the electric field reads (when $\Delta z$ is small enough) ł[circulation]{} \_E\_[dl]{} = (Z\_wI\_z - E\_z)z +(z + z) - (z), (z) = \_[r\_0]{}\^[a/2]{}E\_x(x,z) dx. The electric field circulation equals minus the time derivative of the magnetic flux that penetrates the area bounded by the integration path: $\oint \_E\.\_{dl} = -j\o\Phi = -j\o L I_z
\Delta z$, from which we immediately get when $\Delta
z\rightarrow 0$.
In general, the effective inductance $L$ depends on the specific microstructure of the system (e.g. if the wires are coated or not with some material). In the particular case in which the wires are conducting cylinders (with no material coating), it was shown,[@Maslovski_quasistatic_MOTL_2002] by calculating the magnetic flux of a pair of neighboring wires in the quasi-static approximation, that $L$ verifies: L = [\_02]{}. ł[inductance]{}It may be verified that the above formula also applies to the case where the wires are loaded with metallic patches (Fig. \[fig1\], right).
The additional potential caused by the charges on the wires can be found by placing a linear charge density $\rho$ on the wires and by calculating the corresponding electrostatic potential $\varphi$ created by the fluctuating part of the microscopic electric field. Thus $\rho$ is responsible for the electric field component orthogonal to the wires. We introduce an effective capacitance $C$ per unit length, such that it verifies: (z) = [(z)C]{}. ł[defcapacitance]{} Notice that the considered capacitance is calculated by placing an $identical$ linear charge density over the wires (differently from the traditional definition of capacitance, which assumes that charge density over two conductors is antisymmetric). In the same manner as the inductance, the capacitance depends on the microstructure of the system. In the quasi-static limit a pair of charged wires (with no attached conducting bodies) induces the field (see Fig. \[fig1\]) E\_x = [ 2\_0]{}. This expression has the same form as the one used in Ref. for the quasi-static magnetic field of a pair of lines of current. Therefore, for this particular case the capacitance is given by = [1 2\_0]{}. ł[capacitance]{} The capacitance for a system of wires loaded with conducting patches (Fig. \[fig1\], right) is calculated in Appendix A.
Considering now a monochromatic plane wave of current excited in the crystal, the currents in the wires can be written in the form I\_z(z) = I\_0 e\^[-j k\_z z]{}, and thus the linear density of the charge associated with the currents verifies (z) = -[1jø]{} [dI\_z(z)dz]{} = [k\_zø]{}I\_z(z). These charges are responsible for the electric field component orthogonal to the wires.
Hence, the relation can be rewritten in terms of the effective inductance and of the effective capacitance per unit length of the wire as E\_z= (jøL + Z\_w + [k\_z\^2jC]{})I\_z. Already in this expression one can identify the spatial dispersion term proportional to the square of the $z$-component of the wave vector.
The macroscopic polarization current in wire media is the average of the currents in separate wires. Let $A_{\rm cell}$ be the average area in the $xy$ plane per one wire of the crystal. Then the macroscopic polarization current is $J_z = I_z/A_{\rm cell}$. The macroscopic displacement field is $D_z = \E_0 \left\langle {E_z } \right\rangle
+ J_z/(j\o)$. Therefore, after some algebra we find that the longitudinal component of the permittivity dyadic is given by = 1 - [k\_[p]{}\^2k\_0\^2 - jk\_0 - k\_z\^2 / n\^2]{}, ł[uniaxial\_permittivity]{} where $k_{\rm p}^2 =
\M_0/(A_{\rm cell}L)$, $n^2 = LC/(\E_0\M_0)$, $\xi =
(Z_w/L)\sqrt{\E_0\M_0}$. It may be easily checked that the above formula reduces to Eq. in the case of perfectly conducting straight wires ($Z_w=0$) \[also, for unloaded wires $n = 1$ as is seen from Eqs. and \]. More generally, when the wires are characterized by the complex permittivity $\E_0 \E_{\rm m}$ (e.g., thin plasmonic rods at optical frequencies), the impedance $Z_w$ is given by, Z\_w = , ł[Zw]{}where $r_0$ is the radius of the rods. It may be easily verified that in this scenario Eq. reduces to formula (16) of Ref. , which was calculated using a local field based approach. Thus, Eq. generalizes the previous homogenization models of the uniaxial wire medium.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the expression for the plasma wavenumber obtained in the present paper differs from the one derived in previous works. [@Belov_wiremedium_JEWA_2002; @Silveirinha_ENG_Plasmonic_2006] Namely, under the approach developed above we have (k\_[p]{}a)\^2 = [2]{}. ł[myplasm]{} In Refs. , under a thin wire approximation, it was obtained that (k\_[p]{}a)\^2 . ł[belovplasm]{}
One can notice that gives unphysical results for any ${r_0/a} \ge (2\pi)^{-1}\exp(0.5275) \approx 0.27$. Contrary, Eq. gives a physically sound result in the limit $r_0
\rightarrow a/2$ when the surfaces of two wires touch: It predicts an infinite growth in the magnitude of $k_{\rm p}$ in this limit. It can be also checked numerically that the accuracy of is better than when $r_0 \approx 0.1a$ or larger, whereas the opposite behavior is observed for $r_0 < 0.05a$. Nevertheless, both formulas have the same asymptotic behavior when $r_0\rightarrow 0$. At $r_0/a = 0.05$ (this ratio has been used in our numerical simulations that are discussed in Section \[supression\]) the formulas and overestimate the plasma frequency by about 3%.
Another asymptotic expression for the normalized plasma frequency which is often cited was obtained in Refs. but even for rather small wire radii its accuracy is worse than that of and . Also, it does not predict the infinite growth of $k_{\rm p}$ when $r_0\rightarrow a/2$.
It should be emphasized that Eq. is in principle valid for a wide class of wire media (e.g. wires with attached conducting bodies). The parameters $C$ and $L$ depend on the specific microstructure of the system. The magnitude of the spatial dispersion term $k_z^2/n^2$ in can be reduced by increasing the value of $n = \sqrt{LC/(\E_0\M_0)}$. This quantity has the meaning of slow-wave factor for quasi-TEM waves propagating along the wires. As mentioned before, for unloaded straight wires $n = 1$. As discussed in Ref. , the capacitance $C$ can be increased by loading wires with metallic patches and the inductance $L$ can be increased by placing wires in ferromagnetic shields. An alternative way to increase the inductance is to use helices instead of straight wires. Associated bi-anisotropy in helix medium can be compensated if both right- and left-handed helices are used.
Attaching metallic or dielectric bodies to the wires also changes the transversal components of the permittivity dyadic. We will study this effect with more details in Section \[sect\_uniax\_supr\].
Wire mesh {#mesh}
=========
The (3D) wire mesh is a wire crystal formed by three mutually orthogonal sets of wires joined at the intersection points. The electromagnetics of such metamaterial have been studied in several recent works. [@Hudlicka_WM3D_PIER_2006; @Shapiro_WM3D_OL_2006; @Silveirinha_3dconnected_I3EMTT_2005; @Silveirinha_crosswires_PRB_2009] In the following derivation we assume a cubic lattice, but after a straightforward generalization the same method can be applied to structures of more complex geometries. Similar to the case studied in section \[SecWires\], metallic or dielectric bodies may be attached to the wires.
In the wire mesh we get three components of the polarization current related with the currents in three orthogonal sets of wires. The currents in the wires are related to the average electric field in the medium in a manner similar to the uniaxial case: $$\begin{aligned}
\l{wiremesh1} \left\langle {E_x } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w) I_x + {\d\varphi\over \d x},\\
\left\langle {E_y } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w) I_y + {\d\varphi\over \d y},\\
\l{wiremesh3} \left\langle {E_z } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w)
I_z + {\d\varphi\over \d z}.\end{aligned}$$ Because the wires are joined at the crossing points they are locally under the same potential, that is why we have the same $\varphi$ in all three equations. But the currents in three sets of wires can differ and that is taken into account by the variables $I_x$, $I_y$, and $I_z$.
Let us consider a unit cell of the wire mesh with three intersecting connected wires. The total charge $q$ accumulated on these three wires per unit cell can be found as q = -[a jø]{}([dI\_xdx]{} + [dI\_ydy]{} + [dI\_zdz]{}). Because the wires are electrically connected and their effective capacitance per unit length is the same, this charge is equally distributed among the three wires in the unit cell. Therefore, for the linear charge densities on the wires we have in a vicinity of the unit cell \_x = \_y = \_z = [q3a]{} = -[1 3jø]{}([dI\_xdx]{} + [dI\_ydy]{} + [dI\_zdz]{}). Using the same notation for the effective capacitance of a wire as above we can write the potential $\varphi$ as = -[1 3jøC]{}([dI\_xdx]{} + [dI\_ydy]{} + [dI\_zdz]{}) = [13C]{}(k\_x I\_x + k\_y I\_y + k\_z I\_z), where we have taken into account that the currents on the wires change on average as I\_[n]{}=I\_[n]{}\^0 e\^[-jk\_[n]{} n]{}, n=x,y,z. Now we can substitute this expression for the additional potential into –. Doing this we obtain the following system of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {E_x } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w + {k_x^2\over 3j\o C}) I_x + {k_x\over 3j\o C}(k_yI_y + k_zI_z),\\
\left\langle {E_y } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w + {k_y^2\over 3j\o C}) I_y + {k_y\over 3j\o C}(k_zI_z + k_xI_x),\\
\left\langle {E_z } \right\rangle &=& (j\o L + Z_w + {k_z^2\over
3j\o C}) I_z + {k_z\over 3j\o C}(k_xI_x + k_yI_y).\end{aligned}$$ By introducing a vector of currents $\_I =
I_x\_x_0+I_y\_y_0+I_z\_z_0$ we rewrite this system in a more compact form using dyadics: = \_I, ł[electric\_field]{} where $\=I$ is the unit dyadic and ${\bf{kk}}
\equiv {\bf{k}} \otimes {\bf{k}}$ is the dyadic (tensor) product of two vectors. Now it is only a matter of inverting the dyadic in brackets of to get the permittivity dyadic of the wire mesh.
The average polarization in the medium is $\_P = \_I/(j\o A_{\rm cell})
+ \_P_{\rm t}$, where $\_P_{\rm t}$ accounts for additional polarization due to finite thickness of the wires or metallic bodies attached to the wires. For a crystal of cubic symmetry we can write $\_P_{\rm t} = \E_0(\E_{\rm t}-1) \left\langle { \_E }
\right\rangle$, therefore the displacement vector $\_D = \E_0\E_{\rm
t}\langle \_E\rangle + \_I/(j\o A_{\rm cell})$, and = \_[t]{}Ī + [1j\_0 A\_[cell]{}]{}\^[-1]{}, or, after some dyadic algebra, = (\_[t]{} - [k\_[p]{}\^2 k\_0\^2 - jk\_0]{})Ī - [k\_[p]{}\^2\_k\_k 3n\^2\[k\_0\^2-jk\_0\]\[k\_0\^2-jk\_0 - k\^2/(3n\^2)\]]{}, where we use the same notations as in , and $k^2 =
k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2$. The obtained permittivity dyadic can be also rewritten as = \_[tr]{}(ø)(Ī - [\_k\_kk\^2]{})+ \_[lo]{}(ø,k)[\_k\_kk\^2]{}, where $$\begin{aligned}
\l{eps_t} \E_{\rm tr}(\o) &=& \E_{\rm t} - {k_{\rm p}^2\over k_0^2-j\xi k_0},\\
\l{eps_l} \E_{\rm lo}(\o,k) &=& \E_{\rm t} - {k_{\rm p}^2\over k_0^2-j\xi k_0 - k^2/(3n^2)}.\end{aligned}$$
It can be verified that for the mesh of thin plasmonic rods without loading \[for which $Z_w$ is given by Eq. \], the relations – transform to the ones presented in Ref. with the parameters $\E_{\rm
t} = 1$, $k_{\rm p} = \beta_{\rm p}$, and identifying the numerical coefficient $l_0$ from the same reference with $l_0 = 3n^2$.
Uniaxial wire medium loaded with patches and suppression of spatial dispersion \[sect\_uniax\_supr\] {#supression}
====================================================================================================
Recently[@Demetriadou_taming_JPCM_2008] it was proposed to load the wire mesh with metal patches to increase the effective capacitance of the wires per unit length and decrease the related spatial dispersion effects. This proposal was supported by numerical simulations. Here, we will apply our general analytical model to the particular case of a uniaxial wire medium loaded with metal patches. For this purpose we just need to determine what is the effective capacitance $C$ introduced in Section \[uniaxial\] in the presence of patches. The details of calculation of this capacitance are described in Appendix A. Here we give the result: $C
= C_{\rm wire} + C_{\rm patch}$, where $C_{\rm
wire}$ is the wire capacitance given by and C\_[patch]{} = [2\_0wh()]{}, ł[cpatch]{} where $w$ is the width of the square patches periodically attached to the wires and separated by the distance $h$ along $z$, and $d = a - w$ is the gap between two adjacent patches on a pair of neighboring wires. Thus, the permittivity dyadic of the uniaxial wire medium loaded with patches is given by = \_[ t]{}Ī\_[t]{}+(1 - [k\_[p]{}\^2k\_0\^2 - jk\_0 - k\_z\^2 / n\^2]{})\_z\_0\_z\_0, ł[unipatchperm]{} where we keep the same notations as in Section \[uniaxial\]. The transverse permittivity $\E_{\rm t}$ is mostly determined by the patches when $w\gg r_0$ and it can be found as the permittivity of a stack of capacitive grids separated by $h$ one from another. With the help of the known theory of such grids [@Tretyakov_modelling_2003] it can be found that \_[t]{} = 1 + [2wh]{}(). ł[epst]{} The accuracy of and is better for small gaps and for large values of $h/a$.
In the limit $d\rightarrow 0$ the effective capacitance behaves as $C \approx {16\E_0wa^2\over \pi h d^2}$ and, therefore, can be arbitrarily large if the gap between two adjacent patches is made small enough. On the other hand, the transverse permittivity $\E_{\rm t}$ grows under the same limit as $\E_{\rm t}\approx
{2w\over \pi
h}\log\left({2a\over\pi d}\right)$. The square of the slow-wave factor $n^2$ is proportional to the effective capacitance, therefore, by increasing the width of the patches one can discard the spatial dispersion term in the right-hand side of while keeping $\E_{\rm t}$ at a reasonable level (this is possible because $\E_{\rm t}$ grows more slowly when $d\rightarrow 0$). An explicit expression for the slow-wave factor under the mentioned limit reads n\^2 = [LC\_0\_0]{} 1 + [16 wh (k\_[p]{}d)\^2]{}. In fact, we have numerically checked that this simple expression works quite well for gaps of width $d \le 0.2a$.
To illustrate the suppression of the spatial dispersion in the considered wire media, we have calculated the dispersion diagrams for several configurations using our quasi-static model, the transfer matrix method described in Appendix B, and the eigenmode solver of CST Microwave Studio. The structure was assumed lossless in the simulations (all metallic components are perfectly conducting so that $Z_w=0$). The transfer matrix formalism developed in Appendix B is based on the assumption that in between two patch grids the electric field is a superposition of TEM and TM modes. [@Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003] The fields on the interfaces of each patch grid are linked by a grid impedance and by an additional boundary condition,[@ABCtilted] consistent with the formalism described in Refs. . The obtained results are presented in Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\].
In Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](a) and Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](c) the dispersion diagrams obtained from the quasi-static model and the numerical simulations are shown for a set of the propagation angles with respect to the axis of the structure: $\alpha = 0, 30^\circ,
60^\circ$ \[for the other parameters of the structure refer to Fig. \[fig1\]; in these plots the wave vector is ${\bf{k}} = k\left(
{\sin \alpha \,{\bf{x}}_0 + \cos \alpha \,{\bf{z}}_0 } \right)$\]. The dispersion curves predicted by the quasi-static model are depicted with solid lines while the results of the numerical simulations are represented by symbols. In the example of Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](a) the patch width has been set equal to $w
= 0.5 a$, while in Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](c) the patch width is $w
= 0.9a$. In both cases the theory and the simulations predict the existence of two dispersion branches associated with extraordinary waves, i.e., with the quasi-TEM and TM modes, as well as a dispersion branch associated with the ordinary (TE) wave whose dispersion is not depicted in Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\] (there are also other higher order modes at higher frequencies, but we are not interested in them). We call the high-frequency branch “the plasmon mode” because for $\alpha = 0$ this branch corresponds to the longitudinal plasmon-type wave propagating along the axis of the structure. On the other hand, the low-frequency branch for $\alpha = 0$ belongs to an ordinary transverse wave which is not affected by the wires (but it is affected by the transverse permittivity $\E_{\rm t}$ of the medium).
From Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](a) one can see that for the moderate-size patches the quasi-static model works surprisingly well even when $ka$ approaches $\pi$. The small difference in the frequencies of the plasmon-type modes predicted by the theory and the simulations at $ka = 0$ is due to the asymptotic nature of the formula for the plasma wavenumber that we use (the discussion on this is given in Section \[uniaxial\]). For larger patches (Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](c)) the quasi-static model does not predict appearance of a band gap at $\alpha = 0$ and $ka = \pi$. This is expected since in the model the capacitive loading on the wires is assumed to be effectively uniform along the wires.
Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](b) and Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](d) display the same dispersion diagrams but with the quasi-static model replaced by the transfer matrix model described in Appendix B. One can see that this model wrongly predicts a completely flat dispersion for the plasmon mode propagating along the $z$ axis ($\alpha = 0$), independently of the patch size. This is in disagreement with the numerical simulations, as is seen from Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](b). Indeed, the formalism developed in Refs. is only valid when the gap between the patches is small, because otherwise other higher modes can be excited near the connections of the wires to the patch grid, and in such conditions it is not possible to consider that the microscopic field in the vicinity of the connection points are a superposition of TM and TEM modes of the unloaded wire medium, as assumed in Refs. . Consistent with this observation, it is seen in Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](d), that for larger patches and (or) larger angles of propagation the disagreement is less pronounced. Another characteristic feature of the transfer matrix model is that it is able to predict the existence of the above-mentioned bandgap. This is because the transfer matrix model takes into account the granularity of the structure along the $z$ axis.
The suppression of the spatial dispersion effects is evident if we compare Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](a) with Fig. \[model\_vs\_cst\](c). Indeed, the latter case corresponds to a larger patch width ($w =
0.9a$), and consequently the slope of the dispersion curve associated with the longitudinal mode (the plasmon mode at $\alpha =
0$) is very small. To justify this effect and also to check the accuracy of the quasi-static model near the origin of the Brillouin zone for a wide range of values of the gap, we have extracted the values of the slow wave factor $n$ from the results of the numerical simulations slightly above the point $ka = 0$ and compared them with the value of $n$ given by the analytical model. The results of this extraction are presented in Fig. \[slow\_wave\_factor\]. From this figure we see that despite its simplicity, the quasi-static model predicts very well the trend in the growth of $n^2$ when the the gap between the patches decreases. The agreement tends to improve for larger values of $h/a$.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have developed a quasi-static analytical model of wire media applicable to a wide class of structures, and in particular we have considered uniaxial and isotropic wire crystals, which may be loaded with metallic patches. Because the developed model is defined in simple physical terms of the effective inductance and capacitance per unit length of a wire it can be readily extended to other wire structures of more complex geometries. The model accounts for the finite conductivity of the wires so that it can be applied when the metallic wires become plasmonic (consistent with the results reported in Refs. ) or when the wires are uniformly loaded with arbitrary complex impedances. In particular, we have studied with details the electrodynamics of uniaxial wire media loaded with patches, and demonstrated with full wave simulations that the proposed quasi-static model describes accurately the properties of the system in the long wavelength limit. Consistent with the analysis of Refs. , it was shown that the presence of the patches may result in a dramatic reduction of the nonlocal effects. For the case of unloaded wire media, we have demonstrated that the quasi-static model yields the same expressions for the dielectric permittivity tensors as those obtained by much more sophisticated methods.[@Shvets_wires_PSPIE_2003; @Efros_WM_PRB_2002; @Silveirinha_ENG_Plasmonic_2006; @Silveirinha_3dconnected_I3EMTT_2005; @Constantin_WM; @Silveirinha_crosswires_PRB_2009] Thus, we have proven that the strong spatial dispersion in wire media is a quasi-static effect. Although this fact has already been noticed, [@Maslovski_disser_2004] the presented research extends the results obtained in Ref. and allows for analytical and quantitative studies of the possibilities to control the spatial dispersion in wire media.
This work is supported in part by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under project PDTC/EEA-TEL/71819/2006.
\[ApA\]
=======
As is seen from Fig. \[fig1\] (right) that depicts the path along which we calculate the circulation of the electric field, the capacitance in question can be calculated if we find the electric field in the region close to the gap between two patches on the neighboring wires. Indeed, the circulation integral in the presence of patches has to be modified as follows $$\begin{gathered}
\oint\_E\.\_{dl} = \int\limits_{z_0}^{z_0+h}\!\!E_z(r_0, z)\,dz
-\!\!\int\limits_{z_0}^{z_0+h}\!\!E_z(a/2, z)\,dz
+\int\limits_{w/2}^{a/2}E_x(x,z_0+h)\,dx
-\int\limits_{w/2}^{a/2}E_x(x,z_0)\,dx, \l{circintA}\end{gathered}$$ where $z_0$ is at the location of an arbitrary plane of patches. We choose the integration path so that it first goes along the surfaces of the wire and the patch till the gap, then across the gap till the symmetry line (Fig. \[fig1\]), then along that line till the second gap and then across this gap back to the patch and the wire.
One can see that the first integral in the right-hand side of still represents the same quantity as in the unloaded uniaxial wire medium and is related to the finite conductivity of the wire. The integrals along the surfaces of the patches are not shown in as in the following we consider the patches to be ideally conducting. This may be a good approximation because in practice the wire impedance dominates. We can express the second integral of as \_[z\_0]{}\^[z\_0+h]{}E\_z(a/2, z)dz = E\_zh - \_[z]{}(z\_0 + h) + \_[z]{}(z\_0), ł[phiz]{} where the two last terms account for the strong non-uniformity of the $z$-component of the microscopic electric field in the vicinity of the gaps and can be defined (in the unit cell $z_0 \le z \le z_0+h$) as \_z(z) = \_z\^[z\_0+h/2]{}(E\_z(a/2,z) - E\_z)dz. Notice that when there are no patches the microscopic field changes smoothly along $z$; that is why in Section \[uniaxial\] we could simply relate the second integral of with the macroscopic electric field. The two remaining integrals can be written in terms of \_x(z) = \_[w/2]{}\^[a/2]{}E\_x(x,z)dx.
Substituting the above expressions for the integrals into and comparing it with with $\Delta z = h$ we see that the additional potential at the plane $z=z_0$ has to be (z\_0) = \_x(z\_0) + \_z(z\_0). ł[avphi]{}
At this point it is worth reminding that the additional potential as we define it and use it in Sections \[uniaxial\] and \[mesh\] is essentially a macroscopic quantity: It changes slowly and smoothly along the wires. Therefore, Eq. can be understood as the definition of the averaging procedure for the additional electric field (represented by both non-uniform $E_x$ and $E_z$ components) that appears because of the periodical non-uniformity in the charge distribution introduced by the patches.
It is clear that for wide patches this additional potential is mainly determined by the fluctuating part of the microscopic field in the vicinity of the gap at $x = a/2$, $z = z_0$. Thus, to simplify the problem we may first neglect the effect of the charges sitting on the wires (nevertheless, we will later add a correction term taking the wires into account). Second, because $\varphi(z_0)$ depends only on the non-uniform part of the field we may neglect the effect of all other planes of charged patches except the plane $z = z_0$. We may do so because when $h \gg d = a - w$ the field produced by the other planes of patches is practically uniform in the vicinity of the gap we are interested in. Therefore in the following we consider only a single array of charged patches and discard all the patches that are not co-planar with the patch at $z = z_0$.
In what follows, we will solve the enunciated electrostatic problem and calculate the effective capacitance per unit length of a wire with patches. In order to obtain a closed-form analytical solution we will make an additional simplification: we replace all the patches centered at the same $y$-coordinate with a single metal strip of the same width. Thus, we obtain a grid of metallic strips (geometry of the problem becomes invariant along $y$) separated by the same gap as the array of patches.
Taking into account the symmetry of the excitation and the periodicity of the grid we arrive at the two-dimensional problem shown in Fig. \[mapping\](a). In this figure we define the local coordinate system $x'$,$z'$ as follows. The middle point of the gap is at $x'=z'=0$. The patch is modeled as an infinitely thin PEC (perfect electric conductor) strip, which starts at $x' =
d/2$ and continues to the point $x' = a/2$ which is at the middle line of the patch. The strip is charged. The PMC (perfect magnetic conductor) boundaries shown in the figure enforce the symmetries mentioned above.
The distribution of the electric potential in this system can be found with the conformal mapping approach.[@Collin] One can verify that the following analytical function of the complex variable ${\cal Z} = x' + jz'$ ([Z]{}) = u(x’,z’) + j v(x’,z’) = \^[-1]{}ł[xi]{} maps the domain shown in Fig. \[mapping\](a) into the domain of Fig. \[mapping\](b) in which the solution for the electric field is trivial. One can see that the curves $v(x',z') =
\mbox{const}$ are the equipotential contours and the curves $u(x',z') =
\mbox{const}$ are the force lines of the electric field of the problem. It can be checked that at the the patch the potential defined in this way vanishes: $v(x',0) = 0$ for $d/2 \le x' \le a/2$.
Therefore, the voltage drop between a distant point on the $z'$ axis (which is a point on the integration path shown in Fig. \[fig1\]) and the edge of the patch is v(0,z’) = \^[-1]{}. When $z'\gg d$ this voltage asymptotically behaves as v(0,z’) \~2() + [2z’a]{}. ł[volt]{} The linearly growing term of corresponds to a uniform electric field far away from the gap. Such a smooth field is already taken into account by the first term of . Therefore, the additional potential we are looking for must be defined as (z\_0) = \_[z’]{}(v(0,z’) - [2z’ a]{}) = 2().
On the other hand, the total charge per unit length of the strip is given by Q = 4\_0\[u(a/2,0)-u(d/2,0)\]=4\_0, where the coefficient $4$ accounts for the fact that the domain of Fig. \[mapping\](a) includes only $1/4$ of the total surface of the strip. Hence, the effective capacitance per unit length of a strip is $C_{\rm strip} = Q/\varphi(z_0)$ and the effective patch capacitance per unit length of a wire with patches is $C_{\rm patch}
= (w/h) C_{\rm strip}$, which is given by Eq. . The total capacitance per unit length of a wire with patches is approximated as a sum of the wire capacitance $C_{\rm wire}$ from and $C_{\rm
patch}$.
\[ApB\]
=======
The uniaxial wire medium periodically loaded with patches may be regarded as a layered structure. Thus, it is possible to apply the standard transfer matrix method to it, provided we are able to characterize the fields in one cell. As demonstrated next, this can be done by generalizing the formalism developed in Refs. , which is based on the assumption that in the regions in between two arbitrary adjacent patch grids the microscopic fields can be written as a superposition of TM and TEM modes of the unloaded wire medium.
Suppose that the wires are directed along $z$ and that the magnetic field is along the $y$-direction (the TM polarization). The electric field components are $E_x$ and $E_z$ and the wave vector is ${\bf{k}} = k_x {\bf{x}}_0 + k_z {\bf{z}}_0$. The fields in the region $0 < z < h$ ($z = 0$ at the patch array) in between two arrays of metallic patches can be decomposed into four waves: \_0 H\_y = A\_[ TM]{}\^ + e\^[ - \_[TM]{} z]{} + A\_[TM]{}\^ - e\^[ + \_[ TM]{} z]{} + B\_[TEM]{}\^ + e\^[ - \_[TEM]{} z]{} + B\_[TEM]{}\^ - e\^[ + \_[TEM]{} z]{}, ł[mario\_hy]{} $$\begin{gathered}
E_x = \frac{j}{{\varepsilon_0 k_0 }}\frac{d}{{dz}}\left( {\eta _0
H_y } \right) =
-\frac{j}{{\varepsilon_0 k_0 }}\left[ \gamma _{\rm TM}\left( {A_{\rm TM}^ + e^{ - \gamma _{\rm TM} z} - A_{\rm TM}^ - e^{ + \gamma _{\rm TM} z} } \right) + \right.\\
\left.\gamma _{\rm TEM}\left( {B_{\rm TEM}^ + e^{ - \gamma _{\rm
TEM} z} + B_{\rm TEM}^ - e^{ + \gamma _{\rm TEM} z} }
\right) \right],\end{gathered}$$ E\_z = ( [A\_[TM]{}\^ + e\^[ - \_[TM]{} z]{} + A\_[TM]{}\^ - e\^[ + \_[TM]{} z]{} ]{} ), ł[mario\_ez]{} where $\gamma_{\rm TM} = \sqrt{k_{\rm p}^2+k_x^2-k_0^2}$, $\gamma_{\rm TEM}
= jk_0$, and $\varepsilon_{zz}^{\rm TM} = \varepsilon_0k_x^2/(k_{\rm
p}^2+k_x^2)$. It may be easily recognized that the above expressions correspond to a superposition of the standard TEM and TM modes supported by the unloaded wire medium.[@Belov_dispersion_PRB_2003]
The tangential components of the fields at the planes $z = h^-$ and $z = h^+$ are linked by the transfer matrix of the patch array: (
[\*[20]{}c]{} [E\_x ]{}\
[\_0 H\_y ]{}\
)\_[z = h\^+ ]{} = (
[\*[20]{}c]{} 1 & 0\
[ - y\_[g]{} ]{} & 1\
)(
[\*[20]{}c]{} [E\_x ]{}\
[\_0 H\_y ]{}\
)\_[z = h\^- ]{}, ł[mario\_grid]{} where $y_{\rm g} = 2j\varepsilon_0 \frac{{k_0a}}
{\pi } \log \left( {\csc \left( {\frac{{\pi d}}
{{2a}}} \right)} \right)$ is the normalized effective admittance of the patch array.[@Olli_Mushrooms_MTT_2009; @Alex_Mushrooms_MTT_2009] On the other hand, it was shown in Ref. that since the microscopic surface charge density must vanish at the connections between the wires and the grid, the following additional boundary condition (ABC) must be verified: k\_0 \_0 + k\_x \_0 = 0, z = 0\^+, z=h\^-, where $\eta_0$ is the free-space impedance. Using this ABC in Eqs. –, it is possible to obtain the coefficients associated with the TEM wave ($B_{TEM}^{\pm}$) as a function of the coefficients associated with the TM wave ($A_{TM}^{\pm}$). Then, $A_{TM}^{\pm}$ can be expressed in terms of the tangential electric and magnetic fields at the $z =
0^+$ plane. Proceeding in this manner, it is possible to obtain after lengthy but straightforward calculations the following transfer matrix relation for the layer of the wire medium in between two patch grids: (
[\*[20]{}c]{} [E\_x ]{}\
[\_0 H\_y ]{}\
)\_[z = h\^- ]{} = [**[M]{}**]{} . (
[\*[20]{}c]{} [E\_x ]{}\
[\_0 H\_y ]{}\
)\_[z = 0\^+ ]{}, ł[mario\_matrix]{} where the matrix ${\rm \bf{M}}$ is = (
[\*[20]{}c]{} [m\_[11]{} ]{} & [m\_[12]{} ]{}\
[m\_[21]{} ]{} & [m\_[11]{} ]{}\
), with the elements given by the following formulas: m\_[11]{} = , m\_[12]{} = , $$\begin{gathered}
m_{21} = { - jk_0 }\left[\frac{2\left( {\varepsilon_0 - \varepsilon
_{zz}^{\rm TM} } \right)\varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} \left[ {
- 1 + \cosh \left( {\gamma _{\rm TM} h} \right)\cosh \left(
{\gamma _{\rm TEM} h} \right)} \right]}
{{\left( {\varepsilon_0 - \varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} } \right)\gamma _{\rm TM} \sinh \left( {\gamma _{\rm TM} h} \right) + \varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} \gamma _{\rm TEM} \sinh \left( {\gamma _{\rm TEM} h} \right)}}+\right.\\
\left.\frac{\sinh \left( {\gamma _{\rm TEM} h} \right)\sinh \left(
{\gamma _{\rm TM} h} \right)\left[ {\left( {\varepsilon_0 -
\varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} } \right)^2 \frac{{\gamma
_{\rm TM} }} {{\gamma _{\rm TEM} }} + \left(
{\varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} } \right)^2 \frac{{\gamma
_{\rm TEM} }} {{\gamma _{\rm TM} }}} \right]} {{\left(
{\varepsilon_0 - \varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} } \right)\gamma
_{\rm TM} \sinh \left( {\gamma _{\rm TM} h} \right) +
\varepsilon _{zz}^{\rm TM} \gamma _{\rm TEM} \sinh \left(
{\gamma _{\rm TEM} h} \right)}}\right].\end{gathered}$$ It may be verified that $\det(\bf{M})=\rm{1}$. From Eq. and Eq. it is clear that the global transfer matrix of the system is: \_[g]{} = (
[\*[20]{}c]{} 1 & 0\
[ - y\_[g]{} ]{} & 1\
). As is well known, the dispersion characteristic of the Bloch-Floquet modes supported by the periodic structure verifies $
\cos \left( {k_z h} \right) = {\rm{tr}}\left( {{\bf{M}}_{\rm g} }
\right)/2$, where ${\rm{tr}}\left( {...} \right)$ represents the trace of the matrix. Thus, it follows that dispersion equation for the Bloch-Floquet modes is: ( [k\_z h]{} ) = m\_[11]{} - m\_[12]{}, The transfer matrix dispersion diagrams calculated section \[sect\_uniax\_supr\] were obtained using the above equation.
[21]{} 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"
} |
---
author:
- 'Yu Chen[^1]'
- Sampath Kannan
- Sanjeev Khanna
bibliography:
- 'general.bib'
title: 'Near-Perfect Recovery in the One-Dimensional Latent Space Model'
---
[^1]: Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Email:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain with a $C^2$-smooth boundary. We study the compactness of composition operators on the Bergman spaces of smoothly bounded convex domains. We give a partial characterization of compactness of the composition operator (with sufficient regularity of the symbol) in terms of the behavior of the Jacobian on the boundary. We then construct a counterexample to show the converse of the theorem is false.'
address: 'Bowling Green State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Bowling Green, Ohio'
author:
- 'Timothy G. Clos'
bibliography:
- 'refscomp.bib'
title: Compactness and Singular Points of Composition Operators on Bergman Spaces
---
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain. Let $\mathcal{O}(\Omega)$ be the set of all holomorphic functions from $\Omega$ into $\mathbb{C}$. Let $V$ be the Lebesgue volume measure on $\Omega$. For $p\in [1,\infty)$ we define $$A^p(\Omega):=\{f\in \mathcal{O}(\Omega):\int_{\Omega}|f|^p dV<\infty\}$$ to be the $p$-Bergman space. We denote the norm as $$\|f\|_{p,\Omega}:=\left(\int_{\Omega}|f|^p dV\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$ Most of this paper will deal with the $2$-Bergman space, which for brevity is denoted as the Bergman space. Let $\phi:\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be holomorphic on $\Omega$. That is, holomorphic in each coordinate function. Then we define the composition operator with symbol $\phi$ as $$C_{\phi}(f)=f\circ \phi$$ for all $f\in A^p(\Omega)$. For Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$, we say a linear operator $T:X\rightarrow Y$ is compact if $T(\{x\in X:\|x\|<1\})$ is relatively compact in the norm topology on $Y$. If $X$ is a Hilbert space then we can characterize compactness of linear operator $T:X\rightarrow X$ in terms of weakly convergent sequences.
Some Background and Main Results
================================
Compactness of composition operators was studied on the unit disk in $\mathbb{D}$ in the article [@ghatagecompact]. Here, the authors of [@ghatagecompact] study the angular derivative of the symbol near the boundary and obtain a compactness result. They then construct a counterexample to show that the converse of their theorem does not hold true. The authors of [@ghatageclosed] studied the closed range property of composition operators on the unit disk. Work on essential norm estimates and compactness of composition operators was studied on the ball in $\mathbb{C}^n$ and on the unit disk in $\mathbb{C}$ by [@CowenMacCluer] and [@HMW]. On more general bounded strongly pseudoconvex domains in $\mathbb{C}^n$, [@cuckruhanseveral] studied the essential norm of the composition operator in terms of the behavior of the norm of the normalized Bergman kernel composed with the symbol. Our approach is to use the idea of the ’generalized angular derivative’ (the Jacobian) of the symbol and its behavior on the boundary. As a preliminary result, we assume $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ is a bounded pseudoconvex domain and $\phi$ a holomorphic self-map on $\Omega$. If the range of $\phi$ is compactly contained in $\Omega$, then the composition operator with symbol $\phi$ is compact on the Bergman space of $\Omega$. The main result result relates compactness of the composition operator $C_{\phi}$ to the behavior of $J(\phi)(p)$ for $p\in b\Omega$ for $C^2$-smooth bounded convex domain $\Omega$. Then as a corollary we show that there is no surjective proper map $\phi:\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ that is $C^1$-smooth up to $\overline{\Omega}$ so that $C_{\phi}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$. Then we show the converse of the main result is false.
\[singular\] Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$ be a bounded convex domain with a $C^2$-smooth boundary. Let $\phi:=(\phi_1,\phi_2,...,\phi_n):\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be holomorphic in every coordinate function and $C^1$-smooth in each coordinate function on $\overline{\Omega}$. Then if $C_{\phi}:A^2(\Omega)\rightarrow A^2(\Omega)$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$ then $\phi^{-1}(b\Omega)=\emptyset$ or $\phi^{-1}(b\Omega)$ consists of singular points.
As a consequence of Theorem \[singular\], one can obtain the following.
\[thm2\] Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$ be a bounded convex domain with a smooth boundary. Let $\phi:=(\phi_1,\phi_2,...,\phi_n):\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be holomorphic in every coordinate functions and $C^1$-smooth in each coordinate function on $\overline{\Omega}$. If $\phi$ is a surjective proper map then $C_{\phi}$ is not compact on $A^2(\Omega)$.
Preliminaries
=============
We let $J(\phi)(p)$ be the determinant of the complex Jacobian matrix of $\phi$ at point $p$. Then $|J(\phi)(p)|^2$ is the determinant of the real Jacobian matrix of $\phi$ at point $p$. We note that $$\phi(z_1,z_2,...,z_n)=(\phi_1(z_1,z_2,...,z_n), \phi_2(z_1,z_2,...,z_n),...,\phi_n(z_1,z_2,...,z_n))$$ where $$\phi_j\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})$$ and are holomorphic on $\Omega$ for every $j=1,2,...,n$. By the smoothness of $b\Omega$, we can extend $\phi_j$ as a smooth function on $\mathbb{C}^n$ for $j\in \{1,2,...,m\}$, also called $\phi_j$. If $|J(\phi)(p)|\neq 0$ for all $p\in b\Omega$, we use the compactness of $b\Omega$ and the inverse function theorem applied to $\phi$, to cover $b\Omega$ with finitely many balls $\{B(p_s,r_s)\}_{s=1,...,k}$ so that $p_s\in b\Omega$ for all $s=1,...,k$, $r_s>0$ for all $s\in \{1,2,...,k\}$, and the restriction $\phi|_{B(p_s,r_s)}$ is invertible with inverse $\psi_s$ for $s\in \{1,2,...,k\}$. Then there exists $\delta_0>0$ so that $$U_{\delta_0}:=\{(z_1,z_2,...,z_n)\in \Omega:{dist}((z_1,z_2,...,z_n),b\Omega)<\delta_0\}\subset\subset \bigcup_{s\in \{1,2,...,k\}}B(p_s,r_s)\cap\Omega$$
\[lem1\]
For $U_{\delta_0}$ defined previously, the measure $d\mu:=\chi_{U_{\delta_0}}dV$ is reverse Carleson with respect to the Lebesgue volume measure $dV$ on a bounded pseudoconvex domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$. That is, for every $p\in [1,\infty)$ and $g\in A^p(\Omega)$, there exists $M_{p,\delta_0}>0$ so that $$\|g\|_{p,\Omega}\leq M_{p,\delta_0}\|g\|_{p,U_{\delta_0}}.$$
We consider the restriction operator $R_{\delta_0}:A^p(\Omega)\rightarrow A^p(U_{\delta_0})$. By the identity principle for holomorphic functions, $R_{\delta_0}$ is injective. And by Hartog’s extension theorem (see [@krantz 1.2.6]), $R_{\delta_0}$ is surjective. Therefore, $R_{\delta_0}$ is invertible. It is clear that $R_{\delta_0}$ is bounded. Therefore, by the Open Mapping theorem, $R_{\delta_0}$ has a bounded inverse. Then there exists $M>0$ so that
$$\|f\|_{p,\Omega}=\|(R_{\delta_0})^{-1}R_{\delta_0}f\|_{p,\Omega}\leq M\|R_{\delta_0}f\|_{p,U_{\delta_0}}=M\|f\|_{p,U_{\delta_0}}.$$
This shows that $d\mu$ is reverse Carleson.
Lemma \[lem1\] is true for bounded domains in $\mathbb{C}$. Instead of Hartog’s extension theorem one must use the mean value principle for holomorphic functions.
\[lem2\] Let $\Omega_1,\Omega_2\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$ be bounded pseudoconvex domains. Furthermore, assume there exists a biholomorphism $B:\Omega_1\rightarrow \Omega_2$ so that $B\in C^1(\overline{\Omega_1})$. Suppose $\phi:=(\phi_1,\phi_2,...,\phi_n):\Omega_2\rightarrow \Omega_2$ is such that the composition operator $C_{\phi}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega_2)$. Then, $C_{B^{-1}\circ \phi\circ B}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega_1)$.
Let $g_j\in A^2(\Omega_1)$ so that $g_j\rightarrow 0$ weakly as $j\rightarrow \infty$. We will use the fact that $g_j\rightarrow 0$ weakly in $A^2(\Omega_1)$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$ if and only if $\|g_j\|$ is a bounded sequence in $j$ and $g_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega_1$. This fact appears as [@cuckruhanseveral lemma 3.5]. Therefore, $\|g_j\|$ is uniformly bounded in $j$ and $g_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega_1$. Then define $h_j:=g_j\circ B^{-1}\in A^2(\Omega_2)$. Then using a change of coordinates, one can show $\|h_j\|$ is uniformly bounded in $j$ and $h_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega_2$. Therefore, by [@cuckruhanseveral lemma 3.5], $h_j\rightarrow 0$ weakly as $j\rightarrow \infty$. Then we have, $$\begin{aligned}
&\|C_{B^{-1}\circ \phi\circ B}(g_j)\|_{2,\Omega_1}^2\\
&=\|h_j\circ \phi\circ B\|_{2,\Omega_1}^2\\
&\leq \sup\{|J(B^{-1})(z)|^2:z\in \Omega_2\}\|C_{\phi}(h_j)\|_{2,\Omega_2}^2\end{aligned}$$
This shows that $C_{B^{-1}\circ\phi\circ B}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$.
As an application of Lemma \[lem1\] and Lemma \[lem2\], we have the following proposition.
\[thm1\] Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ for $n\geq 2$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain with a smooth boundary. Let $\phi:=(\phi_1,\phi_2,...,\phi_n):\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be holomorphic on $\Omega$ in every component function and $C^1$-smooth in each component function on $\overline{\Omega}$. If the Jacobian of $\phi$ is non-vanishing at every point in $b\Omega$, then the composition operator $C_{\phi}:A^p(\Omega)\rightarrow A^p(\Omega)$ is bounded for all $p\in [1,\infty)$.
To show if $f\in A^p(\phi(\Omega))$ then $f\circ \phi\in A^p(\Omega)$, it suffices to show $f\circ \phi\in A^p(U_{\delta_0})$ and apply Hartog’s extension theorem and identity principle. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{U_{\delta_0}}|f\circ\phi|^p dV\\
&\leq \sum_{s=1}^k\int_{B(p_s,r_s)\cap\Omega}|f\circ\phi|^p dV\\
&=\sum_{s=1}^k\int_{\phi(B(p_s,r_s)\cap\Omega)}|f|^p |J(\psi_s)|^2dV\\
&\leq k\sup_{s=1,2,...,k}\sup_{\phi(B(p_s,r_s)\cap\Omega)}|J(\psi_s)|^2\|f\|^p_{p,\phi(\Omega)}<\infty\\\end{aligned}$$ Then the boundedness of $C_{\phi}$ follows from an application of Lemma \[lem1\] to the above string of inequalities.
Next we will focus our attention on compactness of the composition operator with holomorphic symbol $\phi:\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ and show that if the range of $\phi$ is compactly contained in $\Omega$, then $C_{\phi}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$.
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain. Suppose $\phi$ is a holomorphic self-map on $\Omega$ so that $\overline{\phi(\Omega) }\subset \Omega$. Then $C_{\phi}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$.
To prove compactness of $C_{\phi}$, it suffices to show that the image of a weakly convergent sequence in $A^2(\Omega)$ is strongly convergent. Let $\{g_j\}_{j\in \mathbb{N}}\subset A^2(\Omega)$ converge to $0$ weakly as $j\rightarrow \infty$. Then by [@cuckruhanseveral lemma 3.5], $\|g_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$ is bounded and $g_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega$. We let $\nu:=V\circ \phi^{-1}$ be the pullback measure. Since $\overline{\phi(\Omega)}$ is compactly contained in $\Omega$, there exists a compact set $\widetilde{\Omega}\subset \Omega$ so that the support of $\nu$ is contained in $\widetilde{\Omega}$. Thus $$\int_{\Omega}|g_j\circ \phi|^2dV=\int_{\Omega}|g_j|^2d\nu=\int_{\widetilde{\Omega}}|g_j|^2d\nu.$$ Since $\widetilde{\Omega}$ is compact and $g_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on $\widetilde{\Omega}$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$, we have that $C_{\phi}g_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$ in norm.
Proofs of Main Results
======================
Assume $C_{\phi}$ is compact. Suppose $\phi^{-1}(b\Omega)\neq \emptyset$ and so let $p:=(p_1,p_2,...,p_n)\in \phi^{-1}(b\Omega)$. Without loss of generality and appealing to Lemma \[lem2\], we may assume $\phi(p)=(0,0,...,0):=0$. Furthermore, since $\Omega$ is convex, we may assume $\Omega\subset \{(z_1,z_2,...,z_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n: Re(z_1)>0\}$. Now assume $|J(\phi)(p)|\neq 0$. Since $\Omega$ has a $C^2$-smooth boundary, we may extend $\phi$ as a $C^1$ function on an open neighborhood of $\overline{\Omega}$. That is, extend each component function $\phi_j$ as a $C^1$ function on a neighborhood $U_j$ of $\overline{\Omega}$. Then $\phi$ has a $C^1$-smooth extension to $U:=\bigcap_{j\in \{1,2,...,n\}}U_j$. See [@AdamsFournier section 5.17] and [@Stein section VI] for more details on the smooth extension of functions. Then by the inverse function theorem, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ so that $\phi$ is a $C^1$-diffeomorphism on $$B(p,\varepsilon):=\{(z_1,z_2,...,z_n)\in\mathbb{C}^n: |z_1-p_1|^2+...+|z_n-p_n|^2<\varepsilon^2\}.$$ and $\phi\in C^1(\overline{B(p,\varepsilon)})$. Furthermore, we may assume $|J(\phi)|\neq 0$ on $\overline{B(p,\varepsilon)}$. We define $$g_j(z_1,z_2)=\frac{\alpha_j}{z_1^{\beta_j}}$$ where $\beta_j=1-\frac{1}{j}$ and $\alpha_j$ chosen so that $\alpha_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$ and $\|g_j\|=1$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$. The convexity of $\Omega$ allows us to construct this $g_j$ so that $g_j\in A^2(\Omega)$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$ by taking appropriate branch cuts. That is, we may assume $\Omega\subset \{(z_1,z_2,...,z_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n:Re(z_1)>0\}$ by convexity of $\Omega$ and take the principle branch for $z_1^{-\beta_j}$. We construct $\alpha_j$ as follows. Let $R>0$ be chosen sufficiently large so that $\Omega\subset \{z_1\in \mathbb{C}: |z_1|<R\}\times...\times \{z_n\in \mathbb{C}:|z_n|<R\}$. Then converting to polar coordinates we have. $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\Omega}|z_1^{-\beta_j}|^2 dV\\
&\leq (\pi R^2)^{n-1}\int_{0\leq \theta\leq 2\pi}\int_{0\leq r\leq R}r^{-2\beta_j+1}drd\theta<\infty\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $z_1^{-\beta_j}\in A^2(\Omega)$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$. By convexity of $\Omega$, there exists $S>0$, $(\lambda_1,...,\lambda_n)\in [0,2\pi)^n$ and $(\gamma_1,...,\gamma_n)\in [0,2\pi)^n$ so that $\gamma_j>\lambda_j$ for $j\in \{1,2,...,n\}$ and $$\{z_1=r_1e^{i\theta_1}:0\leq r_1\leq S,\, \lambda_1\leq \theta_1\leq \gamma_1\}\times...\times \{z_n=r_ne^{i\theta_n}:0\leq r_n\leq S,\, \lambda_n\leq \theta_n\leq \gamma_n\}\subset \Omega.$$ Now we convert to polar coordinates and it is clear that $$\int_{\lambda_1\leq \theta\leq \gamma_1}\int_{0\leq r\leq S}r^{-2\beta_j+1}dr d\theta\rightarrow \infty$$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$. Thus we define $$\alpha_j:=\|z_1^{-\beta_j}\|_{\Omega}^{-1}.$$
Then one can show $g_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$. Furthermore, $\|g_j\|_{\Omega}=1$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$. Hence by [@cuckruhanseveral lemma 3.5], $g_j\rightarrow 0$ weakly as $j\rightarrow \infty$. Since $\phi(B(p,\varepsilon))$ is open, there exists $\alpha>0$ so that $B(0,\alpha)\subset \phi(B(p,\varepsilon))$. Furthermore, one can show that there exists $\delta>0$ so that $\|g_j\|_{L^2(B(0,\alpha)\cap \Omega)}\geq \delta$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$. By shrinking $\varepsilon>0$ if necessary, we may assume there exists an $M>0$ so that $$\inf\{|J({\phi}^{-1})(z_1,z_2)|^2:(z_1,z_2)\in \overline{\phi(B(0,\alpha)\cap \Omega)}\}\geq M.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{B(p,\varepsilon)\cap \Omega}|g_j\circ \phi|^2 dV\\
&=\int_{\phi(B(p,\varepsilon)\cap \Omega)}|g_j|^2 |J({\phi}^{-1})|^2 dV\\
&\geq \inf\{|J({\phi}^{-1})(z_1,z_2)|^2: (z_1,z_2)\in \overline{\phi(B(p,\varepsilon)\cap \Omega)} \}\|g_j\|_{L^2(\phi(B(p,\varepsilon)\cap \Omega))}^2\\
&\geq M \|g_j\|^2_{L^2(B(0,\alpha)\cap \Omega)}\\
&\geq M\delta^2>0\\\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\|C_{\phi}g_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$ does not converge to $0$, a contradiction. This implies $|J(\phi)(p)|=0$. That is, $\phi^{-1}(b\Omega)=\emptyset$ or consists of singular points.
Assume $\phi:\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ is a proper holomorphic map where $\phi:=(\phi_1,...,\phi_n)$ and $\phi_j\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})$ for $j\in \{1,2...,n\}$. Furthermore, assume that $C_{\phi}$ is compact on $A^2(\Omega)$. Since $\phi$ is proper, it is an open map (see [@JP pp.789]), and therefore is surjective (see [@Ho]). Also, $\phi^{-1}(b\Omega)=b\Omega$, so by Theorem \[singular\], the determinant of the complex Jacobian of $\phi$ is identically $0$ on $b\Omega$. Since the determinant of the complex Jacobian is a holomorphic function on $\Omega$ and is continuous up to $\overline{\Omega}$, we have that $|J(\phi)|\equiv 0$ on $\Omega$. Thus an application of Sard’s theorem (see [@Sternberg theorem II 3.1]) implies that $\phi$ is not surjective, a contradiction.
Example
=======
The converse of Theorem \[singular\] is not true. In fact, we construct a highly singular $C^{\infty}$-smooth map $\phi:B(0,1)\rightarrow B(0,1)$ so that $\phi(\overline{B(0,1)})\cap b B(0,1)$ consists of singular points but $C_{\phi}$ is not compact on $A^2(B(0,1))$. This idea is made precise as this next example shows.
We let $\phi(z_1,z_2):=(z_1,0)$ be the projection onto the first coordinate. Clearly $\phi$ is singular everywhere and maps the unit ball into the unit ball. Furthermore, $\phi(\overline{B(0,1)})\cap b B(0,1)\neq \emptyset$. We let $\beta_j=1-\frac{1}{j}$ and define $$f_j(z_1,z_2):=\frac{\alpha_j}{(z_1-1)^{\beta_j}}$$ where $\alpha_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$ is to be chosen later. Also, the branch cut is taken away from $B(0,1)$. We chose $R>0$ sufficiently large so that $B(0,1)\subset \{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z-1|<R\}\times \{w\in \mathbb{C}:|w|<R\}:=D$. Thus converting to polar coordinates we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{B(0,1)}|(z_1-1)^{-\beta_j}|^2 dV\leq \int_{D}|(z_1-1)^{-\beta_j}|^2 dV\\
&=\pi R^2\int_{0\leq r\leq R}\int_{0\leq \theta\leq 2\pi}r^{-2\beta_j+1}dr d\theta<\infty\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(z_1-1)^{-\beta_j}\in A^2(B(0,1))$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$.\
By convexity of $B(0,1)$, there exists $s>0$, $\theta_1,\theta_2\in [0,2\pi]$, $\theta_2>\theta_1$ so that $$\{z=1+r_1e^{i\theta}:0\leq r_1\leq s,\, \theta_1\leq \theta\leq \theta_2\}\times \{w=r_2e^{i\theta}:0\leq r_2\leq s,\, \theta_1\leq \theta\leq \theta_2\}\subset B(0,1)$$ Using this inclusion and converting to polar coordinates, one can show that $\|\frac{1}{(z_1-1)^{\beta_j}}\|\rightarrow \infty$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$.\
Then we define $\alpha_j:=\|\frac{1}{(z_1-1)^{\beta_j}}\|_{B(0,1)}^{-1}$. So $\|f_j\|=1$ for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and $f_j\rightarrow 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $B(0,1)$ away from $bB(0,1)$. Thus by [@cuckruhanseveral lemma 3.5], $f_j\rightarrow 0$ weakly as $j\rightarrow \infty$. However, $f_j\circ \phi(z_1,z_2)=\frac{\alpha_j}{(z_1-1)^{\beta_j}}$ does not converge to $0$ in norm. Therefore, $C_{\phi}$ is not compact.
Aknowlegments
=============
I wish to thank Kit Chan and Sönmez Şahutoğlu for useful conversations and insights. I also thank Joe Cima for commenting on a preliminary version of this manuscript.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'S. Masoumeh Mousavi'
- 'Sabareesh K. P. Velu'
- Agnese Callegari
- Luca Biancofiore
- Giovanni Volpe
title: Clustering of Janus Particles in Optical Potential Driven by Hydrodynamic Fluxes
---
Abstract
========
Self-organisation is driven by the interactions between the individual components of a system mediated by the environment, and is one of the most important strategies used by many biological systems to develop complex and functional structures. Furthermore, biologically-inspired self-organisation offers opportunities to develop the next generation of materials and devices for electronics, photonics and nanotechnology. In this work, we demonstrate experimentally that a system of Janus particles (silica microspheres half-coated with gold) aggregates into clusters in the presence of a Gaussian optical potential and disaggregates when the optical potential is switched off. We show that the underlying mechanism is the existence of a hydrodynamic flow induced by a temperature gradient generated by the light absorption at the metallic patches on the Janus particles. We also perform simulations, which agree well with the experiments and whose results permit us to clarify the underlying mechanism. The possibility of hydrodynamic-flux-induced reversible clustering may have applications in the fields of drug delivery, cargo transport, bioremediation and biopatterning.
1 Introduction
==============
Self-organisation entails the emergence of complex patterns and structures from relatively simple constituting building blocks [@zhang; @van; @jiang; @walther; @velu; @mijalkov]. Phenomena such as flocking of birds and growth of bacterial colonies are examples of self-organisation in nature. Also artificial microscopic systems feature similar forms of organisation with the emergence of clusters, sometimes referred to as “living crystals" [@palacci; @buttinoni; @gao; @stenhammar; @schmidt]. In the past two decades, studies on self-organisation focused on systems made of complex colloids with anisotropic surface [@Perro; @Pawar], such as Janus particles [@walther; @Gennes]. Depending on their surface material properties, Janus particles have been used in different fields for various applications such as self-assembly, microrheology and emulsion stabilisation [@jiang; @walther]. Under certain conditions, Janus particles have the ability of self-propelling and behave as active Brownian particles [@howse; @gangwal; @volpe; @buttinoni2012; @illien]; these active Janus particles might be used in future biomedical nano-devices for diagnostics, drug delivery and microsurgery [@Wang; @Baraban].
Studies on clustering of Janus particles have been performed by Palacci et al. [@palacci], who have shown the formation of living crystals in systems of light-activated Janus particles (Fe$_2$O$_3$-TPM) in hydrogen peroxide solution. Similarly, Buttinoni et al. [@buttinoni] demonstrated the clustering of light-activated Janus particles (carbon-SiO$_2$) in a water-lutidine binary mixture. Other research groups have shown self-assembly and controlled crystal formations in a mixed system of light-activated Janus particles and passive colloids [@gao; @stenhammar]. In all these studies, a necessary ingredient for the clustering is the active nature of the particles. In systems of passive colloidal particles, crystallisation was observed at the bottom of an attractive optical potential [@pincce], close to the hard boundary during electrophoretic deposition [@solomentsev], and in the presence of an external temperature gradient [@weinert; @di].
Here, we investigate the behaviour of a system composed of Janus particles (silica microspheres half-coated with gold) close to a planar surface in the presence of an optical potential, and we experimentally demonstrate reversible clustering triggered by the presence of the optical field. Experimental results are compared and validated by numerical simulations, where the key ingredient for clustering is the presence of an attractive potential of hydrodynamic nature. Such results are confirmed also in mixtures of Janus particles and passive colloids (silica microspheres), where the hydrodynamic flux due to the Janus particles causes the clustering of the particles in the hybrid system and the formation of living crystals. As a further confirmation that the presence of Janus particles in the optical potential is crucial for the clustering, we show that a system with only non-Janus particles does not give rise to any clustering.
2 Experiments
=============
The experiments are performed on a homemade inverted microscope, as schematically shown in Fig. \[Fig:1\]a. A laser beam (wavelength $\lambda = 976\,{\rm nm}$; power $P = 100\,{\rm mW}$) is focused by a convex lens (L, focal length $f = 50\,{\rm mm}$) onto the sample chamber (S) in order to generate a broad Gaussian optical potential (beam waist $w_0 = 90\,{\rm \mu m}$) [@pesce]. The height of the sample chamber is $200\,{\rm \mu m}$. The particles are tracked by digital video microscopy using the image projected by a microscope objective ($20\times$, ${\rm NA} = 0.50$) on a monochrome CCD camera with an acquisition rate of $5\,{\rm fps}$.
![Experimental setup and single particle behaviour. (a) Experimental setup to generate a Gaussian optical potential: WI, white light lamp; DM, dichroic mirror; M$_1$ and M$_2$, mirrors; L, convex lens; S, sample chamber; O, microscope objective; F, infrared filter; CCD, digital camera. (b) Typical trajectory of a single Janus particle in a broad Gaussian optical potential: it tends to move away from the region of maximum intensity towards the region of lower intensity. (c) Typical trajectory of a single silica particle in the same optical potential: it moves towards the region of maximum intensity. The dashed red lines in (b) and (c) represent the region where the light intensity is more than the half of the maximum intensity.[]{data-label="Fig:1"}](Fig1-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="12cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:1\](b), we show the typical motion of a Janus particle in the optical potential generated by the Gaussian laser beam. The Janus particle does not stay for a long time within the region of maximum intensity, but it is driven outwards by a combination of optical forces and optical torques: the presence of the reflecting thin gold layer results in an optical force directed towards the region of lower light intensity. On the contrary, in Fig. \[Fig:1\](c), we show that a silica particle is driven by the optical force towards the region of maximum intensity, as expected in the presence of optical forces [@jones].
![ Experimental time sequences demonstrating the formation of clusters of Janus particles with diameter (a-f) $4.77\,{\rm \mu m}$ (see also Video 1) and (g-l) $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$ (see also Video 2) in a Gaussian optical potential (beam waist $90\,{\rm \mu m}$, power $100\,{\rm mW}$). (f, l) As soon as the laser power is switched off, the clusters disassemble.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](Fig2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="16cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:2\], we show the behaviour of multiple Janus particles in a Gaussian optical potential. Figs. \[Fig:2\](a-f) show a time sequence for a solution of Janus particles of $4.77\,{\rm \mu m}$ diameter, and Figs. \[Fig:2\](g-l) a time sequence for a solution of Janus particles of $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$ diameter. In both cases, when the optical potential is turned on, the Janus particles cluster together and the centres of the clusters lay outside the centre of the optical potential. The process is slow at the beginning but accelerates as the size of the clusters increases. When the optical potential is switched off, the clusters immediately start to disassemble because of the attractive force between the particles disappears.
![Experimental time sequence of the dynamics (a-f) of silica particles (see also Video 3) and (g-l) of a mixture of Janus particles and silica particles (see also Video 4) (all particles have diameter $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$) in a Gaussian optical potential (beam waist $90\,{\rm \mu m}$, power $100\,{\rm mW}$). (a-f) The silica particles are pulled towards the centre of the optical potential, but do not form a close-packed colloidal crystal because of the absence of short-range attractive forces. (g-l) When also Janus particles are present, clusters form away from the centre of the optical potential, as in the cases with only Janus particles shown in Fig. \[Fig:2\].[]{data-label="Fig:3"}](Fig3-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="16cm"}
We do not observe this clustering behaviour in the case of a colloidal suspension composed only of silica particles with the same dilution as for the solution containing the Janus particles. In fact, when employing silica microspheres, aggregation and formation of a colloidal crystal are observed only with a significantly higher concentration (as observed, for example, in Ref. ). In this case, the aggregation is not due to an effective attraction between the particles, but to the interplay between the optical forces pushing each particle towards the centre of the potential and the steric repulsion between the particles. The combined effect of these two interactions determines the formation of a regular close-packed lattice structure. However, this mechanism is ineffective at low concentrations, as shown in the time sequence presented in Figs. \[Fig:3\](a-f): while the silica particles are attracted towards the centre of the potential, they do not form a cluster. If we add some Janus particles to this system of silica particles, the clustering of the particles away from the centre of the beam is recovered, as shown in Figs. \[Fig:3\](g-l).
3 Model
=======
In order to understand the physical mechanism underlying the clustering of the Janus particles, we developed a numerical model of this system. In this model, we take into account the optical forces and torques acting on the Janus particles [@callegari; @jones], their Brownian motion [@fernandes; @volpe2013simulation; @jones], and thermophoretic forces and torques [@bickel].
We model the optical forces and torques acting on a spherical Janus particle using the geometric optics approximation, because the size of the particle is significantly larger than the wavelength of the incident field and, in these conditions, the geometrical optics approximation reproduces well the features of the dynamics observed experimentally [@callegari; @jones]. We model a Janus particle as a spherical dielectric microsphere plus a surface layer shaped as the hemispherical gold cap with a given thickness, mass density and refractive index. When the Janus particle is suspended in a solution and subject to an optical potential, there are three elements influencing its motion: (i) optical forces and torques due to the scattering of the light between media with different refractive indices [@callegari; @jones]; (ii) Brownian forces due to the presence of a thermal noise [@fernandes; @volpe2013simulation; @jones]; and (iii) thermophoretic forces and torques, which are due to the partial light absorption by the golden cap determining a temperature gradient around the particle and, therefore, a self-propelled motion [@bickel]. In addition, one should also take into account (iv) the combined effect of gravity and buoyancy, which keep the particles hovering just above the sample chamber bottom surface and; and (v) the gravitational torque due to the inhomogeneity of the mass distribution of the Janus particle due to the gold coating, which, in the absence of any optical field, always results in a preferential downwards orientation of the golden cap.
In order to calculate the scattering and absorption of the golden cap, we use the thin film approximation for an absorbing layer on a transparent substrate [@heavens]. This permits us to obtain the reflectance, transmittance and absorbance of the metallic cap, and therefore to calculate the scattering of the light on the Janus particle. From the scattered rays, we obtain the optical force and torque according to the procedure in Refs. . In order to simulate the Brownian motion of a Janus particle, we have to take into account the asymmetry due to the presence of the metal cap, even though the shape of the Janus particle is accurately represented by a sphere. This entails that we need to take into account not only the translational motion, but also the rotational motion. Therefore, we use the $6 \times 6$ diffusion matrix, as in Ref. . Furthermore, since the Janus particle are not in bulk but near a planar wall, we need to correct the translational and rotational diffusion for the effects of the close proximity to the boundary [@happel; @lee]. The self-propelled motion originates from the presence of a local temperature gradient around the particle due to the light absorption by the metal-coated side of the Janus particle. A non-spherically symmetric temperature profile is induced around the particle due to the non-spherically symmetric shape of the absorbing layer. Such configuration induces a local force field tangential to the surface of the Janus particle. This interfacial force leads to a slip velocity at the interface, i.e., a jump in the tangential fluid velocity component. This slip velocity drives the particle in the opposite direction along the temperature gradient axis [@bickel], inducing the particle to self-propel. The velocity of this self-propulsion (i.e. the thermophoretic velocity) depends linearly on the temperature gradient, i.e. $v=- D_{\rm T} \nabla T_\parallel$, where $D_{\rm T} = \frac{a \kappa \gamma_T}{3\eta}$ is the thermophoretic mobility (or thermal diffusion coefficient) [@weinert]. However, there is no certain law for the amplitude and sign of the thermophoretic mobility, which strongly depends on the microscopic nature of the particle-solvent interactions at the boundary layer of thickness $\lambda_{\rm D}$ (Debye length) [@dhont; @ruckenstein; @wurger; @piazza]. Depending on the sign of $D_{\rm T}$, the particle moves either towards the cold or the hot region [@weinert; @piazza].
In the case of two Janus particles close to a planar wall, a further effect of hydrodynamic nature has to be considered. This hydrodynamic effect creates an effective attraction among the particles. To explain this behaviour, one can use the same approach proposed for two immobile colloidal particles close to a wall [@weinert; @morthomas; @di]. Indeed, a particle moves toward the horizontal bottom surface of the sample cell due to gravity, radiation force and interfacial driving force. Eventually, this particle would be fixed at a certain distance from the wall, due to the repulsive interaction with the wall and the viscous stress. The particle is then immobile [@weinert; @morthomas; @di] and the surrounding velocity field is squeezed by the boundary. Due to the temperature gradient surrounding the particles, the fluid continues to move along its surface. This creates a flow with a horizontal incoming radial component (parallel to the planar boundary) and outgoing vertical components, directed upwards from the wall. The thermophoretically-induced flow field affects the motion of other neighbouring particles, so that a second nearby particle experiences an attractive hydrodynamic drag force toward the first particle. Following Ref. , the radial component of the flow velocity at a horizontal distance $\rho$ from the centre of the immobile particle, $U_{\rho}$, is: $$\label{eq:radialflow}
U_{\rho}
=
u_0
\left[
6 \frac {\rho a h^3(\epsilon^2 q_3-p_1)}{\hat{r}_h^5}-60q_3 \frac{\rho a^3 h^3}{\hat{r}_h^7}
\right],$$ where $u_0=\frac{D_T \Delta T}{ \pi a T_0}$, $\Delta T=\frac{P}{(2\pi+4)\kappa a} $, $P$ is the absorbed power by the gold cap with the total outward heat flow, $\kappa=3 \kappa_{\rm s} / (2\kappa_{\rm s}+\kappa_{\rm p})$ ($\kappa_{\rm s}$ and $\kappa_{\rm p}$ are the thermal conductivity of fluid and particle, respectively), $p_1=1+\frac{9}{8} \epsilon$, $q_3=-1-\frac{3}{8} \epsilon$, $\epsilon=\frac{a}{h}$, $h$ is the distance of the centre of the particle with radius $a$ from the wall, and $\hat{r}_h=\sqrt{\rho^2+4h^2}$. From the flow velocity, $U_{\rho}$, one can obtain the effective hydrodynamic force on nearby particle as $$\label{brownian}
F=6 \pi \eta a \delta_{\rm w} U_{\rho},$$ where $\delta_{\rm w}$ is a dimensionless factor which accounts for the effect of the presence of a planar wall on the effective friction coefficient in the direction parallel to the wall [@happel; @di]. When this lateral flow is strong enough, the attractive hydrodynamic force can be larger than other repulsive contributions and than the thermal fluctuations, leading to a stable aggregation of the particles. The strength of the attractive interaction can be regulated by the light intensity since the power absorbed by the gold cap determines the temperature gradient around the immobile particle and therefore the entity of the hydrodynamic lateral flow. Using this model we investigate in the next section the motion of a single and multiple Janus particles suspended in a water solution and in presence of a broad Gaussian optical potential.
4 Numerical results
===================
 and \[Fig:1\](c).[]{data-label="Fig:4"}](Fig4-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="12cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:4\], we show the behaviour of a silica particle (Fig. \[Fig:4\](a-c)) and of a Janus particle (Fig. \[Fig:4\](d-f)) in the presence of a Gaussian optical potential (radius $90\,{\rm \mu m}$, wavelength $976\,{\rm nm}$, power $100\,{\rm mW}$). The particles’ trajectories are shown by the black lines. The particles are made of silica and have a diameter of $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$, and the Janus particle is half-coated with a $60\,{\rm nm}$ gold layer (at the wavelength $976\,{\rm nm}$, the refractive indices of silica and gold film are $1.45$ and $0.21-6.29i$, respectively [@johnson]). The silica particle (Fig. \[Fig:4\](a)) moves toward the high intensity area and tends to remain in the region of higher optical intensity because of the presence of gradient optical forces [@ashkin; @jones], both when it is initially placed outside the potential (Fig. \[Fig:4\](b)) and at its centre (Fig. \[Fig:4\](c)). On the contrary, the Janus particle (Fig. \[Fig:4\](d)) tends to move towards a circular region at a fixed distance from the centre of the potential, independently from whether it is initially placed outside the trapping potential (Fig. \[Fig:4\](e)) or at its centre (Fig. \[Fig:4\](f)). These results are in agreement with the experiments shown in Figs. \[Fig:1\](b) and \[Fig:1\](c).
![Simulated time sequence demonstrating the formation of clusters of Janus particles for a system of 30 Janus particles with diameter (a-f) $4.77\,{\rm \mu m}$ (see also Video 1) and (g-l) $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$ (see also Video 2) in a Gaussian optical potential. The black lines represent the trajectories of the particles. The formation of the clusters, which are always located at a certain distance from the centre of the beam, is due to the hydrodynamic interaction among the particles. These simulations are consistent with the experimental results shown in Fig. \[Fig:2\].[]{data-label="Fig:5"}](Fig5-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="16cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:5\], we show the time sequences corresponding to the clustering of Janus particles in a Gaussian optical potential. As in the experiments shown in Fig. \[Fig:2\], the diameter of the Janus particles is $4.77\,{\rm \mu m}$ in Figs. \[Fig:5\](a-f) and $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$ in Figs. \[Fig:5\](g-l). Both kinds of particles form clusters at a certain distance from the centre of the beam, which is in good agreement with the experiments shown in Fig. \[Fig:2\]. Furthermore, the clustering speed depends on the Janus particles size: larger particles aggregate more rapidly, as observed in experiments.
![Simulated time sequence of the dynamics (a-f) of silica particles (see also Video 3) and (g-l) of a mixture of Janus particles and silica particles (see also Video 4) in a Gaussian optical potential. When alone, the silica particles do not feature any clustering behaviour apart from that due to the presence of optical forces driving them towards the centre of the potential. Instead, in the presence of some Janus particles, the hydrodynamic flux generated by the Janus particles is strong enough to induce clustering of the particle mixture. The diameter of the particles is always $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$. The black lines represent the trajectories of the particles. These simulations are consistent with the experimental results shown in Fig. \[Fig:3\].[]{data-label="Fig:6"}](Fig6-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="16cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:6\](a-f), we show the simulated collective behaviour of a system of silica particles (diameter $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$). In agreement with the experimental results shown in Figs. \[Fig:3\](a-f), the silica particles go toward the centre of the Gaussian optical potential because of optical gradient forces, but do not form a colloidal crystal. In Fig. \[Fig:6\](g-l), we show the simulated collective behaviour of a mixture of silica particles and Janus particles (diameter $6.73\,{\rm \mu m}$). Again in agreement with the experiments presented in Figs. \[Fig:3\](g-l), the Janus particles generate a hydrodynamic flow that is sufficient to induce the clustering of all particles away from the optical potential center.
5 Conclusions
=============
We have shown with experiments and numerical simulations that the presence of Janus particles triggers the formation of clusters in a Gaussian optical potential. This is due to the presence of attractive hydrodynamic interactions among the particles. The presence of Janus particles is crucial for the cluster formation, since the attractive interaction is generated by the presence of a temperature gradient around the Janus particles: When a Janus particle is close to a boundary, this temperature gradient induces a hydrodynamic flow that drags other particles towards the Janus particle. In the absence of Janus particles, this hydrodynamic flow is absent and thus no clusters form. We have shown experimentally that the clustering process is reversible, since the cluster starts to disassemble as soon as the optical potential is switched off. Beyond their fundamental interest, the reported results are potentially relevant for various applications in the fields of self-assembly, targeted drug-delivery and bioremediation. For example, the possibility of forming clusters at a controllable distance from the minimum of a potential well offers a new route towards self-assembly near a target. Future work will be devoted to understanding how the clustering behaviour can be controlled or altered by using more complex optical potentials.
Acknowledgment
==============
SMM acknowledges a Tubitak 2216 fellowship and Tubitak project 114F207. SKPV acknowledges Tubitak projects 114F207 and 116F068. AC acknowledges Tubitak projects 115F401 and 116F111.
[41]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{}
Z. Zhang and S. C. Glotzer. Self-assembly of patchy particles. *Nanolett.*, 40 (8):0 1407–1413, 2004.
A. van Blaaderen. Colloids under external control. *MRS Bull.*, 290 (2):0 85–90, 2004.
S. Jiang, Q. Chen, M. Tripathy, E. Luijten, K. S. Schweizer, and S. Granick. Janus particle synthesis and assembly. *Adv. Mat.*, 220 (10):0 1060–1071, 2010.
A. Walther and A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller. Janus particles: Synthesis, self-assembly, physical properties, and applications. *Chem. Rev.*, 1130 (7):0 5194–5261, 2013.
S. K. P. Velu, M. Yan, K.-P. Tseng, K.-T. Wong, D. M Bassani, and P. Terech. Spontaneous formation of artificial vesicles in organic media through hydrogen-bonding interactions. *Macromolecules*, 460 (4):0 1591–1598, 2013.
M. Mijalkov, A. McDaniel, J. Wehr, and G. Volpe. Engineering sensorial delay to control phototaxis and emergent collective behaviors. *Phys. Rev. X*, 60 (1):0 011008, 2016.
J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, A. P. Steinberg, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin. Living crystals of light-activated colloidal surfers. *Science*, 3390 (6122):0 936–940, 2013.
Ivo Buttinoni, J. Bialk[é]{}, F. K[ü]{}mmel, H. L[ö]{}wen, C. Bechinger, and T. Speck. Dynamical clustering and phase separation in suspensions of self-propelled colloidal particles. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1100 (23):0 238301, 2013.
W. Gao, A. Pei, X. Feng, C. Hennessy, and J. Wang. Organized self-assembly of janus micromotors with hydrophobic hemispheres. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.*, 1350 (3):0 998–1001, 2013.
J. Stenhammar, R. Wittkowski, D. Marenduzzo, and M. E. Cates. Activity-induced phase separation and self-assembly in mixtures of active and passive particles. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1140 (1):0 018301, 2015.
F. Schmidt, B. Liebchen, H. L[ö]{}wen, and G. Volpe. Light-controlled assembly of active colloidal molecules. *arXiv*, page 1801.06868, 2018.
A. Perro, S. Reculusa, S. Ravaine, E. Bourgeat-Lami, and E. Duguet. Design and synthesis of janus micro-and nanoparticles. *J. Mat. Chem.*, 150 (35-36):0 3745–3760, 2005.
A. B. Pawar and I. Kretzschmar. Fabrication, assembly, and application of patchy particles. *Macromol. Rap. Commun.*, 310 (2):0 150–168, 2010.
P. G. de Gennes. Soft matter. *Science*, 2560 (5056):0 495–497, 1992.
J. R. Howse, R. A. L. Jones, A. J. Ryan, T. Gough, R. Vafabakhsh, and R. Golestanian. Self-motile colloidal particles: From directed propulsion to random walk. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 990 (4):0 048102, 2007.
S. Gangwal, O. J. Cayre, M. Z. Bazant, and O. D. Velev. Induced-charge electrophoresis of metallodielectric particles. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1000 (5):0 058302, 2008.
G. Volpe, I. Buttinoni, D. Vogt, H.-J. K[ü]{}mmerer, and C. Bechinger. Microswimmers in patterned environments. *Soft Matter*, 70 (19):0 8810–8815, 2011.
I. Buttinoni, G. Volpe, F. Kümmel, G. Volpe, and C. Bechinger. Active [B]{}rownian motion tunable by light. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, 24:0 284129, 2012.
P. Illien, R. Golestanian, and A. Sen. ‘[F]{}uelled’ motion: Phoretic motility and collective behaviour of active colloids. *Chem. Soc. Rev.*, 46:0 5508, 2017.
J. Wang and W. Gao. Nano/microscale motors: biomedical opportunities and challenges. *ACS Nano*, 60 (7):0 5745–5751, 2012.
L. Baraban, D. Makarov, R. Streubel, I. M[ö]{}nch, D. Grimm, S. Sanchez, and O. G. Schmidt. Catalytic janus motors on microfluidic chip: deterministic motion for targeted cargo delivery. *ACS Nano*, 60 (4):0 3383–3389, 2012.
E. Pin[ç]{}e, S. K. P. Velu, A. Callegari, P. Elahi, S. Gigan, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe. Disorder-mediated crowd control in an active matter system. *Nature Commun.*, 7:0 10907, 2016.
Y. Solomentsev, M. B[ö]{}hmer, and J. L. Anderson. Particle clustering and pattern formation during electrophoretic deposition: A hydrodynamic model. *Langmuir*, 130 (23):0 6058–6068, 1997.
F. M. Weinert and D. Braun. Observation of slip flow in thermophoresis. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1010 (16):0 168301, 2008.
R. Di Leonardo, F. Ianni, and G. Ruocco. Colloidal attraction induced by a temperature gradient. *Langmuir*, 250 (8):0 4247–4250, 2009.
G. Pesce, G. Volpe, O. M. Maragò, P. H. Jones, S. Gigan, A. Sasso, and G. Volpe. Step-by-step guide to the realization of advanced optical tweezers. *J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*, 32:0 B84–B98, 2015.
P. H. Jones, O. M. Marag[ò]{}, and G. Volpe. *Optical tweezers: Principles and applications*. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
A. Callegari, M. Mijalkov, A. B. G[ö]{}k[ö]{}z, and G. Volpe. Computational toolbox for optical tweezers in geometrical optics. *J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*, 320 (5):0 B11–B19, 2015.
M. X. Fernandes and J. G. de la Torre. Brownian dynamics simulation of rigid particles of arbitrary shape in external fields. *Biophys. J.*, 830 (6):0 3039–3048, 2002.
G. Volpe and G. Volpe. Simulation of a [B]{}rownian particle in an optical trap. *Am. J. Phys.*, 810 (3):0 224–230, 2013.
T. Bickel, A. Majee, and A. W[ü]{}rger. Flow pattern in the vicinity of self-propelling hot janus particles. *Phys. Rev. E*, 880 (1):0 012301, 2013.
O. S. Heavens. *Optical properties of thin solid films*. Courier Corporation, 1991.
J. Happel and H. Brenner. *Low [R]{}eynolds number hydrodynamics: with special applications to particulate media*, volume 1. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
S. H. Lee, R. S. Chadwick, and L. G. Leal. Motion of a sphere in the presence of a plane interface. part 1. an approximate solution by generalization of the method of [L]{}orentz. *J. Fluid Mech.*, 930 (4):0 705–726, 1979.
J. K. G. Dhont, S. Wiegand, S. Duhr, and D. Braun. Thermodiffusion of charged colloids: Single-particle diffusion. *Langmuir*, 230 (4):0 1674–1683, 2007.
E. Ruckenstein. Can phoretic motions be treated as interfacial tension gradient driven phenomena? *J. Colloid Interfac. Sci.*, 830 (1):0 77–81, 1981.
A. W[ü]{}rger. Thermophoresis in colloidal suspensions driven by [M]{}arangoni forces. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 980 (13):0 138301, 2007.
R. Piazza. Thermophoresis: moving particles with thermal gradients. *Soft Matter*, 40 (9):0 1740–1744, 2008.
J. Morthomas and A. W[ü]{}rger. Hydrodynamic attraction of immobile particles due to interfacial forces. *Phys. Rev. E*, 810 (5):0 051405, 2010.
Peter B. Johnson. and R.-W. Christy. Optical constants of the noble metals. *Phys. Rev. B*, 60 (12):0 4370, 1972.
A. Ashkin, J. M. Dziedzic, J. E. Bjorkholm, and S. Chu. Observation of a single-beam gradient force optical trap for dielectric particles. *Opt. Lett.*, 110 (5):0 288–290, 1986.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study, for the first time, the spatial extension of the “source” that produces quark gluon plasma (QGP) in ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions (URHIC). The longitudinal dimension is studied as a function of time as the system evolves. The source size is found to exhibit a novel non-classical feature.'
address: 'Department of Physics, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur-208 016, INDIA '
author:
- 'Ambar Jain and V. Ravishankar'
title: ' How big is the source that produces quark gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions? '
---
0.5cm
0.5cm
PACS: 12.38.Mh, 25.75.-q,24.85.+p, 25.75.Gz
Introduction
============
The ultimate aim of studying ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions (URHIC) is not merely to establish the production of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) - by looking at various signals - but to get a complete picture of the space-time evolution of QGP. In short, one hopes to describe the evolution of this unique deconfined state of hadronic matter in all its stages - production, equilibration and hadronisation. Ambitious that this might seem, it has indeed proved impossible to separate the study of signals such as $J/\Psi$ suppression or strangeness enhancement without having an at least approximate idea of the production and evolution of QGP.
We have recently proposed a mechanism [@prl03] for producing QGP in URHIC - the soft and the semisoft quarks and gluons that constitute the bulk of the plasma. The mechanism manifests as the source term in the transport equation for the distribution functions for the partons. This source term, which is the rate at which the partons are produced in the extended phase space, has the following features: (i) it is defined in the two particle phase space, (ii) the production rate is non-Markovian in time[@schmidt], (iii) the vacuum has a dynamical role to play [@bloch] - it acts both as a source and a sink, (iv) the partons are quasiparticles with a finite life time [@weldon], (v) the rate evaluation takes into account the time scales involved in the production vis-a-vis the time intervals over which the rate is determined, (vi) the phase space dependence does not violate the uncertainty principle, and finally, (vii) the dynamical nature of the colour charge is manifest. Given all these attributes, it is natural to ask whether the source term can throw light on the spatial dimensions of the QGP as it evolves in time. Although a complete answer to this question has to be kept pending until the transport equation is solved in a self consistent manner, the purport of this paper is to show that the source term by itself does have interesting information. We shall illustrate this by looking at the longitudinal dimensions in a generic example.
One promising observational tool for studying dynamically the spatial extension of the fireball is the measurement of HBT correlations [@hb54; @hb56; @pur56] in two and three pions (and kaons) that are produced in URHIC. In particle physics, this idea was first proposed by Goldhaber [*et. al.*]{} [@gold60] for $p\bar{p}$ collisions. In the context of QGP, a major impetus for such a study is the hope that a knowledge of the system size would also settle whether the source producing the pions/kaons is nuclear, or its deconfined state. A useful tool that it is, measurements in HBT are still beset with many uncertainties - of extracting and interpreting data. Much of it is due to the fact that the source here is not static; it evolves rapidly, over time scales of several fermis and over length scales of the same order. The reconstruction of the source history from HBT observations is, therefore, not straight forward: it has been pointed out [@heinz96; @gast00] that what gets determined is not the true “size” of the system, but only the so called regions of “space time homogeneity” . The other complications are the finite life time of the source, inhomogeneous temperature profiles and a strong collective dynamical expansion [@heinz96]. At a more basic level, HBT studies have the best utility if the pions are produced from a chaotic source; there is no clinching justification (theoretically) to assume that in the case of URHIC; studies based on the Lund model [@bo86; @bia97] indicate that the sources do possess non-chaoticity. An empirical test to check the chaoticity is to measure the so called $\lambda$ parameter in two pion correlations. However, $\lambda$ itself depends on other paramters which are either incompletely or inaccurately known [@3pi03].
Apart from these caveats, the extraction of radii involves additional assumptions: the interpretation and parametrisation of HBT data assume a Gaussian profile for the source. Reasonable and natural that it seems, it still needs justification. Next, the (spurious) contributions from the Coulomb interaction have to be subtracted. More inportantly, one needs a criterion for “emission instant” and the “duration of emission of the particles” - both of which are ill defined in quantum mechanics [@prl03; @gast00]. The phase space coordinates should also be sufficiently coarsened so as not to violate uncertainty principle [@prl03]. These problems are nontrivial to handle both in experiments and theoretical simulations [@gast00]. An illustrative instance of the present situation is the so called RHIC puzzle [@starphen12] which is still not understood properly.
In short, the utility of the HBT analyses gets enhanced if they can be supplemented with an independent theoretical investigation of the space time dynamics of QGP. As mentioned at the beginning, the transport studies provide the required frame work. We shall show that the the source term proposed in [@prl03] does indeed give valuable information on the spatial extension of QGP.
The next section introduces the source term derived in [@prl03] and the subsequent section discusses the spatial extension of the source. For the sake of simplicity, we consider only the longitudinal dimension.
The source term
===============
We refer to [@prl03] for the motivation and details of deriving the source term. To summarise in a nut shell, the production of QGP takes place via the decay of a mean chromoelectric field (CEF) that is produced in between the two nuclei soon after they have collided and start receding from each other. By energy momentum conservation, the CEF acquires a space - time dependence, thanks to which the instability of the QCD vacuum may be studied perturbatively. It may be [*emphasised*]{} that the existence of CEF is itself a consequence of the non-perturbative aspects of QCD. Indeed, the chromoelectric field may be considered to be a manifestation of the strings in the colour flux tube model [@flux], which is known to provide a natural setting for discussing quark confinement [@thooft]. The main difference between this work and the conventional approaches is that the latter do not take into cognisance the space time dependence of the CEF in invoking the production mechanism; they employ Schwinger mechanism [@sch] which is valid only if the field is uniform and constant. We make no such assumption here (see also [@tdsource] in this context).
Consider the gluons. The lagrangian for pair production may be set up by expanding the gauge potential $A_{\mu}^a$ as a sum of the background classical potential $C_{\mu}^a$ and its fluctuation $\phi_{\mu}^a$ which is operator valued. Keeping terms quadratic in the fluctuations in the Yang -Mills action, we get $$\begin{aligned}
L_{2g} &= &-\frac{g}{2} f^{abc}\big [(\partial_{\mu}C_{\nu}^a -
\partial_{\nu}C_{\mu}^a)
\phi^{\mu b} \phi^{\nu c} \nonumber \\
& & + (\partial_{\mu}\phi_{\nu}^a -
\partial_{\nu}\phi_{\mu}^a) (C^{\mu b} \phi^{\nu c}
+ \phi^{\mu b} C^{\nu c}) \big ]+{\cal O}(g^2).\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the Wu Yang ambiguity [@wu], and the studies of Brown and Weissberger [@brown]. one can argue that $C_{\mu}^a$ should have an abelian form, at least for non vanishing leading order contributions. By a suitable gauge choice, we may write $C_{\mu}^a = \delta_{\mu, 0} \sum_iC_i(t, \vec{r})\delta_{a,i} $ where the summation runs only over the diagonal generators of the gauge group. Note that $C_{\mu}^a$ generates only an electric component.
In determining the production rate, as a function of time, the crucial step is [*not*]{} to evaluate the S-Matrix. Instead, we study the time dependent evolution of the state $ \vert \Psi > (t)$ in the Fock space using the standard Schwinger-Dyson expansion for the Unitary operator $U(t,0)$, with the boundary condition $\vert \Psi> (t=0) = \vert vac >$. The instant $t=0$ is singled out as the moment of the creation of CEF. The state at any time is then projected on to the two gluon sector. The mass shell condition is imposed as a constraint on the physical states.
Denote the two gluon state as $\vert gg> \equiv \vert \vec{p}_1,\vec{p}_2; s_1,s_2; c_1,c_2 >$, labelled by the momentum, spin and colour quantum numbers respectively. In the leading order, the production amplitude may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
<gg \vert T(t) \vert 0 > = \frac{ig}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{(E_2 -E_1)}{2 \sqrt{E_1 E_2}}
\vec{\epsilon}^{s_1}(\vec{p}_1)
\cdot \vec{\epsilon}^{s_2}(\vec{p}_2)f^{a c_1 c_2}\nonumber \\
\tilde{C}^{0,a}(E_1 +E_2; \vec{p}_1 + \vec{p}_2; t)\end{aligned}$$ where $T(t) \equiv U(t,0) -1$. Further, $$\tilde{C}_0^a =
\int^t_0 dt_1 e^{-i(E_1 +E_2)t_1} \int d^3 \vec{r}
exp (i(\vec{p}_1 + \vec{p}_2)
\cdot \vec{r})
C^{0,a}(t_1, \vec{r})$$ is the incomplete Fourier transform of the gauge field and $E_i$ are the energies carried by the gluons. The corresponding expression for the $q\bar{q}$ production is given by $$\begin{aligned}
<q\bar{q}\vert T(t) \vert 0> = \frac{g}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m}{\sqrt{E_1E_2}}
\tilde{C}_0^a T^a_{c_1, c_2} u^{\dagger}_{s_1}
(\vec{p}_1)v_{-s_2}(-\vec{p}_2),\end{aligned}$$ with $\vert q\bar{q} > \equiv \vert \vec{p}_1, \vec{p}_2; s_1,s_2; c_1,c_2 >$. $T^a$ are the generators of the gauge group in the fundamental representation, while $u, v$ are the usual Dirac spinors.
The probability that a pair is produced [*any time*]{} during the interval $ (0,t)$ is given by $\vert <\xi \vert T(t) \vert vac > \vert^2$, $\xi$ standing for either $gg$ or $q\bar{q}$. In [@prl03], rates were extracted by taking the derivative of the probability with respect to time. Here, we study the probabilities directly.
In order to extract the size parameters, we deviate from the evaluation performed in [@prl03]. We label the two parton states by their position coordinates $\vec{r}_1, \vec{r_2}$, which entails the standard Fourier traansform of Eqns. 2 and 3 in the variables $\vec{p_1}, \vec{p_2}$. The magnitude squared of the amplitudes now has the significance that it is the probability that a pair gets created in the interval $(0,t)$, with the particles found at $\vec{r}_1, \vec{r_2}$ at the instant t. For our purposes we may sum over the spin, colour and one of the position coordinates. The resulting quantity $P(\vec{r}, t)$ gives the (unnormalised) probability density for the parton as a function of time. Please note that it is [*incorrect*]{} to interpret $t$ as the instant at which the parton is created.
We employ the same CEF that was introduced in [@prl03] to study the prdouction rate in phase space. It is given by $${\cal E}^a_i = \delta_{i,z}{\cal E}_0(\delta_{a,3}+ \delta_{a,8})
exp\{(\vert z \vert -t ) /t_0 \}
\theta (t) \theta (t^2-z^2)$$ This choice is close to the boost invariant configuration required in the Bjorken scenario [@bj]. The gauge group is $SU(3)$, and the field is dependent only on $z,t$. The probability along the transverse directions is, therefore, uniform, [*i. e.*]{}, a gaussian distribution with a width given given by the diameter of the nucleus. This dimension remains constant in time. However, the longitudinal extension has to be determined explicitly.
The longitudinal extension
==========================
We obtained the production probability density for gluons and quarks in the one-particle configuration space by performing a multi-dimensional fast fourier transform on the momentum space amplitude, and integrating over the unwanted degrees of freedom. The densities are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 as functions of $z$ for different time instants namely $t=1,~2,~5,~10,~20$ in units of $t_0$. The probability densities are displayed only on the positive $z$ axis. The negative half is symmetric about $z=0$. The range of the probabilities (unnormalised!) is truncated in order to improve the visibility of the important features of the curves. The probability densities at $z=0$ are large but finite. These curves shed light on an interesting aspect of the source.
Recall that the CEF has a support in the interval $z \in (-t, +t)$ at any time $t$, with the two nuclei at $\vert z \vert =t$ moving with unit speed in opposite directions. We may expect, näively, that the particle production should also be restricted within the interval $(-t, t)$. The graphs clearly bely these classical expectations. The required features are most pronounced in Fig. 1, where we show the results for the gluons. Strikingly, the probability density does not terminate at $z=t$. Instead, it extends beyond, as a broad plateau all the way upto $z=2t$, where it falls abruptly, and almost discontinuously. This feature is universal for all the curves, indicating that the point $z=2t$ is naturally chosen as the boundary by the system dynamics. In that sense, we do not have to extract any length scale by curve fittings.
The quark results are shown in Fig. 2, again for times ranging from $t=1$ to $t=20$, in units of $t_0$. The results are not that vivid at earlier times. However, the features get more pronounced as the system evolves so that the plateau structure is clearly delineated at $t=10 fm$.
The remarkable aspect of these conclusions is that the size of the system is quintessentially non-classical. Indeed, the particles are found in regions where the field identically vanishes. Since the boundary of the CEF located at $z= \pm t$ is moving with the speed of light, causality forbids the particles produced any time in the interval $(0,t)$ within the range $ z \in (-t,t)$ from reaching the regions outside the interval. One concludes that the particles are indeed produced in the region where CEF vanishes identically! We suspect that this could be a generic property of the class of CEF that we have employed. It is important to note that the plateau position and its extension has a topological nature: the magnitudes change smoothly as the sytem evolves with the time, but the location of the shoulder is pegged at the value $ \vert z \vert=t$. A straight forward conclusion that one draws is that longitudinally, the QGP source is twice as large as the space between the two nuclei. The fireball extends beyond the two nuclei.
A more quantitative understanding can be obtained by looking at the relative probability for finding the particles in the regions $\vert z \vert < t $ and $ t < \vert z \vert < 2t$. The ratio for the gluons varies from a maximum of about $38 \%$ at $t=1.0$, to $15 \%$ at $t=20$. For the quarks, on the other hand, it varies from $19 \%$ at $t=1.0$ to $7 \%$ at $t=20$. Clearly, the non-classical features are the most pronounced when the field is varying most rapidly, and gets less important as the field evolves in time. Also, should these results seem surprising, we may recall that the probabilities in the regions where the field is vanishing are, in fact smaller than the probability that an oscillator in its ground state is found in the classically forbidden region. With this perspective, we may conclude that the production in the regions where the field vanishes identically is a quantum effect; the occurence of the step at $ \vert z \vert = 2t$ is perhaps a feature of the class of fields which have a boost invariant nature, or are close to it.
A final question remains as to why the spread in the quarks is less than that of gluons as indicated by the numbers above. The reason for this may be attributed, in part, to the fact that the two gluon amplitude is antisymmetric in the colour and the momentum indices of the two gluons (see Eqn. 2. By Bose symmetry, it is symmetric in the spins). Consequently, the amplitude will be antisymmetric in the position variables $\vec{r}_1, \vec{r}_2$ as well. The quark case on the other hand, has the charge conjugation symmetry which, when employed similarly, leads to a symmetric behaviour in the spatial part which inhibits the spread. In fact, the spread in the momentum probabilities is larger for quarks than for the gluons, as found in [@prl03]. By the uncertainty principle, one may expect the quark size to be smaller than that of the gluons.
We thank Rajesh Gopakumar for a discussion and D. D. Bhaktavatsala Rao for assistance in preparing the manuscript.
Ambar Jain and V. Ravishankar, preprint Nucl-Th/0212001 (to appear in Physical Review Letters). J. C. R. Bloch [*et al*]{}, Phys Rev. [**D60**]{}, 116011 (1999). S. Schmidt [*et. al.*]{},Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 0940005 (1999); J. C. R. Bloch, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{}, 117502 (2000). Peter A Henning and E. Quack, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**75**]{}, 3811 (1995); H. Arthur Weldon, unpublished (Hep-Ph 9809330); I. V. Andreev, Mod. Phys. Lett.A [**14**]{}, 459 (1999). R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twisis, Phil. Mag., Ser, [**745**]{}, 663 (1954). R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature [**178**]{}, 1046 (1956). E. Purcell, Nature [**178**]{}, 1449 (1956). G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W. Lee and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. [**120**]{}, 300 (1960). U. Heinz, Nucl. Phys. [**A610**]{}, 264C (1996). F. Gastineau and A. Aichelin, preprint Nucl-th/0007049. Bo Anderson and W. Hoffmann, Phys. Lett., [**169B**]{}, 364 (1980), and private communication quoted in A. Bialas, in Multiparticle Physics, eds. Hwa et. al., World Scientific, 103 (1996) Star Collaboration, J. Adams [*et. al.*]{}, preprint nucl-ex/0306028. Star Collaboration C. Adler [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 082301 (2001); Phenix Collaboration, K. Adcox [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**88**]{}, 192302 (2002). T. S. Biro, H. B. Nielsen and J. Knoll, Nucl. Phys. [**B245**]{}, 449 (1984). For a recent review see, B. Svetitsky, eprint hep-ph/99072 G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. [**B190**]{}, 455 (1981) J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951). R. S. Bhalerao and V. Ravishankar, Phys. Lett., [**409**]{}, 38 (1997). T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**D12**]{} 3843 (1975) Lowell. S. Brown and William I Weisberger, Nucl. Phys. [**157**]{}, 285 (1979); erratum: ibid. [**B172**]{}, 54 (1980). J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev D [**27**]{}, 140 (1983).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Primordial magnetic seed fields from extra dimensions**
2 cm
Kerstin E. Kunze [^1]
0.3cm
[*Física Teórica, Universidad de Salamanca,*]{}
[*Plaza de la Merced s/n, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain* ]{}
1.5cm
**Abstract**
0.5cm Dynamical extra dimensions break the conformal invariance of Maxwell’s equations in four dimensions. A higher dimensional background with $n$ contracting extra dimensions and four expanding dimensions is matched to an effectively four dimensional standard radiation dominated universe. The resulting spectrum for the magnetic field is calculated taking into account also the momenta along the extra dimensions. Imposing constraints from observations an upper limit on the strength of magnetic seed fields is found. Depending on the number of extra dimensions, cosmologically interesting magnetic fields can be created.
Introduction
============
Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the universe. Most galaxies, cluster of galaxies and even the Coma supercluster and radio galaxies at redshift $z\simeq 2$ have been found to be endowed with magnetic fields (for reviews see[@mag]-[@gr]).
The average field strength of the interstellar magnetic field in our Galaxy has been observed to be $3-4 \mu$G. Spiral galaxies in general seem to have magnetic fields with strength of the order of $10 \mu$G. The structure of these magnetic fields is determined by a large scale component with a coherence length of the order of the size of the visible disk and a small-scale component of tangled fields. There are a few spiral galaxies with exceptionally strong magnetic fields of the order of $50 \mu$G, which also have a very high star formation rate [@klein; @widr].
Magnetic fields associated with elliptical galaxies have field strengths comparable to those observed in spiral galaxies. However, their structure seems to be quite distinct from that found for magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. The coherence length is much smaller than the corresponding galactic scales and the structure appears to be random.
In clusters of galaxies, magnetic fields of strength of the order of upto a few $\mu$G are found in the intracluster medium. The cluster center regions indicate strong magnetic fields with typical field strengths of the order of $10-30 \mu$G and in exceptional cases upto $70 \mu$G [@eil; @gr]. The coherence length of the magnetic fields is of the order of the scale of the cluster galaxies.
There is also evidence for the existence of magnetic fields in structures on supercluster scale. The Coma-Abell 1367 supercluster is observed to have a magnetic field of strength $0.2-0.6 \mu$G [@kim; @widr]. Finally, observations indicate the existence of magnetic fields in redshift $z\simeq 2$ radio galaxies [@widr].
There is no direct observational evidence of magnetic fields that are not associated with any collapsing or virialized structure [@widr]. However, it is possible to put upper bounds on the strength of such cosmological magnetic fields from anisotropy measurements of the cosmic microwave background [@cmb] and from the abundances of light elements predicted by standard big bang nucleosynthesis [@bbn].
To explain the widespread existence of large scale magnetic fields in the universe it is commonly assumed that a tiny magnetic seed field at the epoch of galaxy formation is amplified by a dynamo mechanism to its present strength of a few microgauss in our Galaxy [@mag]-[@gr]. The dynamo amplifies an initial seed magnetic field exponentially. The amplification factor depends on the growth rate for the dominant mode of the dynamo and the amount of time during which the dynamo operates. In a flat universe with no cosmological constant the initial seed magnetic field needs to have at least a field strength of the order of $10^{-20}$ G to explain the current $\mu$G galactic field today [@rees], [@mag]-[@gr]. However, as it was pointed out in [@dlt], this bound depends on the cosmological model. In a flat universe with non-vanishing cosmological constant the lower limit on the required initial magnetic field strength can be lowered significantly. For reasonable cosmological parameter the required strength of the initial seed magnetic field is of the order of $10^{-30}$G.
There are different proposals for the origin of the magnetic seed field [@mag]-[@gr]. A class of proposed models involves the creation of magnetic seed fields during an inflationary stage of the very early universe [@tw; @infl]. In order to produce a magnetic seed field of significant strength the conformal invariance of Maxwell’s equations has to be broken, for example, by gravitational couplings of the photon [@tw].
The conformal invariance of Maxwell’s equations in four dimensions can also be broken if an embedding into a higher dimensional space-time with time-varying extra spatial dimensions is considered. In relation with the creation of seed magnetic fields this was first investigated in [@giov]. It is assumed that the $D$ dimensional space-time can be written as a direct product of a three dimensional space and an $n$ dimensional space. Vacuum space-times of this type are provided by the Kasner solutions, which in general admit two classes of solutions: either expanding three dimensions and collapsing extra dimensions or vice versa. The higher dimensional background with dynamical extra dimensions is matched to a standard four dimensional radiation dominated universe with static extra dimensions. In [@giov] it was found that magnetic fields of cosmologically interesting strength can be generated only in the case of contracting three dimensions and growing extra dimensions. The novel feature of the model under consideration here is that momenta along the extra dimensions are also taken into account. The final spectrum is obtained by integrating over these internal momenta [@int; @ks]. This leads to the generation of magnetic seed fields of cosmologically interesting strength in the case of expanding three dimensions and contracting extra dimensions. Imposing bounds from observations an upper bound on the strength of the magnetic field can be found.
Models with extra dimensions arise naturally in string/ M-theory which also led to the possibility of large extra dimensions [@hw]. In higher dimensional gravity the four dimensional Planck scale $M_4$ is no longer fundamental, instead the higher dimensional Planck scale $M_D$ becomes the fundamental scale. With the assumption that the $n$ extra dimensions have a characteristic size $R$, using Gauss’ law, the $D$-dimensional and the four-dimensional Planck masses $M_4$ and $M_D$, respectively, are related by [@md] $$\begin{aligned}
M_4^2=R^nM_D^{n+2}.\end{aligned}$$ Experiments show that Newtonian gravity is valid at least down to length scales of the order of 1 mm [@1mm]. This implies a lower bound on the ratio $M_D/M_4$.
Magnetic fields from extra dimensions
=====================================
The background space-time is assumed to be homogeneous and anisotropic with a line element, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=a^2(\eta)\left[d\eta^2-\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j\right]
-b^2(\eta)\delta_{AB}dy^Ady^B,\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j=1,..,3$ and $A,B=4,..,3+n$, $n\geq 1$. $a(\eta)$ and $b(\eta)$ are the scale factor of the external, 3-dimensional space and the internal, $n$-dimensional space, respectively.
It is assumed that for $\eta<-\eta_1$ both scale-factors are functions of time. At $\eta=-\eta_1$ this is matched to a radiation dominated four dimensional flat universe with static extra dimensions, $b(\eta)=const.$. The solutions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
a(\eta)&=&a_1\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{\sigma},\hspace*{1.5cm}
b(\eta)=b_1\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{\lambda},\hspace*{0.8cm}
{\rm for} \hspace*{0.5cm} \eta<-\eta_1
\label{b1}\\
a(\eta)&=&a_1\left(\frac{\eta+2\eta_1}{\eta_1}\right),\hspace*{1.05cm}
b(\eta)=b_1, \hspace*{2.4cm}
{\rm for} \hspace*{0.5cm} \eta\geq-\eta_1
\label{b2}\end{aligned}$$ In the following we set $a_1=1=b_1$.
For $\eta<-\eta_1$ the solution is given by the vacuum Kasner metric, which determines the exponents $\sigma$ and $\lambda$ as functions of the number of extra dimensions $n$. These are related to the Kasner exponents $\alpha_E$ and $\alpha_I$, satisfying the Kasner conditions $3\alpha_E+n\alpha_I=1$ and $3\alpha_E^2+n\alpha_I^2=1$, by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma=\frac{\alpha_E}{1-\alpha_E},\hspace{3cm}
\lambda=\frac{\alpha_I}{1-\alpha_E}.\end{aligned}$$ In the case of an expanding, external space and a contracting, internal space the exponents $\sigma$ and $\lambda$ are of the form [@giov], $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{3n}{n+2}}-1\right),\hspace{2cm}
\lambda=\sqrt{\frac{3}{n(n+2)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Maxwell’s equations in $D$ dimensions are given by $\nabla_{\tilde{A}}F^{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}}=0$ with $F_{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}}=\nabla_{[\tilde{A}}A_{\tilde{B}]}$, $\tilde{A}, \tilde{B}=0,..,n+3$. Here the interest is the electromagnetic field in the (3+1)-dimensional space-time. Thus it is assumed that $A_i=A_i(x^i,y^B,\eta)$ and $A_B=0$. Using the radiation gauge $A_0=0$, $\nabla_iA^i=0$, Maxwell’s equations imply $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{b^n}\partial_0\left[b^n\partial_0 A_i\right]
+\sum_{j=1}^3\partial_j\partial_j A_i
+\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^2\sum_{B=4}^{3+n}\partial_B
\partial_BA_i=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_0\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}$, $\partial_i\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ and $\partial_B\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial y^B}$.
Furthermore, the canonical field $\Psi_i=b^{\frac{n}{2}}A_i$ is introduced and the following expansion is used [@giov] $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_i(\eta,x^i,y^A)=\int\frac{d^3 kd^nq}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3+n}{2}}}
\sum_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_i({\bf l})\left[
a_{l,\alpha}\Psi_l(\eta)e^{i{\bf l}\cdot{\bf X}}
+a^{\dagger}_{-l,\alpha}\Psi^{*}_l(\eta)e^{-i{\bf l}\cdot{\bf X}}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $l^{\mu}$ is a $(3+n)-$vector with components $l^i\equiv k^i$, $l^A\equiv q^A$. Moreover, ${\bf l}\cdot{\bf X}=
{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}+{\bf q}\cdot{\bf y}$. $\alpha$ runs over the polarizations. In the background (\[b1\]), $\eta<-\eta_1$, this results in the mode equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l''+\left[k^2+\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{2\beta}
q^2-\frac{N}{\eta^2}\right]\Psi_l=0,
\label{psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $'\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}$ and $N\equiv\frac{1}{4}\left(n\lambda-1\right)^2-\frac{1}{4}$. Furthermore, $\beta\equiv\sigma-\lambda$. $\beta<0$ since only solutions with contracting extra dimensions will be discussed. $-1\leq\beta<-1/(1+\sqrt{3})$, where the lower boundary corresponds to $n=1$ and the upper bound gives the value for large $n$.
Equation (\[psi\]) can be solved in a closed form for one extra dimension $n=1$. In general, for $n>1$, to our knowledge, apart from the case $n=6$, there are no solutions in closed form. However, it is possible to find approximate solutions.
- For $n=1$ and $\eta<-\eta_1$ the equation for $\Psi_l$ (cf. equation (\[psi\])) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l''+\left[k^2+\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{-2}q^2+
\frac{1}{4\eta^2}\right]\Psi_l=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}e^{\frac{\pi}{2}q \eta_1}
\frac{\left(-k\eta\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{k}}
H_{i q\eta_1}^{(2)}(-k\eta),
\label{p-n1}\end{aligned}$$ satisfying the Wronskian condition $\Psi_l^{* \prime}\Psi_l-\Psi_l'\Psi_l^{*}=i$ and $H_{\nu}^{(2)}(z)$ is the Hankel function of the second kind.
- For $n>1$ and $\eta<-\eta_1$, in general approximate solutions can be found to the mode equation (\[psi\]). In this case, there is a natural distinction into two cases [@int; @ks].
1. For $\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{2\beta}q^2<k^2$, or $\omega_q<\omega_k$ in terms of the physical frequencies $\omega_k=k/a(\eta)$ and $\omega_q=q/b(\eta)$, equation (\[psi\]) becomes approximately, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l''+\left[k^2-\frac{N}{\eta^2}\right]\Psi_l=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}\frac{\sqrt{-k\eta}}{\sqrt{k}}H_{\mu}^{(2)}(-k\eta),
\label{psi-mult1}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\mu}^{(2)}$ is the Hankel function of the second kind and $\mu^2\equiv\frac{1}{4}+N\Rightarrow \mu=\frac{1}{2}(n\lambda-1)$. The mode functions satisfy the Wronskian condition.
2. For $\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{2\beta}q^2>k^2$, or $\omega_q>\omega_k$, equation (\[psi\]) can be approximated by, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l''+\left[\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{2\beta}q^2-\frac{N}{\eta^2}
\right]\Psi_l=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}\left(-\kappa\eta\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
H_{\mu\kappa}^{(2)}\left[\left(-q\eta\right)\kappa\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}
\right)^{\beta}\right],
\label{psi-mult2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa\equiv\frac{1}{\beta +1}$ and $\mu=\frac{1}{2}(n\lambda-1)$.
The case $q=0$ is covered by the first case, $\left(-\frac{\eta}{\eta_1}\right)^{2\beta}q^2<k^2$, thus the solutions are not written explicitly.
In the background (\[b2\]), for $\eta\geq -\eta_1$, the mode equation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l''+\left[k^2+\left(\frac{\eta+2\eta_1}{\eta_1}\right)^2q^2
\right]\Psi_l=0.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing $z\equiv\left(\frac{2q}{\eta_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(\eta+2\eta_1\right)$ and $\alpha\equiv -\frac{\eta_1 k^2}{2q}$ this can be transformed into the equation for parabolic cylinder functions [@giov2], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2\Psi_l}{dz^2}+\left[\frac{z^2}{4}-\alpha\right]\Psi_l=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\eta_1}{2q}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}
\left[c_{-}E(\alpha, z)+c_{+}E^*(\alpha, z)\right],
\label{psi-rad}\end{aligned}$$ where the Wronskian condition on the mode functions was applied and the normalization for the Bogoliubov coefficients $|c_+|^2-|c_{-}|^2=1$ was used. Using the approximations ((19.24) of [@AS]) gives expressions for $\Psi_l$ and $\Psi_l'$ at $\eta=-\eta_1$.
1. Namely, for $\omega_q/\omega_k<1$, it is found that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l(-\eta_1)&\sim&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}
[c_{-}e^{ik\eta_1+i\frac{\pi}{4}}+c_{+}e^{-ik\eta_1-i\frac{\pi}{4}}]\nonumber\\
\Psi_l'(-\eta_1)&\sim&-\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}
[c_{-}e^{ik\eta_1-i\frac{\pi}{4}}+c_{+}e^{-ik\eta_1+i\frac{\pi}{4}}].\end{aligned}$$
2. For $\omega_q/\omega_k>1$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_l(-\eta_1)&\sim&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2q}}
[c_{-}e^{i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}+i\frac{\pi}{4}}+
c_{+}e^{-i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}-i\frac{\pi}{4}}]
\nonumber\\
\Psi_l'(-\eta_1)&\sim&-\sqrt{\frac{q}{2}}
[c_{-}e^{i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}-i\frac{\pi}{4}}+
c_{+}e^{-i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}+i\frac{\pi}{4}}].\end{aligned}$$
The total magnetic energy density is given by [@ks] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=2\frac{R^n}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}\int \left[\left(\frac{k}{a}
\right)^2+\left(\frac{q}{b}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
|c_{-}|^2 dV,\end{aligned}$$ where, assuming that the volume consists of two spheres, $dV=\frac{1}{a^3b^n}\frac{2\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})}
k^2dk\wedge\frac{2\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}q^{n-1}dq$. At $\eta=-\eta_1$ the comoving wavenumbers $k$ and $q$ are equal to the physical momenta, since $a_1=1=b_1$. The spectral energy density $\rho(\omega_k)=d\rho/d {\rm log}\omega_k$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\omega_k)=16\frac{R^n}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}\frac{\pi^{1+\frac{n}{2}}}
{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
\omega_k^{4+n}\int dY [1+Y^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}Y^{n-1}|c_{-}|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $Y\equiv\frac{\omega_q}{\omega_k}$, and $\omega_k=\frac{k}{a}$, $\omega_q=\frac{q}{b}$.
During most of its history the universe had a very high conductivity, implying that a primordial magnetic field evolves while its flux is conserved. This makes the dimensionless ratio $r\equiv\rho_B/\rho_{\gamma}$ approximately constant [@tw], where $\rho_B$ is the magnetic field energy density and $\rho_{\gamma}$ is the energy density of the background radiation. Thus $r$ is a good measure of the strength of a cosmological magnetic field. Furthermore, $r=\Omega_{em}/\Omega_{\gamma}$, where $\Omega=\rho/\rho_c$ with $\rho_c$ the critical energy density, and $\Omega_{\gamma}=(H_1/H)^2(a_1/a)^4$. Thus expressing the critical energy density in terms of the $D$-dimensional Planck mass $M_D$, $\rho_c=\frac{3}{8\pi}R^nM_D^{n+2}H^2$, leads to $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega_k)=\frac{16}{3}\frac{8\pi}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}\frac{\pi^{1+\frac{n}{2}}}
{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}a^{-n}
\left(\frac{H_1}{M_D}\right)^{n+2}
\left(\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^{4+n}
\int_0^{Y_{max}} dY Y^{n-1}\left[1+Y^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
|c_{-}|^2,
\label{rk}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_1\equiv\frac{k_1}{a}$ and the maximal comoving wave number $k_1\sim H_1$. Furthermore, an upper cut-off $Y_{max}=\omega_{q_{max}}/\omega_k$ has been introduced. This is justified by the sudden transition approximation, which is used here, since at the transition time, $\eta=-\eta_1$, the metric is continuous but not its first derivative. This means that for modes with periods much larger than the duration of the transition phase, the transition phase can be treated as instantaneous. However, without an upper cut-off this type of approximation leads to an ultraviolet divergence [@div].
For $q>0$ and $n=1$, that is one extra dimension, continuously matching at $\eta=-\eta_1$ the solutions (\[p-n1\]) and (\[psi-rad\]) on superhorizon scales $k\eta_1\ll 1$, $q\eta_1\ll 1$ leads to the following Bogoliubov coefficients for $\omega_q/\omega_k<1$ and $\omega_q/\omega_k>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-}e^{ik\eta_1}&\sim&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k\eta_1}}
\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\ln k\eta_1-ik\eta_1\ln k\eta_1\right]e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}
\hspace{2.2cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.2cm}Y<1,\\
c_{-}e^{i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}}&\sim&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q\eta_1}}
\left[
1+\frac{1}{2}\ln k\eta_1-i q\eta_1\ln k\eta_1
\right]e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}
\hspace{2.2cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.2cm}Y>1. \end{aligned}$$ Neglecting subleading terms, it follows that the ratio $r(\omega_k)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega_k)\sim
\frac{1}{3\pi^3}\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^3
\left(\frac{M_5}{M_4}\right)^{-3}
\left(\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^3
\left(\ln \frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^2
\frac{\omega_{q_{max}}}{\omega_1},
\label{rn1q}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{q_{max}}(\eta)=\frac{q_{max}}{b}$ and it was assumed that $\omega_{q_{max}}>\omega_k$.
The case $Y<1$ includes the limit $q=0$. Therefore together with $\rho_{em}(\omega_k)=2\frac{\omega_k^4}{\pi^2}|c_{-}(\omega_k)|^2$ the following expression for the ratio of magnetic to background radiation energy density is obtained for $q=0$, $n=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega_k)\sim\frac{2}{3\pi^2}\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^2
\left(\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^3
\left(\ln\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^2.
\label{rn1q0}\end{aligned}$$
For more than one extra dimension, $n>1$, the solutions for $\Psi_l$ and $\Psi_l'$ for $\eta<-\eta_1$ and $\eta>-\eta_1$ are matched at $\eta=-\eta_1$ for $Y<1$ and $Y>1$ for superhorizon modes, $k\eta_1\ll 1$, $q\eta_1\ll 1$. This leads to the following expressions for the Bogoliubov coefficient $c_{-}$ $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-}e^{ik\eta_1}&\sim&\frac{2^{\mu-\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\Gamma(\mu)
\left(k\eta_1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu}
\left[\left(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{1}{k\eta_1}+i\right]e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}
\hspace{2.2cm}
{\rm for} \hspace{0.5cm} Y<1,
\label{c1}
\\
c_{-}e^{i\frac{q\eta_1}{2}}&\sim&\frac{2^{\mu\kappa-\frac{3}{2}}}
{\sqrt{\pi}}\Gamma(\mu\kappa)\left(\kappa q\eta_1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu\kappa}
\left[\left(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{1}{q\eta_1}+i\right]e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}
\hspace{1.5cm}
{\rm for} \hspace{0.5cm} Y>1.
\label{c2}\end{aligned}$$
Using the expressions for $|c_{-}|$ for $Y<1$ and $Y>1$, as provided by equations (\[c1\]) and (\[c2\]) for more than one extra dimension, $n>1$, leads to the ratio of magnetic spectral energy density to background radiation density, $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega_k)&\sim& {\cal N}
a^{1+2\mu\kappa-n}
\left(\frac{H_1}{M_D}\right)^{n+2}
\left(\frac{\omega_{q_{max}}}{\omega_1}\right)^{n-2\mu\kappa}
\left(\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^3
\label{ro}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}&\equiv& \frac{16}{3}\frac{8\pi}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}
\frac{\pi^{1+\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
\frac{2^{2\mu\kappa-3}}{\pi(n-2\mu\kappa)}\Gamma^2(\mu\kappa)
\kappa^{1-2\mu\kappa}
\left(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where subleading terms have been omitted and $\omega_{q_{max}}>\omega_k$ was assumed. The resulting spectrum is growing in frequency.
The expression for $q=0$ can be derived using the expression for $c_{-}$ for $Y<1$ (cf. equation (\[c1\])). Together with $\rho_{em}=2\frac{\omega^4}{\pi^2}|c_{-}|^2$ this implies for $q=0$, $n>1$ $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega_k)\sim \frac{2^{n\lambda-2}}{3\pi^2}
\Gamma^2\left(\frac{n\lambda-1}{2}\right)
\left(2-n\lambda\right)^2\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^2
\left(\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_1}\right)^{4-n\lambda}.
\label{roq0}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $n\lambda=\sqrt{\frac{3n}{n+2}}$. Since $n\lambda<4$ the resulting spectrum for $r(\omega_k)$ is increasing in frequency.
Constraining the model
======================
The expressions for the ratio $r(\omega_k)$ determining the ratio of the energy density of the magnetic field in comparison with the energy density of the background radiation contain several parameters apart from the physical frequencies $\omega_k$ and $\omega_{q_{max}}$. The free parameters are the Hubble parameter at the time of transition $H_1$, the $D$-dimensional Planck mass $M_D$ and the number of extra dimensions $n$.
There are several constraints from observations. $r(\omega_k)$ has to be less than one for all frequencies in order not to overclose the universe. For $r(\omega_k)$ increasing with frequency this implies $r(\omega_1)<1$. This is the case for the spectra given by equations (\[ro\]) and (\[roq0\]) applicable for backgrounds with more than one extra dimension. In the case of one extra dimension the expressions for $r(\omega_k)$ (cf. equations (\[rn1q\]) and (\[rn1q0\])) have a maximum at some frequency $\omega_2$. Thus the constraint $r(\omega_2)<1$ is imposed.
Newtonian gravity has been tested down to length scales of the order of 1 mm [@1mm]. This implies the constraint $\frac{M_D}{M_4}\geq (1.616\times 10^{-32})^{\frac{n}{n+2}}$. Furthermore, with $T_1$ the temperature at the beginning of the radiation epoch, big bang nucleosynthesis requires that $T_1> 10$ MeV. This imposes a bound on $H_1$ by using $\frac{H_1}{M_4}=1.66 g_{*}^{\frac{1}{2}}(T_1)\left(
\frac{T_1}{M_4}\right)^2$, where for $T_1>300$ GeV the number of effective degrees of freedom is given by $g_{*}(T_1)=106.75$ [@kt], namely, $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}>-40.94$.
The ratio $r$ calculated at the galactic scale $\omega_G^{-1}$ of order of 1 Mpc determines the strength of the primordial seed magnetic field at the time of galaxy formation. In the standard picture of a galactic magnetic dynamo operating since the time of galaxy formation, a seed magnetic field of at least $B_s\sim 10^{-20}$G [@rees], corresponding to $r(\omega_G)>10^{-37}$, is needed to explain the currently observed galactic magnetic field of a few $\mu$G [@rees]. However, taking into account a non-vanishing cosmological constant, it was shown in [@dlt] that initial magnetic seed field strengths can be much below $10^{-20}$G. Thus $r(\omega_G)$ can be as low as $10^{-57}$ and correspondingly the magnetic seed field $B_s\sim 10^{-30}$ G.
In the following, using the constraint $r(\omega_1)<1$ or $r(\omega_2)<1$, respectively, the constraint from the size of the extra dimension and from big bang nucleosynthesis an upper limit on the ratio $r(\omega_G)$ and thus the strength of the magnetic seed field strength at the time of galaxy formation is derived. The strength of the seed field in terms of $r$ is given by $B_s\sim 3 r^{\frac{1}{2}}\times 10^{-2}$ G [@tw].
In addition, the maximally amplified frequency calculated with respect to present day $\omega_1(\eta_0)$ is given by $\omega_1\sim 6\times 10^{11}{\rm Hz}
\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and the frequency corresponding to galactic scale, $\omega_G\sim 10^{-14}$Hz [@giov]. Furthermore, $r(\omega_G)$ is assumed to be of the form $r(\omega_G)=10^{-m}$ where the exponent $m$ will be constrained by observational bounds. In the standard picture of the galactic dynamo, $m\leq 37$. In the following an upper bound on $-m$ will be found.
For one extra dimension, $n=1$, the spectra (\[rn1q\]) and (\[rn1q0\]) have a maximum at $\frac{\omega_2}{\omega_1}=e^{-\frac{2}{3}}$. Thus the constraint of the critical density is imposed by requiring $r(\omega_2)<1$.
In the case where the momenta lying in the extra dimension are not taken into account, that is $q=0$, $r(\omega_G)=10^{-m}$ where $\omega_G=10^{-14}$Hz implies, $$\begin{aligned}
-m=\log\frac{2}{3\pi^2}+\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}
+3\log\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}
+\log\left[\ln\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}
-1.1513\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right]^2.\end{aligned}$$ Big bang nucleosynthesis requires $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}>-40.94$ and the constraint $r(\omega_2)<1$ implies $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}<1.2$. Evaluating $m$ at the upper limit $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}=1.2$ gives $r(\omega_G)<10^{-74}$ corresponding to a magnetic seed field strength of $B_s<10^{-39}$ G. Thus magnetic fields created in this setting are too weak in order to seed the galactic magnetic dynamo.
For $q>0$ and $n=1$ the various constraints mentioned above applied to the expression for $r(\omega_k)$ (cf. equation (\[rn1q\])) lead to the constraint on $m$ $$\begin{aligned}
-m<\log\frac{9e^2}{4}+3\log\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}-\frac{3}{2}
\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}
+\log\left[
\ln\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}
-1.1513\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}
\right]^2.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating $m$ at the lower bound $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}=-40.94$ results in the bound $r(\omega_G)<10^{-13}$ corresponding to a magnetic seed field strength of $B_s<10^{-8}$ G. Thus in this case the lower bound on the magnetic seed field imposed by the galactic dynamo can be satisfied easily.
Assuming that $T_1\sim M_D$ results in an additional constraint on $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}$ by using the bound on the size of the extra dimensions. Namely, for any $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}>\log 17.15+\frac{2n}{n+2}\log(1.616\times 10^{-32}).
\label{h1}\end{aligned}$$
This gives a bound on $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}$ stronger than the one from big bang nucleosynthesis only upto three extra dimensions $n\leq 3$. In particular in the case at hand, for $n=1$, it implies $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}>-19.96$. Evaluating $m$ at this value of $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}$ leads to $r(\omega_G)<10^{-43}$ and correspondingly the magnetic seed field strength $B_s<10^{-23}$ G. Thus in the case where $T_1\sim M_5$ the created magnetic seed field satisfies the weaker bound of $B_s>10^{-30}$ G.
For more than one extra dimension $n>1$ and $q>0$ the constraint on $r(\omega_k)$ (cf. equation (\[ro\])) at $\omega_1$ together with $r(\omega_G)=10^{-m}$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
-m<-\frac{3}{2}\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}+3\log\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the constraint from big bang nucleosynthesis $\log\frac{H_1}{M_4}>
-40.94$ results in $-m<-15.9$ and thus $r(\omega_G)<10^{-16}$ and hence seed magnetic fields with strengths upto $B_s<10^{-10}$ G can be created. Assuming that the temperature at the beginning of the radiation epoch, $T_1$, is given by $M_D$, that is $T_1\sim M_D$, changes the bound on $m$ for two and three extra dimensions (cf. equation (\[h1\])). In this case, for $n=2$ extra dimensions, $-m<-31.5$ implying $r(\omega_G)<10^{-32}$ and the magnetic field strength $B_s<10^{-18}$ G. For $n=3$ extra dimensions, $-m<-21.95$ and hence $r(\omega_G)<10^{-22}$ and the magnetic field strength $B_s<10^{-13}$G.
This is to be compared with the case where the internal momenta are not taken into account [@giov]. Applying the constraints to equation (\[roq0\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
-m<\left(1-\frac{n\lambda}{4}\right)
\log\left[\frac{2^{n\lambda-2}}{3\pi^2}
\Gamma^2\left(\frac{n\lambda-1}{2}\right)\left(2-n\lambda\right)^2
\right]+\left(4-n\lambda\right)\log\frac{10^{-14}}{6\times 10^{11}}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case the bound on $-m$ depends on the number of extra dimensions $n$. This is related to the fact that the spectral index in the expression for $r(\omega_k)$ (cf. equation (\[roq0\])) is given by $4-n\lambda$ and thus depends explicitly on the number of dimensions. In the case, where $n>1$ and $q>0$, the spectral index is 3, independent of the number of extra dimensions. In figure \[fig\] the magnetic seed field strength $B_s$ is plotted as a function of the number of extra dimensions $n$ in the case $n>1$, $q=0$. As can be seen the resulting values for $B_s$ are very small, much below even the weaker constraint, $B_s>10^{-30}$G [@dlt].
=2.5in
In the cases $n=1$ and $n>1$ for $q>0$, $\omega_{q_{max}}=q_{max}/b$ appears as a parameter in the expressions for $r(\omega_k)$ (cf. equations (\[rn1q\]) and (\[ro\])). Assuming that $q_{max}\sim k_1$ leads to $\omega_{q_{max}}/\omega_1\sim a$. Using this in $r(\omega_2)<1$, for $n=1$, and in $r(\omega_1)<1$, for $n>1$, leads in both cases to a constraint of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_{*}a_0\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^{n+2}\left(
\frac{M_D}{M_4}\right)^{-(n+2)}<1,
\label{md}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}_{*}=\frac{4}{27e^2\pi^3}$ for $n=1$ and ${\cal N}_{*}={\cal N}$ for $n>1$. If there are no additional constraints then equation (\[md\]) implies a lower bound on $M_D/M_4$, which has to be compared with the lower bound provided by the size of the extra dimensions. However, if in addition $T_1\sim M_D$ is imposed, then equation (\[md\]) together with $\frac{H_1}{M_4}\sim 1.66
g_{*}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{M_D}{M_4}\right)^2$ implies an upper bound on $M_D/M_4$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\log\frac{M_D}{M_4}<-\frac{\log\left(3\times 10^{31}{\cal N}_{*}\right)}
{n+3}-\frac{n+\frac{5}{2}}{n+3}\log 1.66g_{*}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_0\sim 3\times 10^{31}\left(\frac{H_1}{M_4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ was used. This bound is always larger than the lower bound on $\log\frac{M_D}{M_4}$ provided by the size of the extra dimensions. Thus, the assumption $T_1\sim M_D$ is consistent with the various constraints. Moreover, although this upper bound on $M_D/M_4$ leads to an upper bound on $H_1/M_4$, the maximal strength of the magnetic seed field is not changed, since for $n\geq 1, q>0$ this was evaluated at the lower boundary of $\log \frac{H_1}{M_4}$.
Conclusions
===========
The origin of magnetic fields on galactic and extragalactic scales is still an open problem. Different types of mechanisms have been proposed. In particular, in [@giov] the creation of magnetic fields due to dynamical extra dimensions was proposed. Along these lines, here, a model consisting of two phases has been investigated. A higher dimensional epoch with three expanding, external (spatial) dimensions and $n$ contracting, internal dimensions is matched to a standard radiation dominated phase with static extra dimensions. Taking the internal momenta into account the final expression for the ratio $r$ of magnetic field energy density to background radiation energy density is obtained by integrating over the internal modes. In doing so the sudden approximation requires the introduction of a maximal frequency in the internal momentum space. The resulting spectrum is constrained by imposing bounds from observations, such as, the constraint from critical energy density, the size of the extra dimensions and big bang nucleosynthesis.
For one extra dimension, $n=1$, it was found that in the case where the momenta along the extra dimension are not taken into account, $q=0$, only very weak magnetic seed fields are created, $B_s<10^{-39}$ G. However, in the case $q>0$ magnetic seed fields as strong as $10^{-8}$ G can be obtained in general. Imposing the additional constraint $T_1\sim M_5$ leads to magnetic seed fields $B_s<10^{-23}$ G which satisfy the lower bound in a $\Lambda$ universe [@dlt].
In models with more than one extra dimension, $n>1$, strong magnetic seed fields can be created if the internal momenta are taken into account. In particular, not assuming that the temperature at the beginning of the radiation epoch is of the order of the $D$-dimensional Planck scale allows for the creation of seed magnetic fields with strengths of upto $10^{-10}$ G. For more than three extra dimensions, this also holds if $T_1\sim M_D$ is assumed. With this assumption for two and three extra dimensions results in weaker magnetic seed fields, with maximal field strengths, $B_s<10^{-18}$ G for two extra dimensions and $B_s<10^{-13}$G for three extra dimensions.
Therefore, in this particular model with extra dimensions, taking into account the momenta along the extra dimensions allows for the creation of strong magnetic fields.
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank M. A. Vázquez-Mozo for useful discussions. This work has been supported by the programme “Ramón y Cajal” of the M.E.C. (Spain). Partial support by Spanish Science Ministry Grants FPA 2002-02037 and BFM 2003-02121 is acknowledged.
[99]{} P.P. Kronberg, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**57**]{} (1994) 325; E. G. Zweibel and C. Heiles, Nature [**385**]{} (1997) 131; M. Giovannini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**13**]{} (2004) 391.
L. M. Widrow, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{} (2002) 775.
D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rep. [**348**]{} (2001) 163.
U. Klein, R. Wielebinski and H. W. Morsi, Astron. Astrophys. [**190**]{} (1988) 41.
J. A. Eilek, in “Diffuse Thermal and Relativistic Plasma in Galaxy Clusters” Ed. by Hans Bohringer, Luigina Feretti, Peter Schuecker. Garching, Germany (1999). (arXiv:astro-ph/9906485)
K.-T. Kim, P. P. Kronberg, G. Giovannini and T. Venturi, Nature [**341**]{} (1989) 720.
J. D. Barrow, P. G. Ferreira and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} (1997) 3610; R. Durrer, T. Kahniashvili and A. Yates, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 123004; K. Subramanian and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 3575.
B. l. Cheng, D. N. Schramm and J. W. Truran, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 5006; B. l. Cheng, A. V. Olinto, D. N. Schramm and J. W. Truran, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 4714; D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Lett. B [**379**]{} (1996) 73; P. J. Kernan, G. D. Starkman and T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 7207.
M. J. Rees, Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. [**28**]{} (1987) 197.
A. C. Davis, M. Lilley and O. Tornkvist, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 021301.
M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{} (1988) 2743;
B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. [**391**]{} (1992) L1; D. Lemoine and M. Lemoine, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 1955; M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 3796.
M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 123505.
R. Durrer and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 123504; R. Durrer, K. E. Kunze and M. Sakellariadou, New Astron. Rev. [**46**]{} (2002) 659.
K. E. Kunze and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 104005.
P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**460**]{} (1996) 506
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{} (1998) 263; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{} (1998) 257; V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Usp. [**44**]{} (2001) 871 \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**171**]{} (2001) 913\].
C. D. Hoyle, U. Schmidt, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, D. J. Kapner and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 1418.
M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 595.
, ed. by M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Dover Publications, New York, 1965).
B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{} (1974) 3263; J. Garriga and E. Verdaguer, Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{} (1989) 1072; M. R. de Garcia Maia and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{} (1994) 6262.
E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, [*The Early Universe*]{}, Redwood City, USA: Addison-Wesley (1990).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gross and Popescu conjectured that the homogeneous ideal of an embedded $(1,d)$-polarized abelian surface is generated by quadrics and cubics for $d\geq 9$. We prove a generalization of this using the projective normality of the embedding. It follows that the homogeneous ideal of an abelian surface embedded by a complete linear system is generated by quadrics and cubics, with three exceptions.'
address: |
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin\
Institut für Mathematik\
Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin Germany
author:
- Daniele Agostini
title: A note on homogeneous ideals of polarized abelian surfaces
---
=1
Introduction
============
We will always work over $\mathbb{C}$, but the same arguments work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$.
In their paper [[@gross_popescu]]{} Gross and Popescu proved that if $(A,L)$ is a general polarized abelian surface of type $(1,d)$ with $d\geq 10$, then its homogeneous ideal in the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ is generated by quadrics. At the end of the same paper, they formulated the following conjecture:
[[@gross_popescu Conjecture (a)]]{} Let $(A,L)$ be a polarized abelian surface of type $(1,d)$ such that $L$ is very ample and $d\geq 9$. Then the homogeneous ideal of $A$ in the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ is generated by quadrics and cubics.
This result was already proven for $d=7$ by Manolache and Schreyer in [[@manolache_schreyer Corollary 2.2]]{}, where they show that the ideal is generated by cubics and compute the whole minimal free resolution. The case $d=8$ was proven by Gross and Popescu [[@gross_popescu_cyi Theorem 6.13]]{} for a general abelian surface and the cases $d\geq 23$ were recently proved by Küronya and Lozovanu [[@kuronya_lozovanu Theorem 1.3]]{} as a consequence of their Reider-type result for higher syzygies on such surfaces.
The purpose of this note is to give a simple unified proof of the following:
\[proposition\] Let $(A,L)$ be a polarized abelian surface of type $(1,d)$ such that $L$ is very ample and $d\geq 7$. Then the homogeneous ideal of $A$ in the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(L))$ is generated by quadrics and cubics.
The proof we give is based on a simple application of Koszul cohomology, together with the following result of Lazarsfeld and Fuentes García:
\[projectivenormality\] Let $(A,L)$ be a polarized abelian surface of type $(1,d)$ such that $L$ is very ample and $d\geq 7$. Then the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ is projectively normal.
Proposition \[proposition\] and previous results give the following:
\[theoremideal\] Let $(A,L)$ be a polarized abelian surfaces with $L$ is very ample and not of type $(1,5),(1,6),(2,4)$. Then the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ is projectively normal and the homogeneous ideal of $A$ is generated by quadrics and cubics.
**Acknowledgments**: I am very grateful to Robert Lazarsfeld for having made available to me the paper [[@lazarsfeld]]{} and for allowing me to reproduce a part of it here. I would like to thank Ciro Ciliberto and Edoardo Sernesi for helpful discussions. I am happy to thank my advisor Gavril Farkas for his suggestion to study this question and for his advice. I would also like to thank the referee for the helpful comments.
Koszul cohomology
==================
Koszul cohomology is a language introduced by Green [[@green]]{} to study minimal free resolutions. We recall here its basic definitions and properties. Let $X$ be an integral projective variety of positive dimension and $L$ a very ample line bundle on $X$. For every vector bundle $E$ on $X$ we can form the group $$\Gamma(X,E,L) = \bigoplus_{q\in \mathbb{Z}} H^0(X,L^{q} \otimes E)$$ which has a natural structure of a finitely generated $S=\text{Sym}^{\bullet}(H^0(X,L))$-module. In particular we can take its *minimal free resolution*: $$0 \longleftarrow \Gamma(X,E,L) \longleftarrow F_0 \longleftarrow F_1 \longleftarrow \dots \longleftarrow F_p \longleftarrow \dots F_n \longleftarrow 0$$ where every $F_p$ is a graded free $S$-module: $$F_p = \bigoplus_{q\in \mathbb{Z}} K_{p,q}(X,E,L) \otimes_{\mathbb{C}} S(-p-q).$$ The vector spaces $K_{p,q}(X,E,L)$ are called the *Koszul cohomology groups* of $(X,E,L)$ and they can also be computed as the middle cohomology of the *Koszul complex* (see [[@green Theorem 1.b.4]]{}):
$$\label{koszulcomplex} \wedge^{p+1}H^0(X,L) \otimes H^0(X,E \otimes L^{q-1}) \longrightarrow \wedge^p H^0(X,L) \otimes H^0(X,E \otimes L^q) \longrightarrow \wedge^{p-1}H^0(X,L) \otimes H^0(X,E \otimes L^{q+1})$$
If $E=\mathcal{O}_X$ we denote $K_{p,q}(X,L) : {\overset{\text{def}}{=}}K_{p,q}(X,E,L)$.
\[remark\] From the Koszul complex we see immediately that $K_{p,q}(X,L)=0$ for $q<0$ or $q=0, p>0$. Moreover we also see that the embedding $X\hookrightarrow \mathbb{P}(H^0(X,L))$ is projectively normal if and only if $K_{0,q}(X,L)=0$ for all $q\geq 2$. In this case, the minimal free resolution of the ideal $I_X$ is given by $$0 \longleftarrow I_X \longleftarrow F_1 \longleftarrow \dots \longleftarrow F_p \longleftarrow \dots F_n \longleftarrow 0$$ so that $I_X$ is generated by quadrics and cubics if and only if the only factors appearing in $F_1$ are $S(-2)$ and $S(-3)$ which means that $K_{1,q}(X,L)=0$ for all $q\geq 3$.
We will need a duality theorem for Koszul cohomology:
[[@green Theorem 2.c.6]]{}\[greendualitytheorem\] Let $X$ be a smooth integral projective variety, $L$ a very ample line bundle on $X$ and $E$ a vector bundle on $X$. Set $r=h^0(X,L)-1$ and suppose that $$H^i(X,E \otimes L^{q-i}) = H^i(X,E \otimes L^{q-1-i})=0 \qquad \text{ for all } i=1,\dots,\dim X-1$$ Then there is an isomorphism $$K_{p,q}(X,E,L)^{\vee} \cong K_{r-{\dim X}-p,\dim X+1-q}(X,\omega_X \otimes E^{\vee},L).$$
In the case of abelian surfaces, the canonical bundle is trivial, so that we get the following lemma.
\[stupidlemma\] Let $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(L))$ be an abelian surface embedded by a complete linear system. Then if the embedding is projectively normal, the homogeneous ideal of $A$ is generated by quadrics and cubics.
By Remark \[remark\], we just need to prove that $K_{1,q}(A,L)=0$ for all $q\geq 3$. Set $r=h^0(A,L)-1$, then Theorem \[greendualitytheorem\] gives an isomorphism $$K_{1,q}(A,L)^{\vee} \cong K_{r-3,3-q}(A,L)$$ and the group on the right is zero because of Remark \[remark\].
Projective normality of polarized abelian surfaces
==================================================
The key result that we are going to use is Theorem \[projectivenormality\]: this was proven by Lazarsfeld [[@lazarsfeld]]{} in the cases $d=7,9,11$ and $d\geq 13$. The remaining cases $d=8,10,12$ were solved by Fuentes García [[@fuentesgarcia]]{}.
We would like to sketch here the proof, in particular because the original preprint [[@lazarsfeld]]{} is quite hard to find. We would like to emphasize that all the results and the ideas of this section are due to Lazarsfeld and Fuentes García. Our only contribution is in the presentation of the argument.
First observe the following:
Let $A$ be an abelian surface and $L$ a very ample line bundle on it. Then the embedding $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ is projectively normal if and only if the multiplication map $$\text{Sym}^2 H^0(A,L) \longrightarrow H^0(A,L^2)$$ is surjective.
This is proven for an abelian variety of any dimension by Iyer in [[@iyer_surfaces Proposition 2.1]]{}. In the case of abelian surfaces, we can give a quick proof via Koszul cohomology as follows: suppose that the above multiplication map is surjective, then by definition $K_{0,2}(A,L)=0$ and by Remark \[remark\] we just need to prove that $K_{0,q}(A,L)=0$ for all $q\geq 3$. In this case we see that $H^1(A,L^{q-1}) = H^1(A,L^{q-2})=0$ so that Theorem \[greendualitytheorem\] gives $$K_{0,2}(A,L)^{\vee} \cong K_{r-2,3-q}(A,L)$$ where $r=h^0(L)-1$. Now, it is enough to observe that $r-2>0$ (since $L$ is very ample) and $3-q\leq 0$ by hypothesis, so Remark \[remark\] gives $K_{r-2,3-q}(A,L)=0$.
Now, let us fix an embedded polarized abelian surface $A \subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))$ with $L$ of type $(1,d)$ and $d\geq 7$. There is an exact sequence $$\label{multiplicationmap} 0 \longrightarrow I \longrightarrow \text{Sym}^2 H^0(A,L) \longrightarrow H^0(A,L^2) \longrightarrow U \longrightarrow 0$$ and we want to prove $U=0$. Lazarsfeld [[@lazarsfeld]]{} makes the following observation:
\[boundonu\] With the above notations, we have $\dim U \leq 6$.
The argument given here is different from the one in [[@lazarsfeld]]{} and it is a slight clarification of the one given in [[@fuentesgarcia_arxiv]]{}. It is based on the following lemma.
\[boundonquadrics\] Let $X\subseteq \mathbb{P}^N$ be a nondegenerate integral surface of degree $t$. Then $$\dim H^0(\mathbb{P}^N,\mathscr{I}_{X/\mathbb{P}^N}(2)) \leq \frac{N(N-1)}{2} - \min\{t,2N-5\}$$
First recall that $t\geq N-1$ (see [[@eisenbud_harris Proposition 0]]{}). Now choose $H\subseteq \mathbb{P}^N$ to be a general linear subspace of codimension 2. Then $H\cap X$ consists of $t$ distinct points in linearly general position in $H$: in particular, they span $H$, since $t\geq \dim H +1$.
Now we observe that there is no quadric $Q\subseteq \mathbb{P}^N$ containing both $X$ and $H$. Indeed, suppose that there is such a $Q$: then, since $X$ is nondegenerate it would have rank at least $3$ so that its singular locus $\text{Sing}(Q)$ is a linear subspace of codimension at least 3, which cannot contain $H\cap X$. This shows that $X\cap H\cap (Q\setminus \text{Sing}(Q)) \ne \emptyset$ and since $H\cap (Q\setminus \text{Sing}(Q))$ is a Cartier divisor on $Q\setminus \text{Sing}(Q)$ it follows from Krull’s principal ideal theorem that every irreducible component of $ X\cap H \cap (Q\setminus \text{Sing}(Q))$ has positive dimension, which gives a contradiction.
This shows that the restriction map $$H^0(\mathbb{P}^N,\mathscr{I}_{X/\mathbb{P}^N}(2)) \longrightarrow H^0(H,\mathscr{I}_{X\cap H /H}(2))$$ is injective. To conclude, we can just apply Castelnuovo’s argument for which $t\geq N-1$ points in linearly general position in $\mathbb{P}^{N-2}$ impose at least $\min \{t,2N-5\}$ independent conditions on quadrics (see [[@acgh Lemma p.115]]{}).
Now it is immediate to prove Lemma \[boundonu\]: we have $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(A,L))\cong \mathbb{P}^{d-1}$ of degree $2d$, so that applying Lemma \[boundonquadrics\] we obtain $$\dim U = \dim H^0(A,L^2) - \dim \text{Sym}^2H^0(A,L) + \dim I \leq 4d - \binom{d+1}{2} + \frac{d(d-7)}{2} + 6 = 6$$
Then it is enough to show that if $U\ne 0$, then $\dim U \geq 7$. Lazarsfeld’s idea is to use the Heisenberg group associated to $(A,L)$.
The Heisenberg group
--------------------
Recall that to $(A,L)$ we can associate the two groups $K(L)=\{x\in X | t_x^*L \cong L\}$ and $G(L)=\{(\alpha,x)|\alpha\colon L \to t_x^*L \text{ isomorphism }\}$. The group $G(L)$ is called the *Heisenberg group* of $L$ and it is a central extension of $K(L)$ by $\mathbb{C}^*$ [[@mumford_equations Theorem 1]]{}: $$1 \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^* \longrightarrow G(L) \longrightarrow K(L) \longrightarrow 0$$ A linear representation of $G(L)$ where $\mathbb{C}^*$ acts by the character $\lambda \mapsto \lambda^k$ is called a *representation of weight $k$*. The space $H^0(A,L)$ has a natural linear action of $G(L)$ given by $(\alpha,x)\cdot \sigma = t_{-x}^{*}(\alpha(\sigma))$ and, up to isomorphism, this is the unique irreducible representation of $G(L)$ of weight 1 (see [[@mumford_equations Proposition 3, Theorem 2]]{}). This representation induces other representations of weight $2$ on $\text{Sym}^2 H^0(A,L)$ and $H^0(A,L^2)$ such that the multiplication map (\[multiplicationmap\]) is $G(L)$-equivariant. In particular, $I$ and $U$ can be regarded as $G(L)$-representations of weight $2$. The irreducible ones have been classified by Iyer [[@iyer_surfaces Proposition 3.2]]{}.
\[irredrepr\] Let $(A,L)$ be a polarized abelian surface of type $(1,d)$. Then
1. if $d$ is odd, there is, up to isomorphism, a unique irreducible $G(L)$-representation of weight $2$. This representation has dimension $d$.
2. if $d=2m$ is even, then there are, up to isomorphism, four distinct $G(L)$-representations of weight $2$. Each irreducible representation has dimension $m$.
This proves Theorem \[projectivenormality\] for most cases:
Suppose that $d$ is odd and greater than $7$ or even and greater than $14$. Assume by contradiction that in \[multiplicationmap\] we have $U\ne 0$: then, since $U$ is a $G(L)$-representation it must be by Proposition \[irredrepr\] that $\dim U \geq 7$. However, this is impossible because $\dim U \leq 6$ by Lemma \[boundonu\].
This leaves the cases $d=8,10,12$, which were solved by Fuentes García in [[@fuentesgarcia]]{} using the involutions in $G(L)$ coming from the $2$-torsion points of $K(L)$, together with geometric results about polarized abelian surfaces of small degree.
\[projectivenormalitykuronyalozovanu\] Theorem \[projectivenormality\] can be proven for $d\geq 10$ also using the results of Küronya and Lozovanu: indeed in this case $(L)^2 \geq 20$, so that by [[@kuronya_lozovanu Theorem 1.1]]{} the embedding is not projectively normal if and only if there exists an elliptic curve $E\subseteq A$ such that $(E)^2=0$ and $(E\cdot L)=1,2$. In particular, $L_{|E}$ is not very ample so that $L$ cannot be very ample.
Homogeneous ideals of polarized abelian surfaces
================================================
Now it is very easy to prove Proposition \[proposition\]:
Follows immediately from Theorem \[projectivenormality\] and Lemma \[stupidlemma\].
Theorem \[theoremideal\] instead is a consequence of the following:
\[classificationprojectivenormality\] Let $A\subseteq \mathbb{P}(H^0(L))$ be an abelian surface embedded by a complete linear system. Then the embedding is projectively normal, unless $L$ is of type $(1,5),(1,6),(2,4)$. In these cases, the embedding is never projectively normal.
Suppose that $L$ is of type $(d_1,d_1 m)$: if $d_1\geq 3$, then the result was first proven by Koizumi [@koizumi]. Another proof can be found in [[@birkenhake_lange Theorem 7.3.1]]{}.
If $d_1=2$ and $m\geq 3$ then projective normality follows from a result by Ohbuchi [@ohbuchi]. Alternatively, we can reason as in Remark \[projectivenormalitykuronyalozovanu\]. Ohbuchi also shows in [@ohbuchi Lemma 6] that if $m=2$, then $L$ is not projectively normal. For another proof of this, Barth has shown in [@barth Theorem 2.11] that the ideal $I_{A}$ contains precisely 6 linearly independent quadrics. Hence $\text{Sym}^2 H^0(A,L) \longrightarrow H^0(A,L^2)$ has image of dimension $36-6=30$, which is less than the dimension of $H^0(A,L^2)$.
If $d_1=1$, then this is Theorem \[projectivenormality\]. Observe that there cannot be projective normality for $L$ of type $(1,5)$ or $(1,6)$ because in these cases $\text{Sym}^2H^0(A,L)$ has dimension smaller than $H^0(A,L^2)$.
In all the other cases, it is easy to see that the line bundle cannot be very ample.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[classificationprojectivenormality\], Lemma \[stupidlemma\].
We can also say something about the exceptional cases: for a very ample line bundle of type $(1,5)$ Manolache has proven [[@manolache Theorem 1]]{} that the homogeneous ideal is generated by 3 quintics and 15 sextics. For the case $(1,6)$ Gross and Popescu [[@gross_popescu_cyi Remark 4.8.(2)]]{} have proven that the ideal sheaf of a general such abelian surface is generated by cubics and quartics. For the case $(2,4)$ Barth [[@barth Theorem 2.14,Theorem 4.9]]{} gives explicit quadrics which generate the ideal sheaf of the surface: it is then easy (for example with Macaulay2 [[@M2]]{}) to compute examples where the homogeneous ideal is generated by quadrics and quartics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a stabilised finite element formulation for the Kirchhoff plate obstacle problem and derive both a priori and residual-based a posteriori error estimates using conforming $C^1$-continuous finite elements. We implement the method as a Nitsche-type scheme and give numerical evidence for its effectiveness in the case of an elastic and a rigid obstacle.'
author:
- Tom Gustafsson
- Rolf Stenberg
- Juha Videman
bibliography:
- 'PlateObst.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'A stabilised finite element method for the plate obstacle problem[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The goal of this paper is to introduce a stabilised finite element method for the obstacle problem of clamped Kirchhoff plates and perform an a priori and a posteriori error analysis based on conforming finite element approximation of the displacement field. To our knowledge, stabilised $C^1$-continuous finite elements have not been previously analysed for fourth-order obstacle problems. Moreover, only a few articles exist on the a posteriori error analysis of fourth-order obstacle problems (cf. [@GudiPorwal2016; @Brenneretal2017]) and none on conforming $C^1$-continuous finite elements, most probably due to the limited regularity of the underlying continuous problem. Here, we consider a stabilised method based on a saddle point formulation which introduces the contact force as an additional unknown (Lagrange multiplier). We establish an a priori estimate with minimal regularity assumptions and derive residual-based a posteriori error estimators. The Lagrange multiplier formulation has the advantage of providing an approximation for the contact force and the unknown contact domain. Moreover, it can easily be implemented as a Nitsche-type method with only the primal displacement variable as an unknown in the resulting linear system.
In a recent paper [@GSV16], we considered two families of finite element methods for a second-order obstacle problem using a Lagrange multiplier formulation for including the obstacle constraint. The first was a family of mixed finite element methods for which the discrete spaces need to satisfy the Babu$\check{\rm s}$ka–Brezzi condition. This was achieved by using “bubble” degrees of freedom. The second was a family of stabilised methods for which the stability is guaranteed, for all finite element space pairs, by adding properly weighted residual terms to the discrete formulation. In the analysis of the stabilised formulation, we made use of recently developed tools for the Stokes problem [@SV15].
In [@GSV16], the analysis was focused on the membrane obstacle problem. The approach followed is, however, quite general and should thus, up to some modifications, be extendable to other problems. In this paper, we consider conforming $C^{1}$-continuous elements for clamped Kirchhoff plates constrained by a rigid or elastic obstacle. This kind of elements are rather complicated to work with and hence it does not seem reasonable to add artificial bubble degrees of freedom, in particular since the bubbles should belong to $H^{2} _{0}(K)$ at each element $K$. Therefore, we only address a stabilised formulation.
Numerical approximation of fourth-order obstacle-type problems has been previously studied in [@FusciardiScarpini80; @Glowinskietal84; @Scholtz87; @Brenneretal2012a; @Brenneretal2012b; @Brenneretal2013; @Brenneretal2017]. In [@FusciardiScarpini80; @Glowinskietal84] the authors considered mixed finite element methods and presented general convergence theorems without convergence rates. In [@Scholtz87], it was shown that using the penalty method and piecewise quadratic elements, the method converges with the (suboptimal) rate of $h^{1/3}$ in the energy norm. Brenner [et al.]{} [@Brenneretal2012a] made a unified a priori error analysis for classical conforming and non-conforming ($C^1$-continuous and $C^0$-continuous) finite element methods (see, [e.g.]{}, [@CiarletBook]) as well as for the $C^0$ interior penalty methods and showed $\mathcal{O}(h)$ convergence rate for all methods in convex domains, see also [@Brenneretal2012b; @Brenneretal2013] for some generalisations. The only existing a posteriori analyses on fourth-order obstacle-type problems are due to Brenner [et al.]{} [@Brenneretal2017] and Gudi and Porwal [@GudiPorwal2016], both performed on the $C^0$ interior penalty methods. In [@GudiPorwal2016], the authors also derive a priori error estimates with minimal regularity assumptions using the techniques developed by Gudi in [@Gudi2010] much in the same spirit as we do here, see also [@SV15; @GSV16].
All the above mentioned papers address the problem with a rigid obstacle. For the plate bending problem with an elastic obstacle, we refer to [@TosoneMaceri2003] for general convergence results in a mixed formulation and to [@Hanetal2006] for optimal a priori estimates for conforming and non-conforming methods in the primal formulation.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec:cont\], we formulate the continuous problem and show its stability. In Section \[sec:fem\], we define the stabilised finite element method and establish a discrete stability estimate as well as a priori and a posteriori error estimates. In Section \[sec:nitsche\], we derive the corresponding Nitsche’s method and discuss its implementation. Finally, in Section \[sec:numerical\], we report results of numerical computations on two example problems. In Sections 2 and 3, we will shorten (or omit) derivations that can be inferred from our work on the Kirchhoff plate source problem [@GSV18] and on the membrane obstacle problem [@GSV16].
The continuous problem {#sec:cont}
======================
Let us first recall the Kirchhoff–Love theory for thin plates (see, [e.g.]{}, [@FS]). We denote the infinitesimal strain tensor as $${\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v})=\frac12(\nabla \boldsymbol{v}+\nabla \boldsymbol{v}^T), \quad \forall \boldsymbol{v} \in \mathbb{R}^2,$$ and consider the following isotropic linear elastic constitutive relationship, valid under plane stress conditions, $${\mathbb{C}\,}\boldsymbol{A} = \frac{E}{1+\nu}\left( \boldsymbol{A} + \frac{\nu}{1-\nu} (\text{tr}\,\boldsymbol{A}) \boldsymbol{I}\right), \quad \forall \boldsymbol{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2},$$ where $E$ and $\nu$ are the Young’s modulus and the Poisson ratio. Letting $u$ stand for the deflection of the mid-surface of the plate and $d$ for the plate’s thickness, the curvature ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ and the bending moment ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ are defined as $${\boldsymbol{K}}(u) = -{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}(\nabla u), \qquad {\boldsymbol{M}}(u) = \frac{d^3}{12} {\mathbb{C}\,}{\boldsymbol{K}}(u).$$ Assume that $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is a polygonal domain occupied by (the mid-surface of) the thin plate. Since our interest lies in the obstacle problem, we will consider only clamped boundary conditions. The strain energy corresponding to a displacement $v$ of the plate is $\frac{1}{2} a(v,v)$, with $$a(w,v) = \int_\Omega {\boldsymbol{M}}(w) : {\boldsymbol{K}}(v) \,\mathrm{d}x.$$ The displacement is constrained by an obstacle, denoted by $g$, which is allowed to be either rigid or elastic. The energy resulting from contact with an elastic obstacle can be written as $$\frac{1}{2\epsilon} \int_{\Omega}(u-g)_-^2 \,\mathrm{d}x,$$ where $\epsilon>0$ is the inverse of an appropriately scaled “spring constant” and $$(u-g)_ {-} = \min\{u-g,0\}.$$ The loading consists of a distributed load $f \in L^2(\Omega)$ with the potential energy $$l(v)= \int_\Omega fv \,\mathrm{d}x.$$ The total energy thus reads as $$I(v)=\frac{1}{2} a(v,v) + \frac{1}{2\epsilon} \int_{\Omega}(v-g)_-^2 \,\mathrm{d}x- l(v).$$
The space of kinematically admissible displacements is denoted by $
V=H^2_0(\Omega).
$ The displacement function $u$ is thus obtained by minimising the energy, viz. $$I(u) \leq I(v) \quad \forall v\in V,$$ or by solving the weak formulation: Find $u\in V$ such that $$a(u,v) + \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big((u-g)_{-},v\big) = l(v), \quad \forall v\in V,
\label{firstweak}$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot) $ is the usual $L^2(\Omega)$ inner product. The reaction force between the obstacle and the plate is given by $$\label{lagdef}
\lambda= -\frac{1}{\epsilon} (u-g)_{-}.$$ In the limit $\epsilon\to 0$, the obstacle becomes rigid and the problem reduces to that of constrained minimisation $$\label{constprob}
u=\operatorname*{argmin}_{v\in K} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} a(v,v)-l(v) \Big],$$ with $$\label{constraint}
K=\{ \, v\in H^2_0(\Omega) : v\geq g \ \mbox{in} \ \Omega\,\}.$$ At the same time, the reaction force $\lambda$ converges to the Lagrange multiplier associated with the constraint $v\geq g$.
The plate obstacle problem can be investigated based on the variational inequality formulation of problem (see [@Scholtz87; @Brenneretal2012a; @Brenneretal2012b; @Brenneretal2013]): Find $u\in K$ such that $$a(u, v-u)\geq l(v-u), \quad \forall v\in K.$$ Here, we rewrite the problem using $\lambda$ as an independent unknown to obtain a perturbed saddle point problem. From it follows that the reaction force is non-negative, i.e. it belongs to the set $${\varLambda}= \{ \mu \in Q : \langle v, \mu \rangle \geq 0~\forall v \in V \text{~s.t.} \ v \geq 0 \text{~a.e.~in $\Omega$}\},$$ where the function space for the Lagrange multiplier is defined as $$Q = \begin{cases}
L^2(\Omega), & \text{if $\epsilon>0$}, \\
H^{-2}(\Omega), & \text{if $\epsilon=0$},
\end{cases}$$ and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle : Q^\prime \times Q \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denotes the duality pairing. We denote by $\|\cdot\|_k$ the usual norm in the Hilbert space $H^k(\Omega), k\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\|\cdot\|_0$ be the norm in $L^2(\Omega)$ and equip the space $ H^{-2}(\Omega)=[H^2_0(\Omega)]^\prime$ with the norm $$\|\xi\|_{-2} = \sup_{v \in V} \frac{\langle v, \xi \rangle}{\|v\|_2}.
\label{negatnorm}$$ Note that since the Lagrange multiplier in general belongs to $ H^{-2}(\Omega)$ in case of a rigid obstacle, the obstacle $g$ and the load $f$ could be such that the contact domain reduces to a point (or a finite number of points).
Under appropriate smoothness assumptions, the solution to the plate bending problem over a rigid obstacle is in $H^{3}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)\cap C^2(\Omega)$, in convex domains in $H^{3}(\Omega)$, cf. [@Frehse71; @CaffarelliFriedman79], but it cannot belong to $H^4(\Omega)$. The exact solutions given in [@Brenneretal2013; @Aleksanyan2016] seem to indicate that the smoothness threshold is $C^{2,1/2}(\Omega)$ or $H^{7/2-\varepsilon}(\Omega), \varepsilon>0$. The solution to the clamped plate bending problem is more regular if the obstacle is elastic. In fact, assuming that the obstacle and the loading term are in $L^2(\Omega)$, the regularity of the solution is determined by the regularity of the source problem, cf. [@Hanetal2006]. In particular, the solution belongs to $H^4(\Omega)$ if the interior angles of the domain $\Omega$ are smaller than $\approx126.284^\circ$, cf. [@BlumRannacher80].
Formulation (\[firstweak\]) can be written as: Find $u\in V$ and $\lambda \in {\varLambda}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
a(u,v) - \langle v, \lambda \rangle &= l(v), \quad \forall v\in V,
\label{weakform1} \\
\langle u - g + \epsilon \lambda, \mu - \lambda \rangle &\geq 0, \quad \quad \forall \mu \in {\varLambda}.
\label{weakform2} \end{aligned}$$
The stabilised finite element method exploits the strong form of the equations which we recall next. The static variables, the moment tensor ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ and the shear force ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$, satisfy the following equilibrium equations which, due to the loading and the Lagrange multiplier, have to be interpreted in the sense of distributions $$\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{div}\,}} {\boldsymbol{M}}(u) = {\boldsymbol{Q}}(u), \qquad - {\mathrm{div}\,}{\boldsymbol{Q}}(u)-\lambda = l.$$ A simple elimination leads to the equation $${\mathcal{A}}(u) -\lambda = l,$$ with the biharmonic operator $ {\mathcal{A}}(u)$ given by $${\mathcal{A}}(u) := D \Delta^2 u,$$ where $D$ stands for the bending stiffness defined through $$D = \frac{E d^3}{12(1-\nu^2)}.$$
The strong form of problem (\[weakform1\])-(\[weakform2\]) is thus: Find $u$ and $\lambda$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left.
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(u) - \lambda &= l\\
\lambda &\geq 0 \\
\frac{1}{\epsilon}(u-g)+\lambda &\geq 0 \\
\lambda\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}(u-g)+\lambda\right) &= 0
\label{strongform}
\end{aligned}
\quad \right\} \quad & \text{in $\Omega$,} \\[0.3cm]
u=0\ \mbox{ and } \
\frac{\partial u}{\partial n} =0 \quad \mbox{ on } \partial \Omega.
\end{aligned}$$
In case of a rigid obstacle, the first two equations in $(\ref{strongform})$ remain the same and the last two reduce to $$u-g\geq 0 \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega, \qquad \lambda(u-g) = 0 \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega.$$
Defining the bilinear and linear forms ${\mathcal{B}}:(V \times Q)\times(V \times Q)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and through $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{B}}(w,\xi;v,\mu) &= a(w,v)-\langle v, \xi \rangle - \langle w, \mu \rangle - \epsilon \langle \xi, \mu \rangle, \\
{\mathcal{L}}(v,\mu) &= (f,v) - \langle g, \mu \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ the variational problem (\[weakform1\])-(\[weakform2\]) can be reformulated as
Find $(u,\lambda) \in V \times {\varLambda}$ such that $${\mathcal{B}}(u,\lambda;v,\mu-\lambda) \leq {\mathcal{L}}(v,\mu-\lambda) \quad \forall (v,\mu) \in V \times {\varLambda}.
\label{bigvarform}$$
In the sequel, we will use the following norm in $V\times Q$ $${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (w,\xi)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} = \big(\|w\|_2^2 + \|\xi\|_{-2}^2 + \epsilon \, \|\xi\|_0^2\big)^{1/2},$$ with respect to which the bilinear form ${\mathcal{B}}$ is continuous. Moreover, we write $a \gtrsim b$ (or $a \lesssim b$) when $a \geq C b$ (or $a \leq C b$) for some positive constant $C$ independent of the finite element mesh and of the parameter $\epsilon$.
For every $(v,\mu) \in V \times Q$ there exists $w \in V$ such that $${\mathcal{B}}(v,\mu;w,-\mu) \gtrsim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (v,\mu)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2 \quad \text{and} \quad \|w\|_2 \lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (v,\mu)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}.
\label{contstab}$$
Define $p \in V$ through $$a(p,q) = \langle q, \mu \rangle \quad \forall q \in V.$$ From the continuity of the bilinear form $a$ it follows that $$\frac{\langle q, \mu \rangle}{\|q\|_2} = \frac{a(p,q)}{\|q\|_2} \lesssim \|p\|_2 \quad \forall q \in V.$$ Since $q$ is arbitrary, we have $$\label{cstab:dir1}
\|\mu\|_{-2} = \sup_{q \in V} \frac{\langle q, \mu \rangle}{\|q\|_2} \lesssim \|p\|_2.$$ Moreover, the coercivity of the bilinear form $a$ gives $$\label{cstab:dir2}
\|p\|_2^2 \lesssim a(p,p) = \langle p, \mu \rangle \leq \|\mu\|_{-2} \|p\|_2 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \|p\|_2 \lesssim \|\mu\|_{-2}.$$ Choosing $w = v-p$, noting that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{B}}(v,\mu;v-p,-\mu) & = a(v,v)-\langle v, \mu \rangle+\langle p, \mu \rangle+\epsilon \langle \mu, \mu \rangle \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \big( a(v,v)+a(p,p)\big) + \frac{1}{2} a(v-p,v-p)+a(p,p) +\epsilon\langle\mu,\mu\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ and applying inequalities and proves the result.
The finite element method {#sec:fem}
=========================
Let ${\mathcal{C}_h}$ be a conforming shape regular triangulation of $\Omega$ which we assume to be polygonal. The finite element subspaces are $$V_h \subset V, \quad Q_h \subset Q.$$ Moreover, we define $${\varLambda}_h = \{ \mu_h \in Q_h : \mu_h \geq 0 \text{~in $\Omega$}\} \subset {\varLambda}.$$ Let us introduce the stabilised bilinear and linear forms ${\mathcal{B}_h}$ and ${\mathcal{L}_h}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{B}_h}(w,\xi;v,\mu) &= {\mathcal{B}}(w,\xi;v,\mu) - \alpha \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4({\mathcal{A}}(w)-\xi,{\mathcal{A}}(v)-\mu)_K, \\
{\mathcal{L}_h}(v,\mu) &= {\mathcal{L}}(v,\mu) - \alpha \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4(f,{\mathcal{A}}(v)-\mu)_K,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha > 0$ is the stabilisation parameter.
\[prob:stab\] Find $(u_h,\lambda_h) \in V_h \times {\varLambda}_h$ such that $${\mathcal{B}_h}(u_h,\lambda_h;v_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) \leq {\mathcal{L}_h}(v_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) \quad \forall (v_h,\mu_h) \in V_h \times {\varLambda}_h.
\label{stabform}$$
For the existence of a unique solution to Problem \[prob:stab\], see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@BHR78].
Let us define the mesh-dependent norms $$\begin{aligned}
\|\xi_h\|_{-2,h}^2 &= \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|\xi_h\|_{0,K}^2, \\
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (w_h,\xi_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_h^2 &= \|w_h\|_2^2 + \|\xi_h\|_{-2}^2+ \|\xi_h\|_{-2,h}^2 + \epsilon \|\xi_h\|_0^2,\end{aligned}$$ and recall the following estimate.
There exists $C_I>0$ such that $$C_I \|{\mathcal{A}}(w_h)\|_{-2,h}^2 \leq a(w_h,w_h) \quad \forall w_h \in V_h.
\label{inverse}$$
The inverse estimate of the following lemma is valid in an arbitrary piecewise polynomial finite element space $Q_h$.
It holds that $$\|\xi_h\|_{-2,h} \lesssim \|\xi_h \|_{-2} \ \ \forall \xi_h\in Q_h\, .
\label{neginverse}$$
Let $b_K\in P_6(K)$ be the sixth order bubble function $$b_K = (\lambda_{1,K} \lambda_{2,K} \lambda_{3,K})^2 ,
\label{bubble}$$ where $\lambda_{j,K}, j\in\{1,2,3\}$, denote the barycentric coordinates for $K\in{\mathcal{C}_h}$, and define the auxiliary space $$W_h=\{ \, v_h\in H^2_0(\Omega)\, \vert \, v_h\vert _K=b_K \xi_h \vert_K, \ \xi_h\in Q_h\, \}.$$
Given $\xi\in Q_h$, we now define $v_h\in W_h$ by $$v_h\vert _K =h_K^4 b_K \xi_h\vert _K, \quad K\in {\mathcal{C}_h}.$$ From the norm equivalence and the inverse estimates, it follows that $$(v_h,\xi_h)\gtrsim \|\xi_h\|_{-2,h} ^2$$ and $$\Vert v_h\Vert_2 \lesssim \vert v_h\vert_2\lesssim \|\xi_h\|_{-2,h} .$$ Therefore $$\|\xi_h\|_{-2,h} \lesssim \frac{(v_h,\xi_h)}{ \Vert v_h\Vert_2}$$ and the assertion follows from the definition of the negative norm .
For the proof of the following result, we refer to [@GSV16] (with minor modifications).
\[pvtrick\] There exist positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $$\label{aux}
\sup_{v_h\in V_h} \frac{\langle v_h, \xi_h\rangle }{\Vert v_h\Vert_{2}} \ge C_1 \Vert \xi_h\Vert_{-2} -C_2 \Vert \xi_{h}\Vert_{-2,h} \quad \forall \xi_h \in Q_h.$$
Suppose that $0 < \alpha < C_I$. It holds: for all $(v_h,\mu_h) \in V_h \times Q_h$ there exists $w_h \in V_h$ such that $$ {\mathcal{B}_h}(v_h,\mu_h;w_h,-\mu_h) \gtrsim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (v_h,\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_h^2 \quad \text{and} \quad {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (w_h,-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_h \lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (v_h,\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_h.
\label{discrstab}$$
In view of the inverse inequality (\[inverse\]), it holds $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{B}_h}(v_h,\mu_h;v_h,-\mu_h) \\
&= a(v_h,v_h) + \epsilon \|\mu_h\|_0^2 - \alpha \|{\mathcal{A}}(v_h)\|_{-2,h}^2 + \alpha \|\mu_h\|_{-2,h}^2 \\
&\geq \left(1-\alpha C_I^{-1}\right)a(v_h,v_h) + \min\{1,\alpha\}\left(\|\mu_h\|_{-2,h}^2+\epsilon \|\mu_h\|_0^2\right). \end{aligned}
\label{aux1}$$ Let $q_h \in V_h$ be the function corresponding to the supremum in Lemma \[pvtrick\], scaled in such a way that $\|q_h\|_2=\|\mu_h\|_{-2}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{B}_h}(v_h,\mu_h;-q_h,0) \\
&= -a(v_h,q_h) + \langle q_h, \mu_h \rangle + \alpha \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h, {\mathcal{A}}(q_h) )_{0,K} \\
&\geq -\| v_h\|_2 \|q_h\|_2 + C_1 \|\mu_h\|_{-2}\|q_h\|_{2} - C_2 \|\mu_h\|_{-2,h} \|q_h\|_{2}\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad - \alpha \left(\|{\mathcal{A}}(v_h)\|_{-2,h} + \|\mu_h\|_{-2,h}\right) \|{\mathcal{A}}(q_h)\|_{-2,h}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using again the inverse inequality , Young’s inequality and the continuity of the bilinear form $a$, we conclude that $${\mathcal{B}_h}(v_h,\mu_h;-q_h,0) \geq C_3 \|\mu_h\|_{-2}^2 - C_4 \big(a(v_h,v_h)+\|\mu_h\|_{-2,h}^2\big) .
\label{aux2}$$ Finally, taking $w_h=v_h-\delta q_h$ and using estimates and , together with the coercivity of $a$ and the assumption $0 < \alpha < C_I$, proves the stability bound after $\delta>0$ is chosen small enough.
The estimate ${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (w_h,-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} \lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (v_h,\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}$ is trivial and the same bound in the discrete norm follows from the inverse estimate .
\[dsrem\] Note that the discrete stability bounds are also valid in the continuous norm ${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (\cdot,\cdot)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}$.
In the sequel, our functions may belong to the space $H^{-2}(\omega),~\omega\subset\Omega,$ equipped with the norm $$\|\mu\|_{-2,\omega} = \sup_{z \in H^2_0(\omega)} \frac{\langle z, \mu \rangle}{\|z\|_{2,\omega}}.$$ This means that if $w \in H^2_0(\Omega)$ is such that $w|_\omega \in H^2_0(\omega)$ and $w = 0$ in $\Omega \setminus \omega$, we can write $$\label{eq:localdualnormineq}
\langle w, \mu \rangle \leq \|\mu\|_{-2,\omega} \|w\|_{2,\omega}, \quad \forall \mu \in H^{-2}(\omega).$$ Let $f_h \in V_h$ be the $L^2$ projection of $f$ and define the data oscillation as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{osc}}_K(f) &= h_K^2 \| f - f_h \|_{0,K}, \\
{\mathrm{osc}}(f)^2 &= \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} {\mathrm{osc}}_K(f)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we recall the following integration by parts formula (cf. [@FS]), valid in any domain $R\subset \Omega$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle a_R(w,v) = & \int_{R}{\mathcal{A}}(w)\,v \,\mathrm{d}x +
\int_{\partial {R}} {Q_n}(w)v \,\mathrm{d}s \\
&- \int_{\partial {R}} \, \Big({M_{nn}}(w)\frac{\partial v}{\partial n}+ {M_{ns}}(w)\frac{\partial v}{\partial s}\,\Big)\, \mathrm{d}s.
\end{aligned}
\label{intparts}$$ where we have used the shorthand notation $$a_R(w,v)
= \int_R {\boldsymbol{M}}(w) : {\boldsymbol{K}}(v) \,\mathrm{d}x,$$ and defined the normal shear force and the normal and twisting moments through $$\begin{aligned}
&{Q_n}(w)={\boldsymbol{Q}}(w)\cdot \boldsymbol{n},\ \ \ {M_{nn}}(w) = \boldsymbol{n} \cdot {\boldsymbol{M}}(w) \boldsymbol{n}, \\ &{M_{ns}}(w) ={M_{sn}}(w)=
\boldsymbol{s} \cdot {\boldsymbol{M}}(w) \boldsymbol{n} ,
\end{aligned}$$ with $\boldsymbol{n}$ and $\boldsymbol{s}$ denoting the normal and tangential directions at $\partial {R}$. Integrating by parts on a smooth subset $S \subset R$ we get $$\label{subsetintparts}
\int_{S} Q_n(w) v\,\mathrm{d}s -\int_{S} M_{ns}(w) \frac{\partial v}{\partial s} \, \mathrm{d}s = \int_S V_n(w)\,\mathrm{d}s - \Big|_a^b M_{ns}(w)v,$$ where $a$ and $b$ are the endpoints of $S$ and the quantity $$\label{ksf}
{V_n}(w)= {Q_n}(w) +\frac{ \partial {M_{ns}}(w)}{\partial s}$$ is called the [*Kirchhoff shear force*]{} (cf. [@FS]). Denote by $\omega_E=K_1\cup K_2$ the pair of triangles sharing an edge $E$ and define jumps in the normal moment and the shear force over $E$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\llbracket {M_{nn}}(v) \rrbracket \vert_E &= {M_{nn}}(v) - M_{n'n'}(v) \\
\llbracket {V_{n}}(v) \rrbracket \vert_E &= {V_{n}}(v) +V_{n'}(v).
\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{n}$ and $\boldsymbol{n}'$ stand for the outward normals to $K_1$ and $K_2$, respectively.
We will need the following lemma in proving the a priori and a posteriori estimates. We will sketch its proof and refer to [@GSV18] for more details.
For all $v_h \in V_h$ and $\mu_h \in Q_h$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
h_K^2 \| {\mathcal{A}}(v_h) - \mu_h - f\|_{0,K} &\lesssim \|u-v_h\|_{2,K} + \|\lambda -\mu_h\|_{-2,K} + {\mathrm{osc}}_K(f), \label{eq:lowboundlocalint} \\
h_E^{1/2} \| \llbracket M_{nn}(v_h) \rrbracket \|_{0,E} &\lesssim \|u-v_h\|_{2,\omega_E} + \|\lambda - \mu_h\|_{-2,\omega_E} + \sum_{K \subset \omega_E} {\mathrm{osc}}_K(f),\label{eq:lowboundlocaledge1}\\
h_E^{3/2} \| \llbracket V_{n}(v_h) \rrbracket \|_{0,E} &\lesssim \|u-v_h\|_{2,\omega_E} + \|\lambda - \mu_h\|_{-2,\omega_E} + \sum_{K \subset \omega_E} {\mathrm{osc}}_K(f).\label{eq:lowboundlocaledge2}
\end{aligned}$$
Recall from the sixth order bubble $b_K \in P_6(K)$ and let $$z_K = b_K h_K^4({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f_h),$$ for every $(v_h,\mu_h) \in V_h \times \varLambda_h$. Testing with $z_K$ in the continuous variational problem (\[weakform1\]) gives the identity $$a_K(u,z_K) - \langle z_K, \lambda \rangle = (f,z_K)_K.$$
We have $$\label{eq:lemp1}
\begin{aligned}
&h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f_h\|_{0,K}^2 \\
&\lesssim h_K^4 \| \sqrt{b_K}({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f_h) \|_{0,K}^2 \\
&= ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f_h,z_K)_K \\
&= ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h,z_K)_K - (f,z_K)_K + (f-f_h,z_K)_K \\ &= a_K(v_h-u,z_K)+\langle z_K, \lambda-\mu_h \rangle + (f-f_h,z_K)_K. \end{aligned}$$ The bound follows from the continuity of $a$, Cauchy–Schwarz and inverse inequalities and from inequality .
Following [@GudiPorwal2016], see also [@GSV18], we let $\omega_E = K_1 \cup K_2$ and define an auxiliary function $w = p_1 p_2 p_3$ in such a way that
- $p_1$ is the extension of $\llbracket M_{nn}(v_h) \rrbracket$ to $\omega_E$ such that $\tfrac{\partial p_1}{\partial n_E} = 0$;
- $p_2$ is the eight order bubble that, together its first order derivatives, vanishes at $\partial \omega_E$ and equals to one at the midpoint of $E$;
- $p_3$ is the linear polynomial that is zero on $E$ and satisfies $\tfrac{\partial p_3}{\partial n_E} = 1$.
Outside of $\omega_E$, $w$ is extended by zero, see [@GSV18] for more details. From the construction of $w$ and formula (\[intparts\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\llbracket M_{nn}(v_h) \rrbracket\|_{0,E}^2 &\lesssim (M_{nn}(v_h), \tfrac{\partial w}{\partial n_E} )_E \\
&= - a_{\omega_E}(v_h, w) + ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h), w)_{\omega_E} \\
&= a_{\omega_E}(u - v_h, w) + ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h) - \mu_h - f, w)_{\omega_E} + \langle w, \mu_h - \lambda \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Bound can now be established using the continuity of the bilinear form $a$, the Cauchy–Schwarz and inverse inequalities, a scaling argument and inequalities and , see [@GSV16] and [@GSV18] for similar considerations.
The proof of is similar except for the construction of the auxiliary function. We choose $w^\prime$ as a function defined on a subset of $\omega_E$, consisting of two smaller triangles $K_1^\prime$ and $K_2^\prime$, symmetric with respect to the edge $E$, and write $\omega_E^\prime = K_1^\prime \cup K_2^\prime$, $K_j^\prime \subset K_j$, $j\in\{1,2\}$. Then we define $w^\prime = p_1^\prime p_2^\prime$ where
- $p_1^\prime$ is an extension of $\llbracket V_n(v_h) \rrbracket$ to $\omega_E^\prime$ such that $\tfrac{\partial p^\prime_1}{\partial n_E} = 0$;
- $p_2^\prime$ is the eight order bubble that, together its first order derivatives, vanishes on $\partial \omega_E^\prime$ and equals to one at the midpoint of $E$.
Note that now due to symmetry $\tfrac{\partial w^\prime}{\partial n_E} \big|_E = 0$. Now, recalling identities and , and integrating in parts in the last term on its right-hand side (cf. [@GSV18]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|\llbracket V_{n}(v_h) \rrbracket\|_{0,E}^2 &\lesssim (V_{n}(v_h), w^\prime )_E \\
&= - a_{\omega_E^\prime}(v_h, w^\prime) + ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h), w^\prime)_{\omega_E^\prime} \\
&= a_{\omega_E^\prime}(u - v_h, w^\prime) + ({\mathcal{A}}(v_h) - \mu_h - f, w^\prime)_{\omega_E^\prime} + \langle w^\prime, \mu_h - \lambda \rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ from which estimate can be concluded as the final step for bound .
It holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} \\
& \qquad \lesssim \inf_{\substack{v_h \in V_h, \\ \mu_h \in \Lambda_h}} \left( {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} + \sqrt{\langle u-g+\epsilon \lambda, \mu_h \rangle} \right) + {\mathrm{osc}}(f).
\end{aligned}
\label{aprioriest}$$
Let $(v_h,\mu_h) \in V_h \times Q_h$ be arbitrary and assume that $w_h \in V_h$ is the function corresponding to $(u_h-v_h,\lambda_h-\mu_h)$ in the discrete stability estimate (\[discrstab\]) expressed in the continuous norm ${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (\cdot,\cdot)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}$, see Remark \[dsrem\]. The problem statement then implies that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_h-v_h,\lambda_h-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}^2 &\lesssim {\mathcal{B}_h}(u_h-v_h,\lambda_h-\mu_h;w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) \\
&\lesssim {\mathcal{L}_h}(w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) - {\mathcal{B}}(v_h,\mu_h,w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) \\
&\phantom{=}+ \alpha \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h,{\mathcal{A}}(w_h)+\lambda_h-\mu_h)_K \\
&= {\mathcal{B}}(u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h;w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) + \langle u-g+\epsilon \lambda, \mu_h-\lambda_h \rangle \\
&\phantom{=} + \alpha \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f,{\mathcal{A}}(w_h)+\lambda_h-\mu_h)_K.
\end{aligned}$$ Let us bound separately each term on the right hand side. The continuity of the bilinear form ${\mathcal{B}}$ and the second estimate in (\[discrstab\]) yield for the first term $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{B}}(u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h;w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h) &\lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (w_h,\mu_h-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} \\
&\lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_h-v_h,\lambda_h-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term we obtain $$\langle u - g + \epsilon \lambda, \mu_h-\lambda_h \rangle \leq \langle u -g + \epsilon \lambda, \mu_h-\lambda \rangle = \langle u-g+\epsilon\lambda,\mu_h \rangle.$$ The third term is bounded as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4({\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f,{\mathcal{A}}(w_h)+\lambda_h-\mu_h)_K \\
&\leq \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} \left(\sum_{K\in{\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(w_h)\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\phantom{=}+\left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(v_h)-\mu_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4\|\lambda_h-\mu_h\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} \\
&\lesssim \left( \|u-v_h\|_2 + \|\lambda - \mu_h\|_{-2} + {\mathrm{osc}}(f) \right)\left( \sqrt{a(w_h,w_h)} + \|\lambda_h-\mu_h\|_{-2,h}\right) \\
&\lesssim \left( {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-v_h,\lambda-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} + {\mathrm{osc}}(f)\right) {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_h-v_h,\lambda_h-\mu_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used , the second estimate in (\[discrstab\]) and the inverse inequalities (\[inverse\]) and .
To derive a posteriori error bounds, we define the local residual estimators $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_K^2 &= h_K^4 \| {\mathcal{A}}(u_h) - \lambda_h -f \|_{0,K}^2, \\
\eta_{E}^2 &= h_E^3 \| \llbracket V_n(u_h) \rrbracket \|_{0,E}^2 + h_E \| \llbracket M_{nn}(u_h) \rrbracket \|_{0,E}^2,
$$ and the corresponding global residual estimator $$\eta^2 = \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} \eta_K^2 + \sum_{E \in {\mathcal{E}_h^I}} \eta_E^2, $$ where ${\mathcal{E}_h^I}$ denotes the set of interior edges in the mesh. An additional global estimator $S$, due to the unknown location of the contact boundary, is defined through $$S^2 =
((u_h-g+\epsilon\lambda_h)_+, \lambda_h) + \sum_{K\in \mathcal{C}_{h}} \frac{1}{\epsilon+h_K^4} \| (g-u_h-\epsilon\lambda_h)_+\|_{0,K}^2$$ where $u_+=\max\{u,0\}$ denotes the positive part of $u$. The lower bound is a simple consequence of the global versions of estimates –. We refer to [@GSV16] for a similar consideration with more details.
It holds that $$ \eta \lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}.$$
The upper bound cannot be established as elegantly as for the second-order (membrane) obstacle problem, cf. [@GSV16], since the positive part function is not in $H^2(\Omega)$. We will use the following assumption, justified by the a priori estimate for regular enough solution, see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@CFHPR18].
There exists $\beta <1$ such that $${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_{h/2},\lambda-\lambda_{h/2})
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2} \leq \beta {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_{h},\lambda-\lambda_{h})
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h} ,$$ where $(u_{h/2},\lambda_{h/2})\in V_{h/2}\times Q_{h/2}$ is the solution in the mesh $\mathcal{C}_{h/2}$ obtained by splitting the elements of the mesh $\mathcal{C}_{h}$. \[satass\]
It holds that $$ {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} \lesssim \eta+S.$$
Let $w\in V_{h/2}$ be the function corresponding to $(u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)\in V_{h/2}\times Q_{h/2}$ in the discrete stability estimate for which is holds, in particular, that $$\|w\|_2 \lesssim {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2} .
\label{waux}$$ Let, moreover, $\widetilde{w}\in V_h$ denote the Hermite type interpolant of $w\in V_{h/2}$. By scaling, one readily shows that $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^{-4} \|w-\widetilde{w}\|_{0,K}^2 +\sum_{E \in {\mathcal{E}_h^I}} h_E^{-1}\|\nabla(w-\widetilde{w})\|_{0,E}^2\\
\displaystyle \quad+\sum_{E \in {\mathcal{E}_h^I}} h_E^{-3}\|w-\widetilde{w}\|_{0,E}^2 \lesssim \|w\|_2^2 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \|\widetilde{w}\|_2 \lesssim \|w\|_2.
\end{array}\label{hermite}$$
The discrete problem statement implies that $$0 \leq - {\mathcal{B}_h}(u_h,\lambda_h;-\widetilde{w},0) + {\mathcal{L}_h}(-\widetilde{w},0).
\label{discraux}$$ From , and it then follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2}^2 & \lesssim
\mathcal{B}_{h/2}(u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h;w,\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}) \\ & \leq
\mathcal{L}_{h/2}(w,\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}) -\mathcal{B}_{h/2}(u_h,\lambda_h;w,\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2})\\ \qquad &\quad - \mathcal{B}_h(u_h,\lambda_h;-\widetilde{w},0)+\mathcal{L}_h(-\widetilde{w},0) \\ &= (f,w-\widetilde{w})
-a(u_h,w-\widetilde{w})+\langle w-\widetilde{w},\lambda_h\rangle \\
& \quad + \langle u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g,\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}\rangle\\
& \quad +\alpha \sum_{K^\prime\in \mathcal{C}_{h/2}} h_{K^\prime}^4 \left( \mathcal{A}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f,\mathcal{A}(w)\right)_{K^\prime}
\\ &\quad - \alpha \sum_{K^\prime\in \mathcal{C}_{h/2}} h_{K^\prime}^4 \left( \mathcal{A}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f,\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}\right)_{K^\prime}
\\ &\quad - \alpha
\sum_{K\in \mathcal{C}_{h}} h_K^4 \left( \mathcal{A}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f,\mathcal{A}(\widetilde{w})\right)_K\end{aligned}$$
Using formula to integrate by parts in $a(u_h,w-\widetilde{w})$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& (f,w-\widetilde{w}) - a(u_h,w-\widetilde{w}) + \langle w-\widetilde{w},\lambda_h \rangle \\
&= \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} \left(-{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)+\lambda_h+f,w-\widetilde{w}\right)_K \\
&\phantom{=} + \sum_{E \in {\mathcal{E}_h^I}} \Big\{ \left(\llbracket {\boldsymbol{M}}(u_h) \boldsymbol{n} \rrbracket,\nabla(w-\widetilde{w})\right)_E
- (\llbracket {\boldsymbol{Q}}(u_h)\cdot \boldsymbol{n} \rrbracket,w-\widetilde{w})_E \Big\} \\
&= \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} \left(-{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)+\lambda_h+f,w-\widetilde{w}\right)_K \\ &\phantom{=} + \sum_{E \in {\mathcal{E}_h^I}} \Big\{ \left(\llbracket M_{nn}(u_h) \rrbracket,\nabla(w-\widetilde{w}) \cdot \boldsymbol{n}\right)_E - (\llbracket V_n(u_h) \rrbracket,w-\widetilde{w})_E \Big\} .
\end{aligned}$$ These terms are easily bounded using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and the interpolation estimates .
On the other hand, dividing $u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g$ into its positive and negative part, we obtain the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g, \lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}\rangle \\
& \quad \leq \big((u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g)_+, \lambda_h\big) +
\big( (u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g)_-, \lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2}\big) \\
& \quad \leq \big( (u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g)_+, \lambda_h\big) \\
& \qquad + \left( \sum_{K\in \mathcal{C}_{h}} \frac{1}{\epsilon+h_K^4} \| (u_h+\epsilon\lambda_h-g)_-\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} \,
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2}
\end{aligned}$$
For the stabilising terms, we obtain the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4(-{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)+\lambda_h+f,{\mathcal{A}}(\widetilde{w}))_K \\
&\leq \sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f\|_{0,K} \|{\mathcal{A}}(\widetilde{w})\|_{0,K} \\
&\leq \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2}
\left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(\widetilde{w})\|_{0,K}\right)^{1/2} \\
&\lesssim \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} \|w\|_2\\
&\lesssim \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{K^\prime\in \mathcal{C}_{h/2}} h_{K^\prime}^4 \left( \mathcal{A}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f,{\mathcal{A}}(\widetilde{w})-(\lambda_h-\lambda_{h/2})\right)_{K^\prime}\\
&\lesssim \left(\sum_{K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}} h_K^4 \|{\mathcal{A}}(u_h)-\lambda_h-f\|_{0,K}^2\right)^{1/2} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the inverse inequality and the interpolation estimates .
The assertion follows after completing the square, using again the estimates and and observing that $${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} \leq {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_h \leq \frac{1}{1-\beta} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u_{h/2}-u_h,\lambda_{h/2}-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{h/2} .$$
A practical solution algorithm {#sec:nitsche}
==============================
The approximation properties of the primal variable and the Lagrange multiplier are balanced when the polynomial order of the latter is four degrees smaller than that of the displacement variable, for example, when the Argyris element is coupled with a piecewise linear and discontinuous approximation of the Lagrange multiplier. It is, however, unnecessary to actually solve for the Lagrange multiplier since it can be eliminated from the stabilised formulation altogether. This approach is analogous to the derivation of Nitsche’s method for Dirichlet boundary conditions (cf. [@Stenberg75]) and hence we refer to the proposed method as *Nitsche’s method for the Kirchhoff plate obstacle problem*.
Nitsche’s method can be derived in two steps. First, testing with $(0,-\mu_h)$ in the stabilised formulation , leads to the following elementwise expression for the Lagrange multiplier $$\lambda_h|_K = \frac{1}{\epsilon+ \alpha h_K^4} \left(\pi_h g|_K - \pi_h u_h|_K + \alpha h_K^4(\pi_h {\mathcal{A}}(u_h) - \pi_h f)|_K \right)_+, \quad \forall K \in {\mathcal{C}_h},$$ where $\pi_h : L^2(\Omega) \rightarrow Q_h$ is the $L^2$ projection. Let the function $\mathcal{H} \in L^2(\Omega)$ be such that $\mathcal{H}|_K = h_K$, $\forall K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}$. Then, testing with $(v_h,0)$, substituting the formula for $\lambda_h$ in the resulting expression and choosing $Q_h = L^2(\Omega)$, gives the following nonlinear variational problem:
\[prob:nitsche\] Find $u_h \in V_h$ such that $$a_h(u_h, v_h; u_h) = l_h(v_h; u_h), \quad \forall v_h \in V_h,
\label{nitsche-eqs}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_h(u_h,v_h; w_h)&=a(u_h,v_h) + \left(\tfrac{1}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} u_h, v_h \right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} - \left(\tfrac{\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} {\mathcal{A}}(u_h), v_h\right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} \\
&\quad- \left(\tfrac{\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} u_h, {\mathcal{A}}(v_h)\right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} - \left(\tfrac{\epsilon\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} {\mathcal{A}}(u_h), {\mathcal{A}}(v_h) \right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} \\
&\quad- \left(\alpha \mathcal{H}^4 {\mathcal{A}}(u_h), {\mathcal{A}}(v_h)\right)_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_C(w_h)}, \\
l_h(v_h; w_h)&= (f,v_h) + \left( \tfrac{1}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} g, v_h\right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} - \left(\tfrac{\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} g, {\mathcal{A}}(v_h)\right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} \\
&\quad - \left( \tfrac{\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} f, v\right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} - \left( \tfrac{\epsilon\alpha \mathcal{H}^4}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} f, {\mathcal{A}}(v_h) \right)_{\Omega_C(w_h)} \\
&\quad - (\alpha \mathcal{H}^4 f, {\mathcal{A}}(v_h))_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_C(w_h)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The contact set $ \Omega_C(w_h) $ above is defined as $$\Omega_C(w_h) = \{ (x,y) \in \Omega : F(w_h) > 0 \},$$ with $F(w_h) $ denoting the reaction force given by $$F(w_h) = \frac{1}{\epsilon+ \alpha \mathcal{H}^4} \left(g - w_h + \alpha \mathcal{H}^4({\mathcal{A}}(w_h) - f) \right)_+.$$
The practical solution algorithm for Problem \[prob:nitsche\] is an iterative process where at each step the contact set $\Omega_C$ is approximated using the displacement field from the previous iteration so that system becomes linear. The process is terminated as soon as the norm of the displacement field is below a predetermined tolerance $TOL>0$. The stopping criterion is formulated with respect to the strain energy norm $$\|w\|_E = \sqrt{a(w,w)}.$$
$k \leftarrow 0$ Find $u_h^{k+1} \in V_h$ s.t. $a_h(u_h^{k+1},v_h;u_h^k) = l_h(v_h;u_h^k)$, $\forall v_h \in V_h$. $k \leftarrow k + 1$ $u_h^{k}$
For a discussion regarding the convergence of iterations in Algorithm \[alg:nitsche\], we refer to [@GSV16] where we compare this approach to the semismooth Newton method for solving a stabilised second-order obstacle problem. We point out that the semismooth Newton method (see e.g. [@Wohlmuth2011]) corresponds to an algorithm, similar to Algorithm \[alg:nitsche\], where the contact area follows element boundaries. Hence, we expect Algorithm \[alg:nitsche\] to behave numerically as a semismooth strategy applied to variational inequalities.
For an adaptive refinement, we use the maximum strategy with the parameter $\theta \in (0,1)$ for marking and the red-green-blue refinement, see e.g. [@VerfurthBook; @bartels2015numerical]. The error estimator is defined as $$\mathcal{E}_K^2 = \eta_K^2 + \frac12 \sum_{E \subset K} \eta_E^2 + ((u_h - g + \epsilon \lambda_h)_+, \lambda_h)_K + S_{K,\epsilon }^2,$$ where $$S_{K,\epsilon } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon+h_K^4}} \| (g-u_h-\epsilon\lambda_h)_+\|_{0,K}
$$ Given the displacement field $u_h$, the reaction force $\lambda_h = F(u_h)$ is computed as indicated in Problem \[prob:nitsche\]. We start with an initial mesh ${\mathcal{C}_h}^0$ and terminate the computation after a predetermined number of adaptive refinement steps $M$. The resulting procedure is summarised in the listing Algorithm \[alg:adaptive\].
$j \leftarrow 0$ Solve $u_h^{j+1}$ using Algorithm \[alg:nitsche\] and the mesh ${\mathcal{C}_h}^j$. Evaluate the error estimator $\mathcal{E}_K$ for every $K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}^j$. Using the red-green-blue refinement strategy [@VerfurthBook; @bartels2015numerical], construct ${\mathcal{C}_h}^{j+1}$ by refining the elements $K$ that satisfy the inequality $$\mathcal{E}_K > \theta \max_{K^\prime \in {\mathcal{C}_h}^j} \mathcal{E}_{K^\prime}.$$ $j \leftarrow j + 1$
Numerical results {#sec:numerical}
=================
We illustrate the performance of the proposed algorithms by solving two example problems and comparing the uniform and adaptive meshing. The adaptive method is expected to recover the optimal rate of convergence with respect to the number of degrees of freedom $N$, i.e. $${{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} ~~\propto~~ N^{-\tfrac{k-1}{2}},$$ where $k$ is the polynomial order of the finite element basis. As a measure of error we use the global estimator $\eta + S$. We expect that, asymptotically, it holds $$ {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert (u-u_h,\lambda-\lambda_h)
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}} ~~\propto~~ \eta + S.$$
Let $\Omega = [0,1]^2$ and let ${\mathcal{C}_h}$ be a triangulation of $\Omega$. The finite element space for the displacement field consists of a set of piecewise polynomials of order five, i.e. $$V_h = \{ w \in H^2_0(\Omega) : w|_{K} \in P_5(K)~\forall K \in {\mathcal{C}_h}\}.$$ The global $C^1$-continuity is conceived by implementing the Argyris basis functions, c.f. [@CiarletBook]. In both examples, the loading function and the material parameters are chosen as $\mbox{$f=-10$}$, $d=1$, $E=1$ and $\nu=0$. For the parameters $\alpha$, $TOL$ and $\theta$, we use the values $\alpha = 10^{-5}$, $TOL = 10^{-10}$ and $\theta=0.5$. In each case, we start with the mesh shown in the upper left panel of Figure \[fig:meshrigid\] and apply either a uniform refinement (each triangle is split into four subtriangles) or Algorithm \[alg:adaptive\] with $M=5$.
The first example is that of a rigid obstacle, $\epsilon = 0$, with its shape defined by $$g(x,y) = -100\left((x-0.5)^2 + (y-0.5)^2\right).$$ This obstacle is smooth and hence it belongs to $H^2(\Omega)$ as required by the continuous formulation. Nevertheless, its shape is sharp due to the moderately large negative coefficient. Qualitatively, the plate behaves subject to this type of obstacle as it would under a point load and we expect the error estimator to be large near the midpoint $(0.5;0.5)$.
The resulting sequence of adaptive meshes is depicted in Figure \[fig:meshrigid\] and the respective global errors can be found in Figure \[fig:resultsrigid\]. The discrete solution and the Lagrange multiplier, after three adaptive refinements, are shown in Figures \[fig:discrete\](A) and \[fig:lagmult\](A). The discrete functions are visualised in a refined mesh as they may have high-order and non-smooth variations inside the elements. The results of Figure \[fig:resultsrigid\] clearly indicate that the adaptive method gains the optimal rate of convergence $\mathcal{O}(N^{-2})$ whereas the uniform refinement is observed to be $\mathcal{O}(N^{-1/2})$. Note that if the numerical contact region was larger, for example using a less sharp obstacle, the convergence rate would become limited by the regularity of the solution, i.e. with uniform refinement eventually by $\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/4})$. In the second example, we consider an elastic obstacle ($\epsilon > 0$) defined by the function $$g(x,y) = \begin{cases}
0, & \text{if $(x,y) \in [0.3;0.7]^2$,} \\
-1, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Note that $g \in L^2(\Omega)$ but . Computing the cases $\epsilon = 10^{-j}$, $j \in \{3,4,5,6\}$, we observe that the behaviour of the reaction force varies quite much from case to case as revealed by the discrete Lagrange multipliers depicted in Figure \[fig:lagmult\] and by the discrete contact sets shown in Figure \[fig:contactset\]. In particular, the contact sets corresponding to less rigid obstacles remain simply connected which is not the case for the stiffer obstacles.
The resulting error graphs for the adaptive and uniform refinements can be found in Figure \[fig:elastic\]. The sequences of adaptive meshes can be found in Figures \[fig:meshe6\]–\[fig:meshe3\]. We observe that for uniform refinements the slope of the error graph is getting worse when the obstacle is stiffened and that the adaptive meshing strategy successfully recovers the optimal rate of convergence $\mathcal{O}(N^{-2})$, independently of the value of $\epsilon $.
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](elastic_mesh1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](rigid_mesh1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](rigid_mesh2-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](rigid_mesh3-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](rigid_mesh4-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the rigid obstacle case.[]{data-label="fig:meshrigid"}](rigid_mesh5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; + \[black, domain=1000:2000, mark=none, dashed\] [exp(-0.5\*ln(x) + ln(4) - (-0.5)\*ln(1000)))]{} node\[below,pos=1.0\][$\mathcal{O}(N^{-1/2})$]{}; + \[black, domain=400:600, mark=none, dashed\] [exp(-2.0\*ln(x) + ln(4) - (-2)\*ln(400)))]{} node\[below,pos=1.0\][$\mathcal{O}(N^{-2})$]{};
table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; + \[black, domain=1000:2000, mark=none, dashed\] [exp(-1.0\*ln(x) + ln(0.6) - (-1)\*ln(1000)))]{} node\[above,pos=0.0\][$\mathcal{O}(N^{-1})$]{};
\
table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; table\[x=ndofs,y=estimator\] ; + \[black, domain=1000:2000, mark=none, dashed\] [exp(-2.0\*ln(x) + ln(2e-2) - (-2)\*ln(1000)))]{} node\[below,pos=1.0\][$\mathcal{O}(N^{-2})$]{};
\
[0.49]{}
\
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
\
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_2-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_3-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_4-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe6"}](mesh_e6_6-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_2-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_3-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_4-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-5}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe5"}](mesh_e5_6-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_2-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_3-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_4-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe4"}](mesh_e4_6-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_1-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_2-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_3-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_4-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The sequence of adaptive meshes in the elastic obstacle case with $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:meshe3"}](mesh_e3_6-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
[^1]: Funding from Tekes (Decision number 3305/31/2015), the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029408) and the Finnish Society of Science and Letters is greatly acknowledged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This is an overview of the work of the authors and their collaborators on the characterization of risk sensitive costs and rewards in terms of an abstract Collatz–Wielandt formula and in case of rewards, also a controlled version of the Donsker–Varadhan formula. For the finite state and action case, this leads to useful linear and dynamic programming formulations in the reducible case.'
address:
- '$^*$Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, EER 7.824, Austin, TX 78712'
- '$^\ddag$Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India'
author:
- 'Ari Arapostathis$^*$'
- 'Vivek S. Borkar$^\ddag$'
title: |
[‘Controlled’ versions of the Collatz–Wielandt\
and Donsker–Varadhan formulae]{}
---
Introduction
============
This short article is an overview of the work of authors and their collaborators on a somewhat novel perspective of the risk-sensitive control problem on infinite time horizon that aims to optimize the asymptotic growth rate of a mean exponentiated total reward, resp., cost. The viewpoint taken here is based on the fact that the dynamic programming principle for this problem essentially reduces it to an eigenvalue problem seeking the principal eigenvalue and eigenvector for a monotone positively $1$-homogeneous operator. This allows us to exploit the existing generalized Perron–Frobenius (or Krein–Rutman) theory which leads to some explicit expressions for the optimal growth rate. The first is the abstract Collatz–Wielandt formula which can be shown to hold for both cost minimization and reward maximization problems, though we have not exhausted all the cases in our work. The second is a variational formula for the principal eigenvalue that generalizes the Donsker–Varadhan formula for the same in the linear case. This seems workable only for the reward maximization problem.
We first consider the discrete time case based on the results of [@Ananth] in the next two sections, followed by those for reflected diffusions in a bounded domain, based on [@ABK], in section \[S4\]. We then sketch, in section \[S5\], the very recent and highly nontrivial extensions to diffusions on the whole space developed in [@AriAnup] and [@AABK]. Finally, we recall in section \[S6\] some developments in the simple finite state-action set up from [@CDC], where the aforementioned development allows us to derive the dynamic programming equations for risk-sensitive reward process in the reducible case. Section 7 concludes by highlighting some future directions.
Discrete time problems
======================
The celebrated Courant–Fisher formula for the principal eigenvalue of a positive definite symmetric matrix $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}$ is $$\lambda = \max_{0 \neq x \in {\mathbb{R}^d}}\frac{x{^{\mathsf{T}}}Ax}{x{^{\mathsf{T}}}x}.$$ Consider an irreducible nonnegative matrix $Q \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}$. The Perron–Frobenius theorem guarantees a positive principal eigenvalue with an associated positive eigenvector for $Q$. Is there a counterpart of the Courant–Fisher formula for this eigenvalue?
The answer is a resounding ‘YES’! It is the Collatz-Wielandt formula for the principal eigenvalue of an irreducible nonnegative matrix $Q = \boldsymbol[q(i,j)\boldsymbol] \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}$, stated as (see [@Meyer] Chapter 8): $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\,=\, \sup_{x = [x_1, \cdots, x_d]{^{\mathsf{T}}},\, x_i \geq 0 \ \forall i} \;
\min_{i \colon x_i > 0} \; \left(\frac{(Qx)_i}{x_i}\right) \\[5pt]
&\,=\, \inf_{x = [x_1, \cdots, x_d]{^{\mathsf{T}}},\, x_i > 0 \ \forall i} \;
\max_{i \colon x_i > 0}
\; \left(\frac{(Qx)_i}{x_i}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ An alternative characterization can be given as follows. Write $$\begin{aligned}
Q &\,=\, \varGamma P\,,\\
\intertext{where}
\varGamma &\,{\coloneqq}\, \ \text{diag}(\kappa_1, \dotsc, \kappa_d)\,,\ \ \kappa_i>0\,,\\
p(i,j) &\,{\coloneqq}\, \nicefrac{q(i,j)}{\kappa_i}\,, \quad 1 \leq i,j \leq d\,, \\
P &\,{\coloneqq}\, \boldsymbol[p(j\,|\,i)\boldsymbol]\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $P$ a stochastic matrix. In other words, we have pulled out the row sums $\{\kappa_i\}$ of $Q$ into a diagonal matrix $\varGamma$ so that what is left is a stochastic matrix $P$. Also define $${{\mathscr{G}}}_0 \,{\coloneqq}\, \bigl\{(\pi, \tilde{P}) \colon \pi \text{\ is a stationary probability
for the stochastic matrix\ }
\tilde{P} = \boldsymbol[\tilde{p}(j|i)\boldsymbol]\bigr\}\,.$$ Then the following representation holds [@Dembo]: $$\log\lambda \,=\, \sup_{(\pi, \tilde{P}) \,\in\, {{\mathscr{G}}}_0}
\left(\sum_i\pi(i)\bigl[\kappa_i - D\bigl(\tilde{p}(\cdot\,|\, i ) \|\,
p( \cdot\,|\, i )\bigr)\bigr]\right),$$ where $D( \cdot \,\|\, \cdot)$ denotes the Kullback–Leibler divergence or relative entropy. This is the finite state counterpart of the Donsker–Varadhan formula [@DoVa] for the principal eigenvalue of a nonnegative matrix.
As is well known, the infinite dimensional generalization of the Perron–Frobenius theorem is given by the Krein–Rutman theorem [@Krein; @Pagter]. There are also nonlinear variants of it. Let
1. $B$ be a Banach space with a ‘positive cone’ $K$ such that $K - K$ is dense in $B$,
2. $T\colon B \mapsto B$ be a compact order preserving (i.e., $f \geq g \Longrightarrow Tf \geq Tg$), strictly increasing (i.e., $f >g \Longrightarrow Tf > Tg)$, strongly positive (i.e., maps nonzero elements of $K$ to its interior), positively $1$-homogeneous (i.e., $T(af) = aTf$ for all $a > 0$) operator.
A nonlinear variant of the Krein–Rutman theorem [@Ogiwara] then asserts that under some technical hypotheses, a unique positive principal eigenvalue and a corresponding unique (up to a scalar multiple) positive eigenvector for $T$ exist.
Our interest is in the following *nonlinear* scenario arising in risk-sensitive control: Consider
- a controlled Markov chain $\{X_n\}$ on a compact metric state space $S$;
- an associated control process $\{Z_n\}$ in a compact metric control space $U$;
- a *per stage reward function* $r \colon S\times U\times S \mapsto {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $r \in C(S\times U\times S)$;
- a controlled transition kernel $p({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)$ with **full support**, such that for all Borel $A \subset S$, $$\label{CMarkov}
\begin{aligned}
P(X_{n+1} \in A \,|\, X_m, Z_m, m \leq n) &\,=\, P(X_{n+1} \in A \,|\, X_n, Z_n) \\
&\,=\, p(A\,|\, X_n,Z_n)\,.
\end{aligned}$$ This is called the *controlled Markov property* and the controls for which this holds are said to be *admissible*. The maps $$(x,u) \mapsto \int f(y)p({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u), \quad f \in C(S), \ \|f\| \leq 1,$$ are assumed to be equicontinuous.
The control problem is to maximize the asymptotic growth rate of the exponential reward: $$\lambda \,{\coloneqq}\, \sup_{x \in S}\,\sup_{\{Z_m\}}\,\liminf_{N\uparrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}
\log \operatorname{\mathrm{E}}\left[{\mathrm{e}}^{\sum_{m=0}^{N-1}r(X_m, Z_m, X_{m+1})}\Bigm|X_0 = x\right].$$ The second supremum in this definition is over all admissible controls. We allow *relaxed* (i.e., probability measure valued) controls $\{\mu_n\}$ taking values in ${{\mathcal{P}}}(S)$, in which case gets replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
P(X_{n+1} \in A \,|\, X_m, \mu_m, \ m \leq n) &\,=\, P(X_{n+1} \in A\,|\, X_n, \mu_n) \\
&\,=\, \int p(A \,|\, X_n, z)\mu_n(dz), \ n \geq 0\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Define $$Tf(x) \,{\coloneqq}\, \sup_{\phi : S \mapsto {{\mathcal{P}}}(U) \text{\ measurable}}\;
\iint p({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)\phi({\mathrm{d}}u\,|\,x){\mathrm{e}}^{r(x,u,y)}f(y)\,.$$ This is a compact, order preserving, strictly increasing, strongly positive, positively $1$-homogeneous operator.
Using the nonlinear variant of the Krein–Rutman theorem stated above, this leads to an abstract Collatz-Wielandt formula [@Ananth]:
There exist $\rho > 0, \psi \in \mathrm{int}(C^+(S))$ such that $T\psi = \rho\psi$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &\,=\, \inf_{f \,\in \,\mathrm{int}(C^+(S))} \; \sup_{{{\mathcal{M}}}^+(S)} \;
\frac{\int Tfd\mu}{\int fd\mu}\\
&\,=\, \sup_{f \,\in \,\mathrm{int}(C^+(S))} \; \inf_{{{\mathcal{M}}}^+(S)} \;
\frac{\int Tfd\mu}{\int fd\mu}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Also, $\log\rho$ is the optimal reward for the risk-sensitive control problem.
Variational Formula
===================
We now state a variational formula for the principal eigenvalue [@Ananth]. Let ${{\mathscr{G}}}$ denote the set of probability measures $$\eta({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}u,{\mathrm{d}}y) \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(S\times U\times S)$$ which disintegrate as $$\eta({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}u,{\mathrm{d}}y) \,=\, \eta_0({\mathrm{d}}x)\eta_1({\mathrm{d}}u\,|\,x)\eta_2({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)\,,$$ such that $\eta_0$ is invariant under the transition kernel $$\int_U \eta_2({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)\eta_1({\mathrm{d}}u\,|\,x)\,.$$ These are the so called ‘ergodic occupation measures’ for discrete time control problems.
Under the above hypotheses, $$\log\rho \,=\, \sup_{\eta \in {{\mathscr{G}}}} \biggl( \iint\eta_0({\mathrm{d}}x)\eta_1({\mathrm{d}}u\,|\,x)
\biggl[\int r(x,u,y)\eta_2({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)
- \ D\bigl(\eta_2({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)\|\, p({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)\bigr)\biggr] \biggr).$$
This can be viewed as a controlled version of the Donsker–Varadhan formula. The hypotheses above can be relaxed to:
1. Range$(r) = [-\infty, \infty)$ with ${\mathrm{e}}^r \in C(S\times U\times S)$;
2. $p({\mathrm{d}}y\,|\,x,u)$ need not have full support.
The formula then is the same as before, the difference is that under the previous, stronger set of conditions, the supremum over $x \in S$ in the definition of $\lambda$ was redundant, it is no longer so. The extension proceeds via an approximation argument that approximates the given transition kernel by a sequence of transition kernels for which our original hypotheses hold.
We thus have an equivalent concave maximization problem, in fact a linear program, as opposed to a ‘team’ problem one would obtain from the usual ‘log transformation’ as in, e.g., [@Flem]. Furthermore, if $\rho(\varphi)$ denotes the asymptotic growth rate for a randomized Markov control $\varphi$, then it can be shown that $\rho = \max_{\varphi} \rho(\varphi)$, implying the sufficiency of randomized Markov controls.
Some applications worth noting are [@Ananth]:
1. Growth rate of the number of directed paths in a graph. This requires $-\infty$ as a possible reward to account for the absence of edges.
2. Portfolio optimization in the framework of [@Bielecki].
3. Problem of minimizing the exit rate from a domain.
Reflected diffusions {#S4}
====================
Analogous results hold for reflected diffusions in a compact domain with smooth boundary. These are described by the stochastic differential equation $$\label{E-sderefl}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}X(t) &\,=\, b\bigl(X_t, U_t\bigr)\,{\mathrm{d}}t + \upsigma\bigl(X_t\bigr)\,{\mathrm{d}}W_t
- \gamma(X_t)\,{\mathrm{d}}\xi_t\,, \\[2pt]
{\mathrm{d}}\xi(t) &\,=\, \bm1\{X_t \in \partial Q\}\,{\mathrm{d}}\xi_t\,,
\end{aligned}$$ for $t \geq 0$. Here:
1. $Q$ is an open connected and bounded set with $C^3$ boundary $\partial Q$;
2. $\{W_t\}_{t\ge0}$ is a standard $d$-dimensional Wiener process;
3. the control $\{U_t\}_{t\ge0}$ lives in a metrizable compact action space ${\mathbb{U}}$ and is non-anticipative, i.e., for $t > s$, $W(t) - W(s)$ is independent of $X_0; W_y, U_y, y \leq s$;
4. $b$ is continuous, and $x\mapsto b(x, u)$ is Lipschitz uniformly in $u$;
5. $\upsigma$ is $C^{1,\beta_0}$ and uniformly non-degenerate;
6. $\gamma_i(x) = \upsigma(x)\upsigma(x){^{\mathsf{T}}}\eta(x)$ where $\eta(x)$ is the unit outward normal on $\partial Q$.
In contrast to the preceding section, we first consider the cost minimization problem to highlight the differences with the reward maximization problem. Unlike the classical cost/reward criteria such as discounted and average cost/reward, the risk-sensitive cost and reward problems are not rendered equivalent by a mere sign flip, and the differences are stark. For cost minimization, the control problem is to minimize $$\lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\,
\frac{1}{t}\,\log \operatorname{\mathrm{E}}\left[{\mathrm{e}}^{\int_0^tr(X_s, U_s)\,{\mathrm{d}}s}\right],$$ where $r$ is continuous.
The corresponding ‘Nisio semigroup’ is defined as follows. For $t \geq 0$, let $$S_tf(x) \,{\coloneqq}\, \inf_{\{U_t\}_{t\ge0}}\,\operatorname{\mathrm{E}}_x\left[{\mathrm{e}}^{\int_0^t
r(X_s, U_s)\,{\mathrm{d}}s}f(X_t)\right].$$ Then $S_t \colon C(\bar{Q}) \mapsto C(\bar{Q})$ is a semigroup of strongly continuous, bounded Lipschitz, monotone, superadditive, positively 1-homogeneous, strongly positive operators with infinitesimal generator ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ defined by $$\label{E-cG}
{{\mathcal{G}}}f(x) \,{\coloneqq}\, \frac{1}{2}\mbox{tr}\left(\upsigma(x)\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)\nabla^2f(x)\right) +
\min_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\,\Bigl[\langle b(x,u)\,, \nabla f(x)\rangle + r(x,u)f(x)\Bigr]\,.$$
Let $$C^2_{\gamma,+}(\bar{Q}) \,{\coloneqq}\,
\bigl\{f\colon\bar{Q} \mapsto [0, \infty) \colon f\in C^2(\Bar{Q}),
\ \langle\nabla f(x), \gamma(x)\rangle = 0 \text{\ for\ }x \in \partial Q\bigr\}\,.$$ As in the discrete case, the nonlinear Krein–Rutman theorem then leads to: There exists a unique pair $(\rho, \varphi) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times C^2_{\gamma, +}(\bar{Q})$ satisfying $\|\varphi\|_{0,\bar{Q}} = 1$ such that $$S_t\varphi = {\mathrm{e}}^{\rho t}\varphi\,.$$ This solves $${{\mathcal{G}}}\varphi(x) \,=\, \rho\varphi(x)\,,\ \ x \in Q, \qquad\text{and\ \ }
\langle \nabla\varphi(x), \gamma(x)\rangle \,=\, 0\,, \ \ x \in \partial Q\,.$$
The abstract Collatz-Wielandt formula for this problem is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &\,=\, \inf_{f \in C^2_{\gamma,+}(\bar{Q}), f > 0}\;\sup_{\nu \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(\bar{Q})}\;
\int_{\bar{Q}}\frac{{{\mathcal{G}}}f}{f}{\mathrm{d}}\nu \\
&\,=\, \sup_{f \in C^2_{\gamma,+}(\bar{Q}), f > 0}\;\inf_{\nu \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(\bar{Q})}\;
\int_{\bar{Q}}\frac{{{\mathcal{G}}}f}{f}{\mathrm{d}}\nu\,.
\end{aligned}$$ In the uncontrolled case, the first formula above is the convex dual of the Donsker–Varadhan formula for the principal eigenvalue of ${{\mathcal{G}}}$: $$\rho \,=\, \sup_{\nu \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(\bar{Q})}\left(\int_{\bar{Q}}r(x)\nu({\mathrm{d}}x) - I(\nu)\right)\,,$$ where $$I(\nu) \,{\coloneqq}\,
\inf_{f \in C^2_{\gamma,+}(\bar{Q}), f > 0}\;\int_{\bar{Q}}\left(\frac{{{\mathcal{G}}}f}{f}\right)
{\mathrm{d}}\nu\,.$$
For the risk-sensitive reward problem, the same abstract Collatz-Wielandt formula holds, except that the definition of the operator ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ now has a ‘$\max$’ in place of the ‘$\min$’. But as in the discrete time case, one can go a step further and have a variational formulation. Let $$R(x,u,w) \,{\coloneqq}\, r(x,u) - \frac{1}{2}{\lvert\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)w\rvert}^2\,,
\quad (x,u,w)\in\Bar{Q}\times{\mathbb{U}}\times{\mathbb{R}^d}\,,$$ and $${{\mathcal{M}}}\,{\coloneqq}\, \biggl\{\mu \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(\bar{Q}\times U\times {\mathbb{R}^d}) \,\colon
\int_{\bar{Q}\times U\times {\mathbb{R}^d}}{\mathcal{A}}f(x,u,w)
\mu({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}u,{\mathrm{d}}w) = 0\ \ \forall\, f \in C^2(Q)\cap C_\gamma(\Bar{Q})\biggr\}\,,$$ with $${\mathcal{A}}f (x,u,w)\,{\coloneqq}\, \frac{1}{2}\mbox{tr}
\left(\upsigma(x)\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)\nabla^2f(x)\right) +
\bigl\langle b(x,u) + \upsigma(x)\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)w, \nabla f(x)\bigr\rangle
\label{E-cA}$$ for $f \in C^2(Q)\cap C(\bar{Q})$. Recall the definition of an ‘*ergodic occupation measure*’ [@ABG]. For a stochastic differential equation as in , but with the drift $b$ replaced with $b(x,u) + \upsigma(x)\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)w$, and $w$ taking values in some compact metrizable space, it is the time-$t$ marginal of a stationary state-control process $\bigl(X_t, v(X_t), w(X_t)\bigr)$, perforce independent of $t$. Thus, in the case the parameter $w$ lives in a compact space, by a standard characterization of ergodic occupation measures (*ibid.*), ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ is precisely the set thereof for controlled diffusions whose (controlled) extended generator is ${\mathcal{A}}$. This however is not necessarily the case if $w$ lives in ${\mathbb{R}^d}$. An example to keep in mind is the one-dimensional stochastic differential equation $${\mathrm{d}}{X}_{t} = \bigl({\mathrm{e}}^{\nicefrac{X_{t}^{2}}{2}}- X_{t}\bigr)\,{\mathrm{d}}{t} +\sqrt{2}\, {\mathrm{d}}{W}_{t}\,.$$ It is straightforward to verify that the standard Gaussian density satisfies the Fokker–Planck equation. However, the diffusion is not even regular, so it does not have an invariant probability measure. Therefore, we refer to ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ as the set of *infinitesimal ergodic occupation measures*. The variational formula for this model is $$\rho \,=\, \sup_{\mu \in {{\mathcal{M}}}}\int_{\bar{Q}\times U\times {\mathbb{R}^d}}R(x,u,w)
\mu({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}u,{\mathrm{d}}w)\,.$$ This result is from [@AABK].
An analogous abstract Collatz–Wielandt formula for the risk-sensitive *cost minimization* problem was derived in [@ABK]. We have not derived a corresponding variational formula. Even if one were to do so, it is clear that it will be a ‘sup-inf / inf-sup’ formula rather than a pure maximization problem. This is already known through a different route: it forms the basis of the approach initiated by [@Flem] and followed by many, in which the the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation for the risk-sensitive cost minimization problem is converted to an Isaacs equation for an ergodic payoff zero sum stochastic differential game. The aforementioned expression then is simply the value of this game. Going by pure analogy, for the reward maximization problem, one would expect this route to yield a stochastic *team* problem wherein the two agents seek to maximize a common payoff, but *non-cooperatively*, i.e., without either of them having knowledge of the other person’s decision. What this translates into is that under the corresponding ergodic occupation measure, the two control actions are conditionally independent given the state. The set of such measures is non-convex. What we have achieved instead is a single concave programming problem, which is a significant simplification from the point of view of developing computational schemes for the problem. This also brings to the fore the difference between reward maximization and cost minimization in risk-sensitive control.
Diffusions on the whole space {#S5}
=============================
Here we consider a controlled diffusion in ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ of the form $${\mathrm{d}}X_t \,=\, b(X_t,U_t)\,{\mathrm{d}}t + \upsigma (X_t)\,{\mathrm{d}}W_t\,,$$ where
1. $W$ is a standard $d$-dimensional Brownian motion;
2. the control $U_t$ lives in a metrizable compact action space ${\mathbb{U}}$ and is non-anticipative, i.e., for $t > s$, $W(t) - W(s)$ is independent of $X_0; W_y, U_y, y \leq s$;
3. $b(x,u)$ is continuous and locally Lipschitz continuous in $x$ uniformly in $u\in{\mathbb{U}}$;
4. $\upsigma$ is locally Lipschitz continuous and locally nondegenerate;
5. $b$ and $\upsigma$ have at most affine growth in $x$.
Without loss of generality, we may take $U_t$ to be adapted to the increasing $\sigma$-fields generated by $\{X_t, t \geq 0\}$. Then these hypotheses guarantee the existence of a unique weak solution for any admissible control $\{U_t\}_{t\ge0}$ ([@ABG], Chapter 2).
As before, we let $r(x,u)$ be a continuous running reward function, which is locally Lipschitz in $x$ uniformly in $u$, and is also bounded from above in ${\mathbb{R}^d}$. We define the *optimal risk-sensitive value* $J^*$ by $$J^* \,{\coloneqq}\, \sup_{\{U_t\}_{t\ge0}}\;\liminf_{T\to\infty}\, \frac{1}{T}\,
\log \operatorname{\mathrm{E}}\Bigl[{\mathrm{e}}^{\int^T_0 r(X_t,U_t)\,{\mathrm{d}}t} \Bigr]\,,$$ where the supremum is over all admissible controls.
Consider the extremal operator $$\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}f(x) \,{\coloneqq}\, \frac{1}{2}\operatorname*{trace}\left(a(x)\nabla^{2}f(x)\right)
+ \max_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\, \Bigl[\bigl\langle b(x,u),
{\nabla}f(x)\bigr\rangle + r(x,u) f(x)\Bigr]$$ for $f\in{{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$. The *generalized principal eigenvalue* of $\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}$ is defined by $$\label{E-lamstr}
\lambda_*(\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}})\,{\coloneqq}\,\inf\,\Bigl\{\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}\,
\colon \exists\, \phi\in{{\mathscr W}_{\text{loc}}}^{2,d}({\mathbb{R}^d}),\ \varphi>0, \
\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}\phi -\lambda\phi\le 0 \text{\ a.e.\ in\ } {\mathbb{R}^d}\Bigr\}\,,$$ where ${{\mathscr W}_{\text{loc}}}^{2,d}({\mathbb{R}^d})$ denotes the local Sobolev space of functions on ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ whose generalized derivatives up to order $2$ are in ${L_{\text{loc}}}^{d}({\mathbb{R}^d})$, equipped with its natural semi-norms. We assume that $r-\lambda_*$ is negative and bounded from above away from zero on the complement of some compact set. This is always satisfied if $-r$ is an inf-compact function, that is the sublevel sets $\{-r \le c\}$ are compact (or empty) in ${\mathbb{R}^d}\times{\mathbb{U}}$ for each $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$, or if $r$ is a positive function vanishing at infinity and the process $\{X_t\}_{t\ge0}$ is recurrent under some stationary Markov control. Then there exists a unique positive ${\Phi_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}\in{{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$ normalized as ${\Phi_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}(0)=1$ which solves $\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}{\Phi_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}= \lambda_*{\Phi_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}$. In other words, the eigenvalue $\lambda_*=\lambda_*(\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}})$ is simple. Let ${{\varphi^{}_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}}{\coloneqq}\log{\Phi_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}$. As shown in [@AABK], the function $${{\mathcal{H}}}(x)\,{\coloneqq}\,\frac{1}{2}\,{\bigl\lvert\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x){\nabla}{{\varphi^{}_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}}(x)\bigr\rvert}^2\,,
\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$$ is an *infinitesimal relative entropy rate*.
We let ${{\mathcal{Z}}}{\coloneqq}{\mathbb{R}^d}\times{\mathbb{U}}\times{\mathbb{R}^d}$, and use the single variable $z=(x,u,w)\in{{\mathcal{Z}}}$. Let ${{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})$ denote the set of probability measures on the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of ${{\mathcal{Z}}}$, and ${{\mathcal{M}}}_A$ denote the set of infinitesimal ergodic occupation measures for the operator ${\mathcal{A}}$ in defined for $f\in{{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$, which here can be written as $${{\mathcal{M}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}\,{\coloneqq}\,\biggl\{ \mu\in {{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})\,\colon
\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} {\mathcal{A}}f(z)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{z}) \,=\, 0\quad \forall\, f\in{{C}}^{2}_c({\mathbb{R}^d})\biggr\}\,,$$ where ${{C}}^2_c({\mathbb{R}^d})$ is the class of functions in ${{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$ which have compact support. Recall the definition $R(x,u,w){\coloneqq}r(x,u) - \frac{1}{2}{\lvert\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)w\rvert}^2$ in Section \[S4\]. We also define $$\begin{aligned}
{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}*}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}}) &\,{\coloneqq}\,
\biggl\{\mu\in {{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})\,\colon
\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} {{\mathcal{H}}}(x)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{x},{\mathrm{d}}{u},{\mathrm{d}}{w}) <\infty\biggr\}\,,\\
{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}\circ}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}}) &\,{\coloneqq}\,
\biggl\{ \mu\in {{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})\,\colon
\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} R(z)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{z}) > -\infty\biggr\}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
The following is a summary of the main results in [@AABK Section 4].
We have $$\begin{aligned}
J^* \,=\, \lambda_*(\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}) &\,=\, \sup_{\mu\in{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}*}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})}\,
\inf_{g \in {{C}}^2_c({\mathbb{R}^d})}\,\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} \bigl({\mathcal{A}}g(z)+R(z)\bigr)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{z})\\
&
\,=\, \max_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{M}}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}}}\cap{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}*}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})}\,\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} R(z)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{z})\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that the diffusion matrix $a$ is bounded and uniformly elliptic, and either $-r$ is inf-compact, or $\langle b,x\rangle^-$ has subquadratic growth, or $\frac{{\lvertb\rvert}^2}{1+{\lvertr\rvert}}$ is bounded. Then ${{\mathcal{M}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}\cap{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}\circ}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})\subset{{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}*}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})$, and ${{{{\mathcal{P}}}^{}_{\mspace{-3mu}*}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})$ may be replaced by ${{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})$ in the variational formula above. If, in addition, $\frac{{{\mathcal{H}}}}{1+{\lvert{{\varphi^{}_{\mspace{-2mu}*}}}\rvert}}$ is bounded, then $$J^* \,=\, \lambda_*(\widehat{{\mathcal{G}}}) \,=\, \inf_{g \in {{C}}^2_c({\mathbb{R}^d})}\, \sup_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{P}}}({{\mathcal{Z}}})}\,
\int_{{{\mathcal{Z}}}} \bigl({\mathcal{A}}g(z)+R(z)\bigr)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{z}) \,.$$
We continue with the Collatz–Wielandt formula in ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ for the risk-sensitive cost minimization problem. This is studied in [@AriAnup]. Here, we have a running cost $r(x,u)$ which is bounded from below in ${\mathbb{R}^d}\times{\mathbb{U}}$, and is locally Lipschitz in $x$ uniformly in $u$. The assumptions on $b$ and $\upsigma$ are as stated in the beginning of the section, except that we may replace the affine growth assumption with the more general condition $$\sup_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\; \langle b(x,u),x\rangle^{+} + {\lVert\upsigma(x)\rVert}^{2}\,\le\,C_0
\bigl(1 + {\lvertx\rvert}^{2}\bigr) \qquad \forall\, x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\,,$$ for some constant $C_0>0$. The risk-sensitive optimal value $\Lambda^*$ is defined by $$\Lambda^*\,{\coloneqq}\, \inf_{\{U_t\}_{t\ge0}}\; \limsup_{T\to\infty}\,\frac{1}{T}\,
\log\operatorname{\mathrm{E}}\Bigl[{\mathrm{e}}^{\int_0^T r(X_s, U_s)\, {\mathrm{d}}{s}}\Bigr]\,.$$ The operator ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ here is as in but for $f\in{{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$, and we let the generalized principal eigenvalue $\lambda_*({{\mathcal{G}}})$ be defined as in .
The running cost does not have any structural properties that penalize unstable behavior such as near-monotonicity or inf-compactness, so uniform ergodicity for the controlled process needs to be assumed. Let $${\mathcal{L}}f(x,u) \,{\coloneqq}\,
\frac{1}{2}\mbox{tr}\left(\upsigma(x)\upsigma{^{\mathsf{T}}}(x)\nabla^2f(x)\right)
+ \bigl\langle b(x,u), \nabla f(x)\bigr\rangle\,.$$ We consider the following hypothesis.
\[A2.1\] The following hold.
- There exists an inf-compact function $\ell\in{{C}}({\mathbb{R}^d})$, and a positive function ${\mathscr{V}}\in{{\mathscr W}_{\text{loc}}}^{2, d}({\mathbb{R}^d})$, satisfying $\inf_{{\mathbb{R}^d}}{\mathscr{V}}>0$, such that $$\label{EA2.1A}
\sup_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\,{\mathcal{L}}{\mathscr{V}}(x,u) \,\le\, \kappa_1 {\bm{1}}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(x)
-\ell(x) {\mathscr{V}}(x) \quad \forall\,x\in{\mathbb{R}^d}\,,$$ for some constant $\kappa_1$ and a compact set ${\mathcal{K}}$.
- The function $x\mapsto \beta\ell(x)-\max_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\, r(x,u)$ is inf-compact for some $\beta\in(0, 1)$.
As noted in [@ABS-19], the Foster–Lyapunov equation in cannot in general be satisfied for diffusions with bounded $a$ and $b$. Therefore, to treat this case, we consider an alternate set of conditions.
\[A2.2\] The following hold.
- There exists a positive function ${\mathscr{V}}\in{{\mathscr W}_{\text{loc}}}^{2,d}({\mathbb{R}^d})$, satisfying $\inf_{{\mathbb{R}^d}} {\mathscr{V}}> 0$, constants $\kappa_1$ and $\gamma>0$, and a compact set ${\mathcal{K}}$ such that $$\sup_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\,{\mathcal{L}}{\mathscr{V}}(x,u) \le \kappa_1 {\bm{1}}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(x)
-\gamma {\mathscr{V}}(x) \quad \forall\,x\in{\mathbb{R}^d}\,.$$
- ${\lVertr^-\rVert}_\infty+\limsup_{{\lvertx\rvert}\to\infty}\, \max_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\,r(x,u)
<\gamma$.
Let ${{\mathfrak{o}}}({\mathscr{V}})$ denote the class of continuous functions $f$ that grow slower than ${\mathscr{V}}$, that is, $\frac{{\lvertf(x)\rvert}}{{\mathscr{V}}(x)}\to0$ as ${\lvertx\rvert}\to\infty$. We quote the following result from [@ABS-19].
Grant either Assumption \[A2.1\], or \[A2.2\]. Then $$\label{ET2.4A}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^*\,=\,\lambda_*({{\mathcal{G}}}) &\,=\, \sup_{f\in {{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})\cap{{\mathfrak{o}}}({\mathscr{V}})}\;
\inf_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{P}}}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\; \int_{{\mathbb{R}^d}}\frac{{{\mathcal{G}}}f}{f}\, {\mathrm{d}}{\mu}\\
&\,=\, \inf_{f\in {{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\;
\sup_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{P}}}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\; \int_{{\mathbb{R}^d}}\frac{{{\mathcal{G}}}f}{f}\, {\mathrm{d}}{\mu}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})$ denotes the set of positive functions in ${{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$.
We should remark here that the class of test functions $f$ in the first representation formula in cannot, in general, be enlarged to ${{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})$.
It is also interesting to consider the substitution $f = e^{\psi}$. Then transforms to $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_*({{\mathcal{G}}}) &\,=\,
\sup_{\psi\in {{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})\cap{{\mathfrak{o}}}(\log{\mathscr{V}})}\; \inf_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{P}}}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\;
\int_{{\mathbb{R}^d}}F[\psi](x)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{x})\\
&\,=\, \inf_{\psi\in {{C}}^{2,+}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\; \sup_{\mu\in{{\mathcal{P}}}({\mathbb{R}^d})}\;
\int_{{\mathbb{R}^d}}F[\psi](x)\,\mu({\mathrm{d}}{x})\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$F[\psi](x)\,{\coloneqq}\, \inf_{u\in{\mathbb{U}}}\;\sup_{w\in{\mathbb{R}^d}}\;
\bigl[{\mathcal{A}}\psi(x,u,w) + R(x,u,w)\bigr]\,.$$ This underscores the discussion in the last paragraph of section \[S4\].
Finite state and action space {#S6}
=============================
For discrete time problems with finite state and action spaces (i.e., $|S|, |U| < \infty$ in sections 2-3), one can go significantly further for the reward maximization problem. We recall below some results in this context from [@CDC].
Consider a controlled Markov chain $\{Y_n\}$ on $S$ with state-dependent action space at state $i$ given by: $$\tilde{U}_i \,{\coloneqq}\, \cup_{u \in U}(\{ u \}\times V_{i,u})\,,$$ where $$V_{i,u} \,{\coloneqq}\, \biggl\{q( \cdot\,|\, i, u) \colon q( \cdot\,|\, i, u) \geq 0,
\ \sum_jq(j\,|\, i, u) = 1\biggr\}\,.$$ This is isomorphic to $\mathcal{P}(S)$. Let $$K \,{\coloneqq}\, \cup_{i \in S}(\{i\}\times\tilde{U}_i)\,.$$ The (controlled) transition probabilities of $\{Y_n\}$ are $$\tilde{p}\bigl(j \,|\, i, (u,q( \cdot \,|\, i, u))\bigr) \,{\coloneqq}\, q(j \,|\, i,u)\,.$$
Define the per stage reward $\tilde{r} \colon K\times S \mapsto \mathcal{R}$ by: $$\tilde{r}\bigl(i, (u,q(\cdot \,|\, i,u)), j\bigr) \,{\coloneqq}\,
r(i, u, j) - D\bigl(q(\cdot \,|\, i, u) \|\, p(\cdot\,|\, i, u)\bigr)\,.$$ Let $\{(Z_n, Q_n), n \geq 0\}$ denote the $\tilde{U}_{Y_n}$-valued control process. Consider the problem: Maximize the long run average reward $$\liminf_{N\uparrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}
\operatorname{\mathrm{E}}\left[\tilde{r}\left(Y_n, (Z_n, Q_n), Y_{n+1}\right)\right].$$
Define the corresponding ergodic occupation measure $\gamma \in \mathcal{P}(K\times S)$ by $$\gamma(i, (u, {\mathrm{d}}q), j) \,{\coloneqq}\, \gamma_1(i)\gamma_2(u,{\mathrm{d}}q\,|\, i)
\gamma_3\bigl(j\,|\, i, (u, q)\bigr)\,,$$ where $\gamma_1$ is an invariant probability distribution (not necessarily unique) under the transition kernel $$\check{\gamma}(j\,|\, i) \,=\, \sum_u\int_{V_{i,u}}\gamma_2(u,{\mathrm{d}}q\,|\, i)
\gamma_3\bigl(j\,|\, i, (u, q)\bigr)\,.$$ Let $\mathcal{E}$ denote the set of such $\gamma$. The above average reward control problem is equivalent to the linear program:
**P0** Maximize $$\sum_{i,j,u}\int \gamma(i, (u,{\mathrm{d}}q), j)\tilde{r}(i, (u,q), j)$$ over $\mathcal{E}$.
Recall that $\mathcal{E}$ is specified by linear constraints and its extreme points correspond to stationary Markov policies ([@BorkarMC], Chapter V). The maximum will be attained at an extreme point of $\mathcal{E}$ corresponding to a stationary Markov policy. This LP can be simplified as:
Maximize $$\sum_{i,j}\int \gamma'(i,u,j)\Bigl[r(i, u, j)
- D\bigl(q(\cdot \,|\, i, u) \|\, p(\cdot \,|\, i, u)\bigr)\Bigr]$$ over $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}} \,{\coloneqq}\, \biggl\{\gamma' \in \mathcal{P}(S\times U\times S)
\colon \gamma'(i, u, j) = \gamma_1(i)\varphi(u\,|\, i)q(j \,|\, i, u),
\text{\ where\ } \gamma_1(\cdot) \text{\ is invariant}\\ \text{under the transition kernel\ }
\breve{\gamma}(j|\,i) {\coloneqq}\sum_u\varphi(u\,|\,i)q(j\,|\,i,u)\biggr\}\,.\end{gathered}$$
The dual LP is:
Minimize $\breve{\lambda}$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\breve{\lambda} &\,\ge\, \lambda(i)\,, \\
\lambda(i) + V(i) &\,\ge\, \sum_jq(j\,|\,i,u)
\bigl(\tilde{r}(i, (u, q( \cdot\,|\, i,u)), j) + V(j)\bigr)\,, \\
\lambda(i) &\,\ge\, \sum_jq(j\,|\, i,u)\lambda(j)\,, \\
&\mspace{60mu} \forall \ i \in S, \ (u, q(\cdot\,|\, i,u)) \in \tilde{U}_i\,.\end{aligned}$$ The proof goes through finite approximations. Note that the LP has infinitely many constraints. However, it does pave the way for the corresponding dynamic programming principle. The dynamic programming formulation equivalent to the above LP turns out to be as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^* &\,=\, \max_i\lambda(i)\,, \\
\lambda(i) + V(i) &\,=\, \max_{u, q(\cdot\,|\, i, u)}
\Bigl(\sum_jq(j\,|\,i, u)\bigl(V(j)
+ \tilde{r}(i, (u, q(\cdot\,|\, i, u), j))\bigr)\Bigr)\,, \qquad (\dagger) \\
\lambda(i) &\,=\, \max_{(u, q(\cdot\,|\,i, u)) \in B_i}\sum_jq(j\,|\, i, u)\lambda(j)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\in S$, where $B_i$ is the Argmax in ($\dagger$). Once again, the proof goes through finite approximations. The maximization over $q$ in ($\dagger$) can be explicitly performed using the ‘Gibbs variational principle’ from statistical mechanics. For fixed $i,u,$ the maximum is attained at $$q^*(j\,|\, i, u) \,{\coloneqq}\, \frac{p(j\,|\,i,u){\mathrm{e}}^{r(i, u, j) + V(j)}}
{\sum_kp(k\,|\,i,u){\mathrm{e}}^{r(i, u, k) + V(k)}}\,.$$ Substitute back, setting $$\Phi(i) \,{\coloneqq}\, {\mathrm{e}}^{V(i)}, \quad \Lambda(i) \,{\coloneqq}\, {\mathrm{e}}^{\lambda(i)},\quad i \in S\,,$$ and exponentiate both sides of ($\dagger$). This leads to the multiplicative dynamic programming equations for infinite horizon risk-sensitive reward in the general degenerate case: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(i)\Phi(i) &\,=\, \max_u\sum_jp(j\,|\, i, u)\left({\mathrm{e}}^{r(i, u, j)}\Phi(j)\right)\,,
\mspace{100mu}(\dagger\dagger) \\
\Lambda(i) &\,=\, \max_{u \in D_i}\sum_j\left(\frac{p(j\,|\,i,u){\mathrm{e}}^{r(i, u, j)}\Phi(j)}
{\sum_kp(k\,|\,i,u){\mathrm{e}}^{r(i, u, k)}\Phi(k)}\right)\Lambda(j)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\in S$, where $D_i$ is the Argmax in ($\dagger\dagger$). This is the analog of the Howard–Kallenberg results for ergodic or ‘average reward’ control ([@Puterman], Chapter 9). Observe the occurrence of the ‘*twisted kernel*’, which sets it apart from the average reward case.
Future directions
=================
There are several directions left uncharted in this broad problem area. Some of them are listed below.
1. There are some in-between cases that need to be analyzed, e.g., controlled Markov chains with countably infinite state space. Under the strong ‘Doeblin condition’, the abstract Collatz-Wielandt formula has been derived for these in [@Cavazos]. This needs to be extended to more general cases.
2. The counterpart of the dynamic programming equations derived for reducible risk-sensitive reward processes can also be expected to hold for risk-sensitive cost problems and is yet to be established.
3. Concrete computational schemes based on approximate concave maximization problems is another direction worth pursuing.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of A.A. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant DMS-1715210, and in part the Army Research Office through grant W911NF-17-1-001. The work of V.S.B. was supported by a J. C. Bose Fellowship from the Government of India.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[^1] Walter Briec, QiBin Liang and Charles Horvath [^2]'
title: ' Quasi-Leontief Utility Functions on Partially Ordered Sets II: Nash Equilibria '
---
\
**Abstract:** We prove that, under appropriate conditions, an abstract game with quasi-Leontief payoff functions $u_i : \prod_{j=1}^nX_j\to\mathbb{R}$ has a Nash equilibria. When all the payoff functions are globally quasi-Leontief, the existence and the characterization of efficient Nash equilibria mainly follows from the analysis carried out in part I. When the payoff functions are individually quasi-Leontief functions the matter is somewhat more complicated. We assume that all the strategy spaces are compact topological semilattices, and under appropriate continuity conditions on the payoff functions, we show that there exists an efficient Nash equilibria using the Eilenberg-Montgomery Fixed Point Theorem for acyclic valued upper semicontinuous maps defined on an absolute retract and some non trivial properties of topological semilattices. The map in question is defined on the set of Nash equilibria and its fixed points are exactly the efficient Nash equilibria.\
**Keywords:** Leontief utility functions, Quasi-Leontief utility functions, efficient points, Nash equilibria, semilattices, topological semilattices.\
\
**AMS classification:** 06A12, 22A26, 49J27, 91A44, 91B02
Introduction {#secnash}
============
Given a family of sets and functions $S_i\subset X_i$ and $u_i: \prod_{j\in [n]}X_j\to\Lambda$, a Nash points of the abstract game ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, S_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ is an element $x^\star$ of the product space such $ \prod_{j\in [n]}S_j$ that, for all $j\in [n]$, $x^\star_j\in\arg\!\max(u_j[x^\star_{-j}]; S_j)$; $\boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big)$ denotes the possibly empty set of Nash Points of the abstract game ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, S_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$. In this section we investigate the existence of Nash points in the context of quasi-Leontief functions. If all the payoff functions $u_i$ are individually (respectively globally) quasi-Leontief functions we will say that ${\mathcal G}$ is an individually (respectively globally) quasi-Leontief game. A quasi-Leontief game is a game which is indifferently either individually or globally quasi-Leontief. Of course, anything that is true of all individually quasi-Leontief games is also true of globally quasi-Leontief games. We will write ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ for an abstract game for which, for all $i\in [n]$, $S_i = X_i$.
If each $S_i$ has a largest element $\bar{z}_i$ then the problem of the existence of Nash points is trivial and $\bar{z}$ is a Nash Point.
We will say that $x^\star = (x_1^\star, \cdots, x_n^\star)$ is an [**efficient Nash point for player $\boldsymbol{i}$**]{} if it is a Nash point and $x_i^\star\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}^\star]_{\mid S_{i}}; S_i)$ and that $x^\star$ is an [**efficient Nash point**]{} if it is efficient for all the players.
In section \[secnashglob\] the strategy spaces are partially ordered spaces, or inf-semilattices, and the payoff functions are globally quasi-Leontief on the product of the strategy spaces; all the results follow from the previous analysis of quasi-Leontief functions on partially ordered spaces. Assuming that the constraint sets $S_i$ are comprehensive and bounded above subsets of infsemilattices $X_i$, on can characterize efficient Nash points.
In section \[secnashindivid\] the payoff functions are individually quasi-Leontief and the structure of the strategy spaces is much more restricted, but more classical; the strategy spaces are compact toplogical spaces endowed with an infsemilattice structure for which the inf operation is continuous, as is the case, for example, for compact sub inf-semilattices of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Also, the payoff functions are real valued and continuous. The existence of Nash points in this context does not follow from any of the previously established results and requires some topological machinery. We prove the existence of efficient Nash points using the Eilenberg-Montgomery Theorem and some non trivial facts on the topology of inf-semilattices.
Globally quasi-Leontief games {#secnashglob}
=============================
Finding a Nash point for a globally quasi-Leontief game with $n$ players can be reduced to $n$ independent maximization problems. This is content of Proposition \[Existnashgql\] below which settles the problem of the existence of Nash points for globally quasi-Leontief games under the hypothesis that for all $j\in [n]$ $\arg\!\max(u_i; \prod_{j\in [n]}S_j)\neq\emptyset$. Let $S = \prod_{j\in [n]}S_j$ and for all $i\in [n]$ let $\arg\!\max(u_i; S)_i$ be the projection of $\arg\!\max(u_i; S)$ on $S_i$.
\[Existnashgql\] For all globally quasi-Leontief games ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, S_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ we have $$\prod_{i\in [n]}\arg\!\max(u_i; S)_i\, \subset \, \boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big).$$
[*Proof:*]{} If one the sets $\arg\!\max(u_i; S)$ is empty there is nothing to prove. For all $i\in [n]$ pick an element $z^{[i]}$ of $\arg\!\max(u_i; S)$ and let $x^\star_i = z^{[i]}_i$. We will show that $x^\star$ is a Nash point. For for all $x_i\in S_i$ we have $u_i(z^{[i]})\geqslant u_i(x^\star_{-i}; x_i)$, that is $u_i[z^{[i]}_{-i}](z_i^{[i]})\geqslant u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)$; and trivially we have $ u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\geqslant u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)$. From the remarks following Proposition $3.1.2$ of Part I, we have $$\label{eqnasgql1}u_i[z^{[i]}_{-i}]^\sharp\big( u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\big) =
u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}]^\sharp\big( u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\big) =
u_{i, i}^\sharp\big( u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\big)$$ where $u_{i, i}^\sharp$ is the $i$-th coordinate of $u_{i}^\sharp$. Again, from $u_i[z^{[i]}_{-i}](z_i^{[i]})\geqslant u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)$ we have $$\label{eqnasgql2}
z_i^{[i]}\geqslant u_i[z^{[i]}_{-i}]^\sharp\big(u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\big).$$ From (\[eqnasgql1\]) and (\[eqnasgql2\]) we get $z_i^{[i]}\geqslant u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}]^\sharp\big( u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)\big)$ or $u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](z_i^{[i]})\geqslant u_i[x^{\star}_{-i}](x_i)$ that is $u_i(x^\star)\geqslant u_i(x^{\star}_{-i}; x_i)$. $\Box$
The next results shows that, under appropriate but by now familiar conditions, a globally quasi-Leontief game has a Nash point which is also a maximal element of the strategy space.
\[Enashmax\] Let ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, S_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be a globally quasi-Leontief game such that, for all $i\in [n]$, $S_i$ is a non empty comprehensive (CUC) subset of $X_i$ with an upper bound $\bar{x}_i\in X_i$. Then $$\boldsymbol{Max}\big( \prod_{i\in [n]}S_i\big)\, \cap \, \boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big) \, \neq\, \emptyset.$$
[*Proof:*]{} The set $S = \prod_{i\in [n]}$ is clearly non empty, comprehensive and bounded above; one easily shows that it is also (CUC) since a projection of a chain in the product space is a chain. By Theorem $2.4.3$ of Part I, $\boldsymbol{Max}(S)\cap \arg\!\max(u_i; S)\neq\emptyset$, for all $i\in [n]$; in the proof of Proposition \[Existnashgql\] we take $z^{[i]}$ in $\boldsymbol{Max}(S)\cap \arg\!\max(u_i; S)$. Let us see that $x^\star\in \boldsymbol{Max}(S)$. Let $x\in S$ such that $x\geqslant x^\star$; from $x_i\geqslant z_i^{[i]}$ we have $(z_{-i}^{[i]}; x_i)\geqslant z^{[i]}$ and from $(z_{-i}^{[i]}; x_i)\in S$ we obtain $(z_{-i}^{[i]}; x_i) = z^{[i]}$ and consequently $x_i = z_i^{[i]}$, and since $i$ was arbitrary, $x = x^\star$. $\Box$
Efficient Nash points of globally quasi-Leontief games.
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section, each $X_i$ is an inf-semilattice and each $S_i$ is a nonempty comprehensive subset of $X_i$ with an upper bound $\bar{x}_i\in X_i$. By Proposition $2.3.5$ of Part I, there are quasi-Leontief functions $u_{i, j} : S_i\to\Lambda$, $i, j\in [n]$ such that, for all $x\in\prod_{i\in [n]}S_i$, $u_i(x) = \min_{j\in [n]}u_{i, j}(x_j)$. For all $i\in [n]$ let $\tilde{u}_i(x_{-i}) = \min_{j\neq i}u_{i, j}(x_j)$; it is a globally quasi-Leontief function defined on $\prod_{j\neq i}X_j$. We have $u_i(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \min\{u_{i, i}(x_i), \tilde{u}_i(x_{-i})\}$.
A point $x^\star = (x^\star_1, \cdots, x^\star_n)$ is a Nash point if and only if, for all $i\in [n]$, the following condition holds:
$(N_i)$$\forall x_i\in X_i$ $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)\, \geqslant\, \min\{u_{i, i}(x_i), \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})\} $.
If $x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then $(N_i)$ holds. If $x^\star$ is a Nash point such that $x_i^\star\not\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then there exists $x_i\in X_i$ such that $u_{i, i}(x_i) > u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)$ and threfore, by $(N_i)$, $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)\, \geqslant\, \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$; and this inequality obviously imply $(N_i)$.\
If the inequality $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)\, \geqslant\, \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ does not hold then $(N_i)$ implies that $x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$.\
If $x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$, since $S_i$ is comprehensive.\
If $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)\, \geqslant\, \min_{j\neq i}\{u_{i, j}(x^\star_j)\}$ then, from $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) = u_{i, i}\big(u_{i, i}^\circ(x^\star_i)\big)$,\
$x^\star_j\geqslant u_{j, j}^\circ(x^\star_j)$ and the fact that $u_{i, j}$ is isotone we have\
$ u_{i, i}\big(u_{i, i}^\circ(x^\star_i)\big)\, \geqslant\, \min_{j\neq i}\{u_{i, j}(x^\star_j)\} \geqslant\, \min_{j\neq i}\big\{u_{i, j}\big(u_{j, j}^\circ(x^\star_j)\big)\big\}$.
\[carnashglobleon\] If, for all $i\in [n]$, $S_i$ is a comprehensive subset of the inf-semilattice $X_i$ and if, for all $i\in [n]$, $u_i(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \min_{i\in[n]}u_{i, j}(x_j)$, where $u_{i, j}: X_j\to\Lambda$ is a quasi-Leontief function, then a point $x^\star\in\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ is a Nash point if and only if, for all $i\in [n]$, $$\label{N1}
x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$$ or $$\label{N2}u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)\, \geqslant\, \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$$ Furthermore, if $(x_1^\star, \cdots, x_n^\star)$ is a Nash point then so is $(u_{1, 1}^\circ(x_1^\star), \cdots, u_{n, n}^\circ (x_n^\star) )$ and, for all $i\in [n]$, $u_i((x_1^\star, \cdots, x_n^\star) \geqslant u_i(u_{1, 1}^\circ(x_1^\star), \cdots, u_{n, n}^\circ (x_n^\star) )$.
The meaning of Proposition \[carnashglobleon\] is that the search of a Nash point for a globally quasi-Leontief game on comprehensive and bounded strategy spaces $S_i$ can always be reduced to $n$ independent and decoupled maximization problems – $x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ – and that one can choose $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$.
Recall that $x^\star$ is an efficient Nash point for player $i$ if $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_i[x^\star_{-i}]_{\mid S_{i}}, S_i)$ that is, if $\big [x_i\in S_i$ and $u_i[x^\star_{-i}](x_i)\geqslant u_i(x^\star)\big]$ implies $x_i \geqslant x_i^\star$, which is equivalent to $$\label{condeffnash}
\big[ x_i\in S_i \hbox{ and } u_{i, i}(x_i) \geqslant \min\{u_{i, i}(x^\star_i), \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i}) \}\big] \hbox{ implies } x_i\geqslant x_i^\star$$
$(a1)$ If $\tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i}) \geqslant u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)$ then (\[condeffnash\]) becomes: $\big[ x_i\in S_i \hbox{ and } u_{i, i}(x_i) \geqslant u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)]\\ \hbox{ implies } x_i\geqslant x_i^\star$ .\
If $x_i^\star\not\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\in S_i$ and $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\not\in\uparrow\!(x^\star_i)$, since $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\neq x_i^\star$, and $u_{i, i}\big(u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\big) = u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) = \min\{u_{i, i}(x^\star_i), \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i}) \}$ and therefore (\[condeffnash\]) does not hold.\
If $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then (\[condeffnash\]) holds.
[*A Nash point $x^\star$ such that $\tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i}) \geqslant u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)$ is efficient for player $i$ if and only if $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$. We also have $u_i(x^\star) = u_{i, i}(x^\star_i)$.* ]{}
$(a2)$ If $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ then (\[condeffnash\]) becomes: $\big[ x_i\in S_i \hbox{ and } u_{i, i}(x_i) \geqslant \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i}) \big]$ implies $x_i\geqslant x_i^\star$.\
If $x_i^\star\not\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ then $u_{i, i}\big(u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\big) = u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$, $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\in S_i$ and $u_{i, i}^\circ(x_i^\star)\not\in\uparrow\!(x^\star_i)$ and therefore (\[condeffnash\]) does not hold.\
If $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ and (\[condeffnash\]) does not hold then there exists $x_i\in S_i$ such that $x_i\not\in\uparrow(x_i^\star)$ and $u_{i, i}(x_i) \geqslant \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})
$.\
We cannot have $u_{i, i}(x_i)\geqslant u_{i, i}(x_i^\star) $ since this would imply $x_i\geqslant x_i^\star$; therefore $u_{i, i}(x_i^\star) > u_{i, i}(x_i)$. We have shown that $$\label{cnsnoteffnash}
\exists x_i\in S_i \hbox{ such that }
u_{i, i}(x_i^\star) > u_{i, i}(x_i) \geqslant \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})
.$$ Reciprocally, if (\[cnsnoteffnash\]) holds we cannot have $x_i\geqslant x_i^\star$, since $u_{i, i}$ isotone, and therefore (\[condeffnash\]) does not hold.
[*A Nash point $x^\star$ such that $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ is efficient for player $i$ if and only if $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ and, for all $x_i\in S_i$, either $u_{i, i}(x_i)\geqslant u_{i, i}(x_i^\star)$ or $ \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})\geqslant u_{i, i}(x_i)$. We also have $u_i(x^\star) = \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$.* ]{}
Now, let us assume that $X_i$ is a topological semilattice and that $S_i$ is a connected subset of $X_i$. If $u_{i, i}$ is continuous on $S_i$ and if $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ and $ \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})\geqslant u_{i, i}(x_i)$ for at least one $x_i$ in $S_i$ then there must exists $x_i^\prime\in S_i$ such that $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > u_{i, i}(x^\prime_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$.
[*If $X_i$ is a topological semilattice and that $S_i$ is a connected subset of $X_i$, a Nash point $x^\star$ such that $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ is efficient for player $i$ if and only if $x_i^\star\in\mathcal{E}(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ and, for all $x_i\in S_i$, $u_{i, i}(x_i)\geqslant u_{i, i}(x_i^\star)$, that is\
$x_i^\star\in \arg\!\min(u_{i, i}; S_i)$. Therefore, a Nash point $x^\star$ such that $x_i^\star\in \arg\!\max(u_{i, i}; S_i)$ can not be efficient for player $i$, unless $u_{i, i}$ is constant.* ]{}
What is the meaning of the inequality $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$? Assume that all the strategy spaces $X_j$ are topological spaces and that all the functions $u_{i, j}$, $j\in [n]$, are continuous. One can find, for all $j\in [n]$, a neighbourhood $V^{[i]}_j$ of $x^\star_j$ in $S_j$ such that, for all $x\in V^{[i]} = \prod_{j\in [n]}V^{[i]}_j$, $u_{i, i}(x_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x_{-i})
$ and therefore, for all $x\in V^{[i]}$, $$\label{tildeu}
u_i(x) = \tilde{u}_{-i}(x_{-i})$$ that is:\
[*if $u_{i, i}(x^\star_i) > \tilde{u}_i(x^\star_{-i})$ then, in a neighbourhood $V^{[i]}$ of $x^\star$, the payoff function $u_i$ of player $i$ is a function of the strategies of the remaining players and not of its own strategy.*]{}
If $x^\star$ is such that, for all $i\in [n]$, $u_{i, i}(x_i^\star) > \tilde{u}_{-i}(x^\star_{-i}) $ then there exists a neighbourhood $W$ of $x^\star$ in $\prod_{i\in [n]}S_i$ (for example the intersection of all the $V^{[j]}$ above), on which, for all $i\in [n]$, the payoff function of player $i$ depends only on the strategies of the remaining players; more precisely, for all $i\in [n]$ and all $x\in W$, $$\label{totineff}
u_i(x) = \tilde{u}_{-i}(x_{-i}).$$
Let us look at an example with two players.
$S_1 = [0, 2]$, $S_2 = [0, 2]$, $
u_{1,1}(x_1) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
2x_1 & \hbox{if} & 0\leqslant x_1\leq 1\\
2 & \hbox{if} & 1\leqslant x_1 \end{array}
\right.
$, $u_{1, 2}(x_2) = \displaystyle{\frac{x_2}{2}}$
and, $u_{2, 1}(x_1) = \displaystyle{\frac{x_1}{2}}$, $u_{2,2}(x_2) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
2x_2 & \hbox{if} & 0\leqslant x_2\leq 1\\
2 & \hbox{if} & 1\leqslant x_2 \end{array}
\right.
$.\
Take $x_1^\star = 1$, $x_2^\star = 1$; we then have $u_{1,1}(x_1^\star) = u_{2,2}(x_2^\star)$, $u_{1,2}(x_2^\star) = u_{2,1}(x_1^\star) = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}$ and therefore $\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
u_1(x_1^\star, x_2^\star) & = & u_{1,2}(x_2^\star) = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& & \\
u_2(x_1^\star, x_2^\star) & = & u_{2,1}(x_1^\star) = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}} \end{array}
\right.$ and also $u_1(3/4, x_2^\star) = u_1(x_1^\star, x_2^\star)$ with $x_1^\star > 3/4$ and similarly for $u_2$. In conclusion at the Nash point $(x_1^\star, x_2^\star) = (1, 1)$ the payoff of player $1$ depends only on the strategy of player $2$ and not on its own strategy and similarly for player $2$. As one can see, $(1, 1)$ is not an efficient Nash point. But, also, $(2, 2)$ is a Nash point since it is the largest element of $S_1\times S_2$. There is an efficient Nash point: $(0, 0)$. It gives the smallest possible payoff to both players. So, a Nash point that gives the largest possible payoff to both players is not efficient and the Nash point that gives the smallest possible payoff to both players is efficient.
The problem of the existence of efficient Nash points for individually - and therefore globally - quasi-Leontief games will be treated in the next section.
Indivually quasi-Leontief games {#secnashindivid}
===============================
Let us start by defining some of the concepts that will be needed to state the theorem from which the existence of Nash points for indivually quasi-Leontief games will be deduced.
We will assume that $\Lambda = \mathbb{R}$ and that all the strategy spaces $X_i$ are [**topological inf-semilattices**]{} that is:
[*$X_i$ is an inf-semilattice endowed with a topology for which the inf operation $\wedge : X_i\times X_i\to X_i$ is continuous.*]{}
We recall that a subspace $Z$ of a topological space $X$ is path connected if, for all pair $(z_0, z_1)\in Z\times Z$, there exists a continuous map $\alpha : [0, 1]\to Z$ such that $\alpha(0) = z_0$ and $\alpha(1) = z_1$.
A subset $C$ of an inf-semilattice $X$ is [**inf-convex**]{} if, for all $x_0, x_1\in X$, $[x_0\wedge x_1, x_0]\subset X$.
An easy induction shows that if $C$ is an inf-convex subset of an inf-semilattice $X$ then, for all finite an non empty subset $S\subset C$, $\cup_{x\in S}[\wedge S, x]\subset C$.
Also, a subset $C$ of an inf-semilattice $X$ is inf-convex if and only if the following two conditions hold:
$(1)$ $S$ is a sub-semilattice of $X$; that is, for all $x$ and $y$ in $S$, $x\wedge y\in S$and
$(2)$ for all element $(x, y)\in C\times C$ such that $x\leqslant y$ one has $[x, y]\subset C$.
\[luotheo\] Let ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be an abstract game such that:
$(1)$ the strategy spaces $X_i$ are compact metrizable inf-semilattices with path-connected intervals;
$(2)$ the payoff functions $u_i : \prod_{j\in [n]}X_j\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous and such that, for all $x_{-i}\in\prod_{j\neq i}X_j$ and all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, the set $\{z_i\in X_i: u_i[x_{-i}](z_i) > t\}$ is inf-convex;
Then $\boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big) \neq\emptyset$.
Theorem \[luotheo\] is a simplified version of Theorem 4.1 of Luo [@luo].
We know from Lemma 2.3.1 of Part I that for a quasi-Leontief $u: X\to\mathbb{R}$ function defined on an inf-semilattice $X$ one always has $u(x_1\wedge x_2) = \min\{u(x_1), u(x_2)\}$ and this implies that, for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, $\{x\in X: u(x) > t\}$ is inf-convex. From Theorem \[luotheo\] we have the existence of Nash points for abstract individually quasi-Leontieff games.
\[existsnashindi\] If ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be an abstract individually quasi-Leontieff game such that:
$(1)$ the strategy spaces $X_i$ are compact metrizable inf-semilattices with path-connected intervals;
$(2)$ the payoff functions $u_i : \prod_{j\in [n]}X_j\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous.
Then $\boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big)\neq\emptyset$.
In $\mathbb{R}^m$ with the partial order associated to the positive cone $\mathbb{R}^m_+$ order intervals are path-connected therefore, an inf-convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^m$ is an inf-semilattice with path-connected intervals.
\[existsnashindiRm\] Let ${\mathcal G} = \big(u_i, X_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be an abstract individually quasi-Leontieff game such that:
$(1)$ for all $i\in [n]$, the strategy space $X_i$ is a compact inf-convex subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{m_i}$;
$(2)$ the payoff functions $u_i : \prod_{j\in [n]}X_j\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous.
Then $\boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big)\neq\emptyset$.
One can easily see that an arbitrary intersection of inf-convex subsets is inf-convex and that the union $\cup\mathcal{C}$ of a family of inf-convex subsets is inf-convex if, for all $C, C^\prime\in \mathcal{C}$ there exists $C^{\prime\prime}\in\mathcal{C}$ such that $C\cup C^\prime\subset C^{\prime\prime}$; consequently, the following statements are equivalent:
$(a)$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, $\{x\in X: u(x) > t\}$ is inf-convex;
$(b)$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, $\{x\in X: u(x) \geqslant t\}$ is inf-convex.
Let us write $[\![x_1, x_2]\!]$ for $[x_1\wedge x_2, x_1]\cup [x_1\wedge x_2, x_2]$. One can now easily see that $C$ is inf-convex if and only if, for all $x_1, x_2\in C$, $[\![x_1, x_2]\!]\subset C$ and that condition $(a)$ above is equivalent to $$\label{infquasiconcave}
\forall x_1, x_2\in X\quad\inf_{x\in [\![x_1, x_2]\!]}\!\!u(x)\geqslant\min\{u(x_1), u(x_2)\}.$$
Luo’s Theorem applies to a much larger class than the class of individually quasi-Leontief functions; it only requires the payoff functions to be “inf-quasiconvex” in each variable. But Luo’s Theorem, which is derived from a Browder-Fan fixed point theorem for topological inf-semilattices, does not say anything about the existence of efficient Nash points. We will show that efficient Nash points always exists but this requires a Kakutani like fixed point theorem in topological inf-semilattices which can not be, at least as far as we know, established from the single assumption that intervalls are path connected.
Efficient Nash points for individually quasi-Leontief games {#effnashsubsec}
-----------------------------------------------------------
We assume that the strategy spaces are compact topological inf-semilattices which are metrizable and that the payoff functions $u_i : \prod_{j\in [n]}X_j\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous and individually quasi-Leontieff. We want to show that there exists an efficient Nash point $x^\star$, that is, $x^\star\in \boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big) $ and $x^\star\in\prod_{i\in[n]}\mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}^\star], X_i)$. In other words, we want to show that the map $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}$ defined by $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}(x) = \prod_{i\in[n]}\mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ has a fixed point in $\boldsymbol{Nash}\big({\mathcal G}\big) $.
For all $x\in\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ let $$\mathbb{E}(x) = \prod_{i\in [n]}\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)).$$
\[xdansEx\] A point $x^\star\in\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ is an efficient Nash point if and only if $x^\star\in\mathbb{E}(x^\star)$
[*Proof:*]{} If $x^\star\in\mathbb{E}(x^\star)$ then, for all $i\in[n]$ and for all $z_i\in\mathcal{E}(u_i[x^\star_{-i}], X_i)$, $u_i(x^\star)\geqslant u_i[x^\star_{-i}](z_i)$. If $x_i$ is an arbitrary element of $X_i$ then $u_i[x^\star_{-i}]^\circ(x_i)\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[x^\star_{-i}], X_i)$ and $ u_i[x^\star_{-i}](x_i) = u_i[x^\star_{-i}]\big(u_i[x^\star_{-i}]^\circ(x_i)\big)$. This shows that $x^\star$ is a Nash point. From $\mathbb{E}(x^\star)\subset\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}(x^\star)$, $x^\star$ is an efficient Nash point.
An efficient Nash points $x^\star$ belongs to $\prod_{i\in [n]}\arg\!\max(u_i[x^\star_{-i}], X_i)$ and to $\prod_{i\in [n]} \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ and therefore to $\mathbb{E}(x^\star)$.$\Box$
The set $\mathbb{E}(x)$ does not have to be an inf-convex subset of the product space since $x_1\leqslant z \leqslant x_2$ with, for all $j\in [n]$ and $i\in\{1, 2\}$, $x_{i, j}\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-j}], X_j)$ does not imply $z_{j}\in \mathcal{E}(u_j[x_{-j}], X_j)$ - being between two efficient points does not imply efficiency - all we have is $u_j[x_{-j}]^\circ(z_{j})\in \mathcal{E}(u_j[x_{-j}], X_j)$. And this is the cause of some complications. The structure of $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is the subject matter of the following short sequence of lemmas.
\[pasemptyE\] For all $x\in\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ the set $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is not empty.
[*Proof:*]{} Since $u_i[x_{-i}]: X_i\to\mathbb{R}$ is continuous and $X_i$ is compact $\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)\neq\emptyset$; if $z_i\in \arg\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ then $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ(z_i)\in\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)\cap\mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$. $\Box$
\[expath\] Assume that the strategy spaces are all compact inf-semilattices with path-connected intervals. If, for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ and all $i\in [n]$,\
$u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ : X_i\to X_i$ is continuous then, for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$, the set $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is a topological inf-semilattice with path connected intervals. Furthermore, $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is compact and it has a smallest and a largest element.
[*Proof:*]{} From Lemma 2.3.2 of Part I, $\mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ is a sub-semilattice of $X_i$; if $S_i$ is a sub-semilattice of $X_i$ then, from $u_i[x_{-i}](x_1\wedge x_2) = \min\{u_i[x_{-i}](x_1), u_i[x_{-i}](x_2)\}$, $\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], S_i)$ is also a sub-semilattice of $X_i$ and therefore\
$\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ is a sub-semilattice of $X_i$.
Since the topology and the inf-operation on $\mathbb{E}(x)$ are those induced from $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ the inf-operation restricted to $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is continuous. We have shown that the product space $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is a sub-semilattice of the product $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$.
Let $x_0$ and $x_1$ be two elements of $\mathbb{E}(x)$ such that $x_0\leqslant x_1$. The order interval in $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is $\{z\in \mathbb{E}(x): x_0\leqslant z\leqslant x_1\}$ that is $[x_0, x_1]\, \cap \, \mathbb{E}(x)$ where $[x_0, x_1]$ is the order interval in $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$. We have to show that there exists a continuous path $\alpha: [0, 1]\to \prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ such that $\alpha(i) = x_i$ for $i\in\{0, 1\}$ and, for all $t\in [0, 1]$, $\alpha(t)\in [x_0, x_1]\, \cap \, \mathbb{E}(x)$.\
Choose a continuous path $\gamma_i : [0, 1]\to [x_{0, i}, x_{1, i}]$ and let $\alpha_i(t) = u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ(\gamma_i(t))$; we have $\alpha_i(t)\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$.\
Since $x_{0, i}$ and $x_{1, i}$ are both in $\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ with $x_{0, i},\leqslant x_{1, i}$ and since $u_i[x_{-i}]$ is isotone we have $[x_{0, i}, x_{1, i}]\subset \arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$ and consequently $\gamma_i(t)\in\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$. From $u_i[x_{-i}](\gamma_i(t)) = u_i[x_{-i}]\big(u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ(\gamma_i(t))\big)$ we have $\alpha_i(t)\in\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$.\
In conclusion, $\alpha_i(t)\in \arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i) )$.
Since $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ$ is continuous and $X_i$ is compact the set of fixed points of $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ$, that is $ \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$, is compact; from the continuity of $u_i[x_{-i}]$ follows the compactness of $\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i) )$. This shows that $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is compact.
We have already seen that a compact inf-semilattice has a smallest element, let $\boldsymbol{m}(x)$ be the smallest element of $\mathbb{E}(x)$. But $\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i) )$ is totally ordered since it is a subset of the totally ordered set $ \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$; by compactness it has a largest element $\boldsymbol{M}_i(x)$; $\boldsymbol{M}(x)$ is the largest element of $\mathbb{E}(x)$. $\Box$
\[scsE\] Assume that the strategy spaces are all compact metizable inf-semilattices. If $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}$ is upper semicontinuous then $\mathbb{E}$ is upper semicontinuous.
[*Proof:*]{} By compactness it is sufficient to show that the graph of $\mathbb{E}$ is a closed subset of $\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i\, \times\, \prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$. We have $(x, y)\in\mathbb{E}$ if and only if, for all $i\in [n]$, $y_i\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)\cap\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{-i}], X_i)$. Let $(x_{\boldsymbol{m}}, y_{\boldsymbol{m}})_{\boldsymbol{m}\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of elements of the graph of $\mathbb{E}$ that converges to a point $(\bar{x}, \bar{y})$. From $y_{\boldsymbol{m}, i}\in\arg\!\max(u_i[x_{\boldsymbol{m},-i}], X_i)$ and the continuity of $u_i$ we have $\bar{y}_{i}\in\arg\!\max(u_i[\bar{x}_{-i}], X_i)$.
The sequence $(x_{\boldsymbol{m}}, y_{\boldsymbol{m}})_{\boldsymbol{m}\in\mathbb{N}}$ also belongs to the graph of $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}$, which is upper semicontinuous; therefore $\bar{y}_i\in \mathcal{E}(u_i[\bar{x}_{-i}], X_i)$. $\Box$
\[scsP\] Assume that the strategy spaces are all compact metizable inf-semilattices, and that:
$(1)$ for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ and all $i\in [n]$, $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ $ is continuous;
$(2)$ for all $i\in [n]$ and for all convergent sequence $(x_{\boldsymbol{m}})_{\boldsymbol{m}\in\mathbb{N}}$ of points of the product space $\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ with limit $\bar{x}$, the sequence of functions $(u_i[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ)_{\boldsymbol{m}\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges pointwise to $u_i[\bar{x}_{ -i}]^\circ$.
Then $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}$ is upper semicontinuous.
[*Proof:*]{} Assume that the sequence $(x_{\boldsymbol{m}}, y_{\boldsymbol{m}})_{\boldsymbol{m}\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges to $(\bar{x}, \bar{y})$ and that $y_{\boldsymbol{m}}\in\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{G}}(x_{\boldsymbol{m}})$. We have to see that, for all $i\in[n]$, $\bar{y}_i = u_i[\bar{x}_{-i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_i)$.\
Let $d_i$ be a metric for $X_i$. From $y_{\boldsymbol{m}, i} = u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(y_{\boldsymbol{m}, i})$ we can write
$\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
d_i\big(\bar{y}_i, u_i[\bar{x}_{-i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_i)\big) \leqslant
d_i\big(\bar{y}_i, y_{\boldsymbol{m}, i}\big)\quad + \quad d_i\big(u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(y_{\boldsymbol{m}, i}), u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_ {i}) \big)\quad + & & \\
& &\\
\hspace{6.1cm}+\quad d_i\big(u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_ {i}), u[\bar{x}_{-i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_i)\big).& &
\end{array}\right.
$
Since $X_i$ is compact and $u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ$ is continuous we can, for $\varepsilon > 0$ choose $\delta_{\boldsymbol{m}}(\varepsilon) > 0$ such that, if $d_i(z_i, w_i) < \delta_{\boldsymbol{m}}(\varepsilon)$ then $d_i\big(u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(z_{ i}), u[x_{\boldsymbol{m}, -i}]^\circ(w_ {i}) \big) < \varepsilon/3$.
We can choose $\boldsymbol{m} = \boldsymbol{m}(\varepsilon)$ such that $d_i\big(\bar{y}_i, y_{\boldsymbol{m(\varepsilon)}, i}\big)< \varepsilon/3$ and\
$d_i\big(u[x_{\boldsymbol{m(\varepsilon)}, -i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_ {i}), u[\bar{x}_{-i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_i)\big)< \varepsilon/3$.
We have shown that $ d_i\big(\bar{y}_i, u_i[\bar{x}_{-i}]^\circ(\bar{y}_i)\big) \leqslant \varepsilon$. $\Box$
\[homotoptrivE\] Assume that the strategy spaces are all compact inf-semilattices with path-connected intervals. If, for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ and all $i\in [n]$,\
$u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ : X_i\to X_i$ is continuous then, for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$, the set $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is homotopically trivial.
[*Proof:*]{} For all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$, $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is a compact inf-semilattice; we have seen that it has a smallest element and that it is path-connected. By a theorem of D.R. Brown, Theorem B in [@brown], $\mathbb{E}(x)$ is homotopically trivial. $\Box$
A topological inf-semilattice is a [**Lawson semilattice**]{} if each point has a neighbourhood base consisting of inf-semilattices. For example, a sub-inf-semilattice of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a Lawson semilattice. A product of Lawson semilattices equipped with the product topology is a Lawson semilattice.
\[existnasheff\] Let $\mathcal{G} = \big(X_i, u_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be a quasi-Leontief game such that:
$(1)$ all the strategy spaces are metrizable compact and locally connected path connected Lawson semilattices;
$(2)$ all the payoff functions $u_i: \prod_{i\in [n]}X_i\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous;
$(3)$ for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ and all $i\in [n]$, $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ : X_i\to X_i$ is continuous.
Then, $\mathcal{G}$ has an efficient Nash point.
[*Proof:*]{} From the preceeding lemmas, $\mathbb{E}$ is an upper semicontinuous map with non empty homotopically trivial values from $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ to itself.\
Each $X_i$ has path connected intervals therefore, given two arbitrary points $x_1$ and $x_2$ of $X_i$ there is a continuous path from $x_1$ to $x_1\wedge x_2$ and a continuous path from $x_1\wedge x_2$ to $x_2$; $X_i$ is path connected, and [*a fortiori*]{} connected. By a theorem of M. McWaters, [@macwa], condition $(1)$ implies that each $X_i$ is an absolute retract; $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ is therefore an absolute retract.\
Homotopically trivial sets being acyclic, $\mathbb{E}$ is an upper semicontinous map with non empty acyclic values from the compact absolute retract $\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ to itself. By the Eilenberg-Montgomery Theorem, [@dugra] Page 543 Corollary (7.5), there exists $x\in\prod_{i\in [n]}X_i$ such that $x\in \mathbb{E}(x)$.$\Box$
\[nasheffn\] Let $\mathcal{G} = \big(X_i, u_i\big)_{i\in [n]}$ be a quasi-Leontief game such that:
$(1)$ $X_i$ is a compact inf-convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n_i}$;
$(2)$ all the payoff functions $u_i: \prod_{i\in [n]}X_i\to\mathbb{R}$ are continuous;
$(3)$ for all $x\in\prod_{i\in[n]}X_i$ and all $i\in [n]$, $u_i[x_{-i}]^\circ : X_i\to X_i$ is continuous.
Then, $\mathcal{G}$ has an efficient Nash point.
[*Proof:*]{} In $\mathbb{R}^n$ intervals are path connected; an inf-convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is therefore a subsemilattice with path connected intervals. Let $x$ be an arbitrary point of $X_i$ and let $U$ be a neighbourhood of $x$ in $X_i$. Choose a neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n_i}$ such that $U = X_i\cap V$ and a neighbourhood $W$ of $x$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n_i}$ such that $W\subset V$ and $W$ is inf-convex; $W$ could for example be a box around $x$. Since the intersection of two inf-convex sets is inf-convex and an inf-convex set is path connected we have that $W\cap X_i$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ in $X_i$ that is a connected inf-semilattice contained in $U$; this shows that $X_i$ is a locally connected Lawson semilattice. $\Box$
[**A final remark:**]{} The algebraic and the topological assumptions used throughout this paper are not as different as one could believe. The compactness assumption is natural and at the same time seems to be somewhat indeterminate but, as a matter of fact, there is at most one topology on a given semillatice for which it is a compact topological semilattice and continuity is defined entirely in terms of order convergence. For a lattice, that topology is explicitely determined by the algebraic structure of the lattice. For this, and more and topological lattices and semilattices see Theorem 15 and Corollary 16 in [@law].
[99]{} , [*Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide* ]{}, SpringerVerlag, 3rd. edition, 2006.
, arXiv:1004.2778v2
, [*Fixed Point Theorems with Application to Economics and Game Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 3rd. edition, 1989.
, [*Nash points, Ky Fan inequality and equilibria of abstract economies in Max-Plus and $\mathbb{B}$-convexity*]{}, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications Vol. 341, pp. 188-199.
, [*Topological semilattices on the two-cell*]{}, Pacific J. Math., Vol.15, N.1 (1965), 35-46.
, [*Fixed Point Theory*]{}, Springer, 2003.
, [*Intrinsic Topologies in Topological Lattices and Semilattices*]{}, Pacific J. Math., Vo.44, No.2 (1973), 593 - 602.
, [*KKM and Nash Equilibria Type Theorems in Topological\
Ordered Spaces*]{}, J.M.A.A., [**264**]{} (2001), 262-269.
, [*A Note on Topological Semilattices*]{}, J. London Math. Soc., (2), 1 (1969), 64-66.
, [*Equilibrium points in nonzero-sum n-person submodular games*]{}, SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization, vol. 17, pp. 773-787.
, [*Infinite dimensional topology*]{}, North Holland 1998.
[^1]: University of Perpignan, Department of Economics, 52 avenue Paul Alduy, 66800 Perpignan, France.
[^2]: University of Perpignan, 52 avenue Paul Alduy, 66800 Perpignan, France.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze a recent suggestion [@kauffman1; @kauffman2] on a possible relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglements. We show that a one to one correspondence does not exist, neither between topologically linked diagrams and entangled states, nor between braid operators and quantum entanglers. We also add a new dimension to the question of entangling properties of unitary operators in general.'
---
[**On a suggestion relating topological and quantum mechanical entanglements**]{}\
M. Asoudeh[^1], V. Karimipour [^2], L. Memarzadeh[^3],\
A. T. Rezakhani [^4]\
Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology,\
P.O. Box 11365-9161,\
Tehran, Iran
![A knot representation of the disentangled state $|\phi\rangle \otimes |\psi\rangle$.[]{data-label="unlinkedcircles"}](unlinkedcircles.eps){width="3.5cm" height="2.8cm"}
![A knot representation of a bipartite entangled state.[]{data-label="linkedcircles"}](linkedcircles.eps){width="3.5cm" height="2.8cm"}
Introduction
============
In a recent series of papers [@kauffmanref; @kauffman1; @kauffman2], it has been argued that there may be a relation between quantum mechanical entanglement and topological entanglement. This hope has been raised by some formal similarities between entanglement of quantum mechanical states which is an algebraic concept and linking of closed curves which is a topological concept. Let us begin by simple definitions of these two concepts and the basic idea of a correspondence put forward in the above papers.\
A pure quantum state of a composite system $AB$ (a vector $|\Psi\rangle $ in the tensor product of two Hilbert spaces ${\cal{H}}_A\otimes {\cal{H}}_B$) is called entangled if it can not be written as a product of two vectors , i.e. $ |\Psi\rangle
\ne |\psi\rangle_A \otimes |\phi\rangle_B $. The simplest entangled pure states occur when ${\cal{H}}_A$ and $ {\cal{H}}_B$ are two dimensional with basis vectors $ |0\rangle $ and $
|1\rangle$, called a qubit in quantum computation literature. For brevity in the following we will not write the subscripts $A$ and $B$ explicitly. A general state of two qubits $$\label{psi}
|\Psi\rangle = a|0,0\rangle +b|0,1\rangle +c|1,0\rangle +d|1,1\rangle$$ is entangled provided $ ad-bc\ne 0$.\
On the other hand two curves can be in an unlinked position like the one shown in figure (\[unlinkedcircles\]) or in a linked position like the one shown in figure (\[linkedcircles\]). One is tempted to view the two unlinked curves as a topological representation of a disentangled quantum state and the two linked curves as a representation of an entangled state.\
In the same way that cutting any of the curves in figure (\[linkedcircles\]) removes the topological entanglement, measuring one of the qubits of the state $|\Psi\rangle $ in (\[psi\]) in any basis (not necessarily the $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ basis), disentangles the quantum state.\
More evidence in favor of this analogy is provided by figure \[ghzfigure\] [@kauffman2], which provides an alleged topological equivalent for the so-called [GHZ]{} state [@ghz] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ghz}
& |{\rm{GHZ}}\rangle := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0,0,0\rangle +
|1,1,1\rangle).\end{aligned}$$
In this figure cutting any of the three curves, leaves the other two curves in an unlinked position, in the same way that measuring any of the three subsystems in the [GHZ]{} state in the $\{|0\rangle, |1\rangle\} $ basis, leaves the other two subsystems in a disentangled state.\
One may be tempted to make a general correspondence between topologically linked diagrams and entangled states or vice versa. For example while figure \[ghzfigure\] corresponds to the [GHZ]{} state, a slight modification of the crossings of this link diagram, as shown in figure \[Wfigure\], may correspond to the following state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W}
&|\Phi\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0,0,0\rangle + |1,1,0\rangle +
|1,0,1\rangle + |0,1,1\rangle).\end{aligned}$$
![ A knot representation of the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0,0,0\rangle+|1,1,1\rangle)$, known also as Borromean rings.[]{data-label="ghzfigure"}](ghz.eps){width="4cm" height="4cm"}
![ A knot representation of the entangled state $|\Phi\rangle =\frac{1}{2}(|0,0,0\rangle + |1,1,0\rangle +
|1,0,1\rangle + |0,1,1\rangle) $.[]{data-label="Wfigure"}](wfigure.eps){width="4cm" height="4cm"}
If one measures one of the subsystems in this state in the $\{|0\rangle, |1\rangle\}$ basis, the other two subsystems are projected onto an entangled state, in the same way that cutting out any of the component curves in figure \[Wfigure\] leaves the other two components in a linked position.\
A natural question arises as to how serious and deep such a correspondence may be. Certainly such a relation, if exists, will be much fruitful for both fields and it is worthwhile to explore further the possibility of its existence. We should stress here that we only want to analyze one particular suggestion [@kauffman1; @kauffman2], regarding a possible correspondence between topological and quantum mechanical entanglement. We are not concerned here with other aspects of the relation between topology and quantum computation or quantum mechanics. These avenues of study have been followed in [@freedman1; @freedman2; @kitaev; @freedman3] where the possibility of doing fault tolerant quantum computation by using topological degrees of freedom of certain systems with anyonic excitations or the design of quantum algorithms for calculating topological invariants of knots are analyzed.\
It is the aim of this paper to shed more light on these analogies and to study more closely the similarities and differences between these the above types of entanglement. The overall picture that we obtain is that these analogies do not point to a deep relation between these concepts, since despite some superficial similarities, there are many serious differences which lead to the conclusion that such a correspondence can not be taken seriously.
Here we list some of these differences.\
1- If we want to correspond any component of a linked knot with a state of a vector space in a tensor product space, (the number of vector spaces being equal to the number of components of the link diagram), then we are faced with the obvious question of ”What kind of state corresponds to a knot which is highly linked with itself". We can imagine many topologically different one component knots and yet we have to correspond them all to a single state in a vector space which necessarily has no self-entanglement. Figure (\[trefoil\]) shows such a knot known as trefoil knot.\
One way out is to consider only linked diagrams whose individual components have no self linking and to take into account the linking between different components. But there is no natural way to separate the linking of a component with itself from that with others. A component may be topologically trivial by itself (when one removes all the other components), but can not be deformed continuously to a trivial knot due to the presence of other components.
![ The trefoil knot, an example of a single component knot which is entangled.[]{data-label="trefoil"}](trefoil.eps){width="3cm" height="3cm"}
2- The second problem is that quantum entanglement should not change by local unitary operations which is equivalent to local change of basis. Therefore for such a correspondence to be valid, two quantum mechanical states which are related to each other by local unitary operations should correspond to topologically equivalent diagrams. Let us see if this is the case. Consider the examples given above: The two states (\[ghz\]) and (\[W\]) are related to each other by the local action of three Hadamard matrices ($ H :={\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)}$): $$\label{hadamard}
|{\rm {GHZ}}\rangle = H\otimes H \otimes H |\Phi\rangle\hskip 1cm
|\Phi\rangle = H\otimes H \otimes H |{\rm{GHZ}}\rangle$$ and yet they correspond to completely inequivalent diagrams, shown in figures \[ghzfigure\] and \[Wfigure\], respectively.\
3- The third problem concerns the alleged relation between ”measurement“ of a quantum state on one hand and ”cutting a line” in a knot diagram on the other hand. This relation is very questionable. The only evidence is that in some simple cases as those mentioned above, it appears that measurement (reduction) of a state $|\Psi\rangle $ which corresponds to a knot $K$, produces a state $|\Psi'\rangle $ which corresponds to a knot $K'$ obtained by cutting one of the lines of $K$. However this correspondence is too superficial since the reduction of a wave function depends on what value we obtain for our observable while cutting a line is an action with a unique and predetermined result. To see this more explicitly consider a state like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{werner}
&|W\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|1,0,0\rangle+ |0,1,0\rangle+|0,0,1\rangle).\end{aligned}$$ If we measure the first qubit in the computational basis $\{ |0\rangle , |1\rangle \}$ and obtain the value $0$, the other two qubits are projected onto an entangled state, while if we obtain the value $1$, the other two qubits are projected onto a disentangled state. Therefore one can not identify a measurement with a simple cutting of a line in a knot diagram. The result of the measurement also determines if the remaining state is entangled or not.\
These examples provide sufficient reasons to abandon the kind of correspondence mentioned above. But the question of a possible relation remains open and there may be an alternative and more tractable framework for studying it.\
It is well known that all knots and links can be obtained from closure of braids, the latter having a direct relation with operators acting on tensor product spaces. Therefore it may be possible to find a correspondence between entangling operators on the quantum mechanical side and braid operators which produce topological entanglement on the other side. It is in order to present a short review of braid group and braid operators.
A review of braid group {#2}
-----------------------
A braid on $n$ strands (figure \[braid\]) is the equivalence class of a collection of continuous curves joining $n$ points in a plane to $n$ similar points on a plane on top of it. The curves should not intersect each other but can wind around each other arbitrarily.
![ A braid on 6 strands, an element of the group $ B_6$.[]{data-label="braid"}](braid.eps){width="4cm" height="3cm"}
Two collections of curves which can be continuously deformed to each other are considered equivalent. There is a well-known theorem stating that each knot can be constructed from the closure of a braid (see [@knots] for a review). By closure of a braid we mean joining the points on the lower plane to those on the upper one by continuous lines which lie outside all the curves of the braid.\
The collection of all braids can be equipped with a group structure by defining the product of two braids $ \alpha$ and $
\beta $ as the equivalence class of a braid obtained by inserting the braid $\beta $ on top of the braid $ \alpha $. The unit element of this group is simply the equivalence class of paths which do not wind around each other when they go from the lower plane to the upper one.\
This group, called the braid group on $n$ strands and denoted by $ B_n $, is generated by the simple braids $ \sigma_i $, $ i = 1, \ldots, n-1$, shown in figure \[sigmas\], where each $\sigma_i$ intertwines, only once, the strands $ i $ and $ i+1 $ ( $\sigma_{i}^{-1}$ intertwines the strands in the opposite direction). Such elements generate the whole braid group when supplemented with the following relations which express topological equivalence of braids as the reader can verify: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{generators}
\sigma_i \sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i &=& \sigma_{i+1} \sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\cr \sigma_{i}\sigma_{j} &=& \sigma_j
\sigma_{i}\ \ \ \ {\rm{if}} \ \ \ |i-j|\geq 2.\end{aligned}$$ The expression of braids as elements of a group shows how to find the inverse of braids as topological objects. For example the inverse of $\alpha = \sigma_1 \sigma_2 $ is $ \alpha^{-1} = \sigma_2^{-1} \sigma_1^{-1} $.\
One can obtain a representation of the braid group $B_n $ for any $n$ on the tensor product space $ V^{\otimes n}$, if one can find a solution of the following equation in $ V^{\otimes 3}$ called hereafter the braid relation $$\label{braidrelation}
(R\otimes I)(I\otimes R)(R\otimes I) =(I\otimes R)(R\otimes I)(I\otimes
R),$$ in which $ R: V\otimes V\rightarrow V\otimes V $ is a linear operator called a braid operator and $I$ is the identity operator. Once such a solution is found, representations of generators of the braid group and hence the whole braid group is obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{representation}
&\sigma_i = I^{\otimes^{i-1}}\otimes R \otimes I^{\otimes^{n-i-1}}\end{aligned}$$ where for simplicity we have used the same notation for $\sigma_i
$ and its representation.\
Thus if we have a braid operator $R$, we can produce representations of all kinds of braids with all the variety of their topological entanglement.\
Once a representation is in hand one can try to construct invariants of knots by defining suitable traces on the space $V^{\otimes n}$ [@turaev].\
We have now set the stage for asking the question of a possible relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglement in an appropriate way. We can ask the following questions:\
1- Does every braid operator which produces topological entanglement, also necessarily produces quantum entanglement? or conversely\
2- Does every quantum entangler (an operator which entangles product states) necessarily produces topological entanglement?, that is , is any quantum entangler related somehow to a solution of the braid group relation?\
We think that the answer to these questions will shed light on the question of relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglements.\
We choose to investigate these questions for two dimensional spaces, since in two dimensions we have both a classification of solutions of the braid group relation and a great deal of information about measures of quantum entanglement.\
In the rest of this paper we try to answer the above questions and draw our conclusions which are mainly negative, that is we conclude that the two types of entanglement may not be related to each other in such a direct way. This however does not exclude the possibility that quantum computation may someday be used for calculating topological invariants of knots [@freedman1; @freedman2; @kitaev].\
![ The generator $\sigma_3 $ of the braid group $B_6$.[]{data-label="sigmas"}](sigma.eps){width="4cm" height="3cm"}
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we present all the unitary solutions of the braid group relation in two dimensions (4$\times$4 unitary braid operators $R$). In section 3 we collect the necessary tools for the analysis of entanglement of states and entangling properties of operators. In section 4 we use these tools to characterize the braid operators. Finally we end the paper with a discussion which encompasses a summary of our results.
All unitary braid operators in two dimensions {#sec2}
=============================================
Let $V$ be a vector space and let $ \hat{R}: V\otimes V\rightarrow
V \otimes V $ be a linear operator. The following equation which is a relation between operators acting on $ V\otimes V \otimes V $ is called the Yang-Baxter relation first formulated in studies on integrable models [@Baxter] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Yangbaxter}
&\hat{R}_{12}\hat{R}_{13}\hat{R}_{23}=\hat{R}_{23}\hat{R}_{13}\hat{R}_{12},\end{aligned}$$ where the indices indicate on which of the three spaces, the operator is acting non-trivially. Any solution $\hat{R}$ of the Yang-Baxter equation provides a braid operator $R$ by the simple relation $ R = P\hat{R}$, where $P$ is the permutation or operator defined as $ P|i,j\rangle = |j, i\rangle
$. When the vector space $ V $ is two dimensional, the solutions of Yang-Baxter equation have been classified up to the symmetries allowed by the equation [@hietarinta; @hlavaty; @dye]. From these solutions we can select those solutions of the braid group equation which are unitary. We should stress that this restriction can be relaxed and one can also consider non-unitary solutions of braid group. The reason for our interest in unitary operators in this paper is that in quantum mechanics we want to use these operators as quantum gates.\
There are only two types of unitary solutions. A single one designated as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip 1cm R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & 1 \\
& 1 &-1 & \\
& 1 & 1 & \\
-1& & & 1
\end{array}\right)
\label{R}\end{aligned}$$ and a continuous family of solutions $$\begin{aligned}
R' = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
a & & & \\
& & b & \\
& c & & \\
& & & d
\end{array}\right),
\label{R'}\end{aligned}$$ where the complex parameters $ a, b, c, $ and $ d $ are pure phases, i.e. $ |a| = |b|=|c|=|d| = 1 $.\
Note that the operator (denoted by $P$) is a special kind of the matrix $R'$ for which $ a = b = c = d =1$. For general value of its parameters, it is simply the operator times a diagonal matrix. The second of these solutions can be generalized to arbitrary dimensions, in the form $ R'_{ij,kl} = M_{ij} \delta_{il}\delta_{jk}$, where $
|M_{ij}|=1$. We do not know of any generalizations of the other solution.\
Entanglement of pure states and entangling power of unitary operators
=====================================================================
Consider a pure state of two qubits $A$ and $B$: $$\label{purestate}
|\Psi\rangle_{AB} = \alpha|0,0\rangle + \beta|0,1\rangle+\gamma|1,0\rangle + \delta |1,1\rangle.$$ The single parameter $$\label{concurrence} C:=2|\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma|$$ called the concurrence, characterizes the entanglement of this state [@hillwootters; @wootters]. For a product state $
|\psi\rangle \otimes |\psi'\rangle \equiv (x|0\rangle + y
|1\rangle)\otimes (x'|0\rangle + y'|1\rangle),
$ this parameter is zero and for a maximally entangled state like one of the Bell states $(\frac{|0,0\rangle \pm
|1,1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} ,\frac{|0,1\rangle \pm
|1,0\rangle}{\sqrt{2}})$, it takes its maximum value of 1. We note that the concurrence can be written as $C=|\langle \Psi^*|\sigma_y
\otimes \sigma_y |\Psi\rangle| $ where $\sigma_y$ is the second Pauli matrix and $*$ denotes complex conjugation in the computational basis. This also shows that the concurrence is invariant under local transformations $|\Psi\rangle \rightarrow
U\otimes V |\Psi\rangle $, since $U^T\sigma_yU = \sigma_y$.\
Any other measure of entanglement, like the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrices $ \rho_A$ or $\rho_B$ defined as $$E_v(\rho):= - {\rm tr}(\rho \ln \rho)$$ or the linear entropy defined as $$E_l(\rho):= 1-
{\rm tr}(\rho^2)$$ can be expressed in terms of this parameter. A simple calculation shows that the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix for the state in (\[purestate\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eigenvlaues1}
& \lambda_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{1-C^2}),\end{aligned}$$ from which the simple expression $ E_l = \frac{1}{2}C^2 $ is obtained for the linear entropy.\
The concurrence, the linear entropy or the von Neumann entropy are increasing functions of each other, all of them vanish for a product state and take their maximum values of $1$, $\frac{1}{2}$ and $ 1 $ respectively for maximally entangled states. One can use any of these measures for the characterization of entanglement of a pure state of two qubits.\
So much for the entanglement properties of states, we now turn to the entangling properties of operators acting on the space of two qubits.\
The space of unitary operators acting on two qubits (the group U(4)) when viewed in terms of entangling properties has a rich structure. Those in the subgroup U(2)$\otimes$U(2) are called local operators. Elements of this subgroup can not produce entangled states when acting on product states. The complement of this subgroup forms the set of non-local operators. In the set of non-local operators, those which can produce a maximally entangled state when acting on a suitable product state are called perfect entangler [@Zhang]. An example in this class is the operator defined as ${\rm{CNOT}}|i,j\rangle = |i,
i+j~({\rm{mod}}\ 2)\rangle $. Those non-local operators which do not have this property are called non-perfect entanglers. Note also that there are non-local operators which can not produce any entanglement at all. An example is the operator $P$ which is incidentally a braid group operator.\
An important concept is the local equivalence of two operators. Let two operators $U$ and $U'$ in U(4) be related as follows: $$\label{local}
U'=(k\otimes l)U(k'\otimes l'),$$ where the local operators $k, l,
k' , l' \in {\rm U(2)}$. Two such operators should be regarded equivalent as far as their entangling properties are concerned.\
As far as entangling properties are concerned one may extend this notion of equivalence to the case where the two operators are related by the operator $P$, that is when $U'=UP$ or $U'=PU$, or both, since the operator does not change the entanglement of a state. However the operator is non-local which means that it can not be implemented by local unitary operations on the two states. Moreover as far as topological properties are concerned, the operator is a braid operator and totally changes the topological class of a braid. For this reason we restrict ourselves to the notion of bi-local equivalence as in (\[local\]).\
How can we find if two such operators are equivalent? This question has been studied by many authors [@Grassl; @Linden1; @Linden2; @Makhlin; @Zhang]. The orbits of states under bi-local [@Makhlin; @Zhang] and multi-local unitaries (in the case of multi-particle states) [@Linden1; @Linden2] have been characterized by certain invariants. Here we use the invariants found in [@Makhlin; @Zhang]. Let us define the matrix $Q$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& Q = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & i \\
0 & i & 1 & 0 \\
0 & i & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & -i
\end{array}
\right).
\label{Q}\end{aligned}$$ For any matrix $U\in {\rm U(4)}$ define the following matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
& m(U):= (Q^{\dagger}UQ)^T(Q^{\dagger}UQ)
\label{m}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ denotes the transpose. Note that $Q^{\dagger}UQ$ is nothing but the matrix expression of the operator $U$ in the Bell basis modulo some phases. It is shown in [@Makhlin; @Zhang] that the followings are invariant under bi-local unitary operations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{invariants}
&&G_1 ~=~ \frac{{\rm tr}^2[m(U)]}{16 \det U}\\
&&G_2 ~=~ \frac{{\rm tr}^2[m(U)]-{\rm tr}[m^2(U)]}{4 \det U}.\end{aligned}$$
Perfect entanglers
------------------
By a perfect entangler we mean an operator which can produce maximally entangled states when acting on a suitable product state. The following theorem [@Zhang] determines when a given operator $U\in {\rm U(4)}$ is a perfect entangler.\
**Theorem [@Zhang]:** An operator $U\in {\rm U(4)}$ is a perfect entangler if and only if the convex hull of the eigenvalues of the matrix $m(U)$ contains zero.\
We remind the reader that the convex hull of $N$ points $ p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_N $ in $\texttt{R}^n$ is the set $$\begin{aligned}
& {\cal C}:=\{ \sum_{j=1} \lambda_j p_j | \lambda_j \geq 0 \ \ {\rm{and}} \ \ \sum_{j=1}^N
\lambda_j = 1 \}. \label{convex hull}\end{aligned}$$ The above criterion divides the set of non-local operators into perfect entanglers and non-perfect entanglers. A more quantitative measure has been introduced in [@Zanardi] which defines the entangling power of an operator $U$, as $$\label{e_p}
e_p(U):= \overline{E(U|\phi\rangle \otimes |\psi\rangle)},$$ where $E$ is any measure of entanglement of states and the average is taken over all product states. To guarantee that the entangling power of equivalent operators are equal, as it should be, the measure of integration is taken to be invariant under local unitary operations.\
Equipped with the above tools we can now repose the questions raised in the introduction and ask what are the status of the braid group solutions in the space of all operators acting on two qubits. Which of them is a perfect entangler? If yes, are they both equivalent to some well-known perfect entanglers like or else, they belong to different equivalence classes of perfect entanglers? In answering these questions we have found some new features of entangling properties of operators as we will discuss in the sequel.\
Entangling properties of braid operators
========================================
In this section we want to study the entangling property of the braid operators (\[R\],\[R’\]). Before proceeding we note a point without any calculation. The operator is a braid operator, (it is equal to $R'$ when $a=b=c=d=1$) and yet it can not entangle product states. In fact $ P(|\phi\rangle \otimes
|\psi\rangle) = |\psi\rangle \otimes |\phi\rangle $. On the other hand the operator is not a solution of braid group relation and yet it is a perfect entangler. In fact when acting on the product states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{productcnot}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle + |1\rangle) \otimes |0\rangle , \hskip 1cm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle +
|1\rangle) \otimes |1\rangle \cr &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle - |1\rangle)\otimes |0\rangle , \hskip 1cm
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle - |1\rangle)\otimes |1\rangle\end{aligned}$$ it produces the maximally entangled Bell states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bellcnot}
&\frac{|0,0\rangle + |1,1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}, \hskip 1cm
\frac{|0,1\rangle + |1,0\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \cr &\frac{|0,0\rangle
- |1,1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}, \hskip 1cm \frac{|0,1\rangle -
|1,0\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ However by this example we do not want to rush to the conclusion that there is absolutely no relation between braid operators and quantum mechanical entangling operators. The reason is that although the operator may not be a braid operator itself, it may be locally equivalent to a braid operator via bi-local unitary operators.\
Therefore to study the entangling properties of braid operators we have to extract their non-local properties which is achieved by first calculating their invariants. For comparison we note that the invariants of turn out to be $G_1 = 0, $ and $ G_2 = 1$.\
**1:** For the braid operator $R$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m(R)}
&m(R) = -i \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
& & & 1 \\
& & 1 & \\
& 1 & & \\
1 & & & \
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ from which we obtain the invariants $$\label{G(R)}
G_1(R) = 0 \hskip 1cm G_2(R) = 1.$$ These invariants are the same as the invariants of , and hence this braid operator is equivalent to a quantum mechanical perfect entangler. It is readily seen from (\[R\]) that when acting on the computational basis $\{|0,0\rangle, |0,1\rangle, |1,0\rangle , |1,1\rangle\}$ it produces the Bell basis.\
**2:** For the continuous family $R'$ we obtain after simple calculations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m(R')}
m(R') = {\rm{diag}} (ad, bc, bc, ad)\end{aligned}$$ This leads to the invariants $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G(R')}
G_1(R') &=& \frac{-(ad+bc)^2}{4abcd} \equiv -\frac{(1+\Delta)^2}{4\Delta}\\
G_2(R') &=& -1+2G_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta:=\frac{ad}{bc}$.\
The last relation $G_2 = -1 + 2 G_1 $ shows that none of the members of this family is equivalent to . In fact they are not equivalent to any controlled operator $U_c$ (such an operator acts on the second qubit as $U$ only if the first qubit called the control qubit is in the state $|1\rangle $, otherwise it acts as a unit operator). In fact a simple calculation shows that for all such controlled operators we have
$$\label{invariantsofcontrolledU}
G_2(U_c) = 1+2G_1(U_c).$$
which means that even if the first invariant of such an operator is made equal to that of $R'$, their second invariants can not be equal to each other and thus under no condition the braid operator $R'$ can be locally equivalent to a controlled operator $U_c$.\
Now that none of these braid operators are equivalent to , is there any perfect entangler among them?\
To answer this question we note that the eigenvalues of the matrix $ m(R')$ are $ ad $ and $bc$. The convex hull of these points in the complex plane is a line which passes through the origin only if the parameter $\Delta$ is real. Since all the parameters $ a, b, c $ and $ d $ are of unit modulus, this parameter can only have two values, namely $\pm 1 $. The value $\Delta=1$ should be excluded, since in that case the eigenvalues are all equal and the convex hull degenerates to a point. Thus the braid operators $R'$ are perfect entanglers only if $\Delta = -1$. Since this same parameter determines the invariants of $R'$, there is only one single perfect entangler in this class up to local equivalence. We take this perfect entangler to be the following matrix with invariants $G_1 = 0 $ and $ G_2 = -1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R0}
&R'_0:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& -1 & & \\
& & & 1 \
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It produces maximally entangled states when acting on an appropriate product basis: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R0product}
&R'_0|x+\rangle |x+\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0,0\rangle + |0,1\rangle - |1,0\rangle+|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'_0|x+\rangle |x-\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0,0\rangle + |0,1\rangle + |1,0\rangle-|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'_0|x-\rangle |x+\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0,0\rangle - |0,1\rangle - |1,0\rangle-|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'_0|x-\rangle |x-\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0,0\rangle - |0,1\rangle + |1,0\rangle+|1,1\rangle)\end{aligned}$$ where $|x\pm\rangle = \frac{|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}$.\
Incidentally we note that the operator $R'$ when acting on the above product basis produces an orthonormal basis of states all with the same value of concurrence $ C = \frac{|1-\Delta|}{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rproduct}
&R'|x+\rangle |x+\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(a|0,0\rangle +b |0,1\rangle +c |1,0\rangle+d|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'|x+\rangle |x-\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(a|0,0\rangle +b |0,1\rangle -c |1,0\rangle-d|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'|x-\rangle |x+\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(a|0,0\rangle -b |0,1\rangle +c |1,0\rangle-d|1,1\rangle)\cr
&R'|x-\rangle |x-\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(a|0,0\rangle -b |0,1\rangle -c |1,0\rangle+d|1,1\rangle).\end{aligned}$$
Up to now we have found that the two braid group families (the single and the continuous one) each encompass a perfect entangler. This finding is certainly in favor of a relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglements. Meanwhile we have found another maximally entangled basis which is not bi-locally equivalent to the Bell basis in the sense that no local unitary can turn one into the other, since if they were this would mean that the nonlocal operators $R'_0$ and which generate them from product bases were locally equivalent which we know is not the case. We should add that all maximally entangled bases are equivalent to the Bell basis up to phases. This applies also to the above basis. However these phases can be removed only by nonlocal operations.\
We are now faced with the following question:\
Are there perfect entanglers which are not locally equivalent to the braid group operators?\
To answer this question we should search for nonlocal operators $U$ which although have different local invariants from $(G_1 = 0
, G_2=1)$ and $(G_1 = 0, G_2 = -1)$, the eigenvalues of their $m(U)$ matrix, encompass the origin, so that they become perfect entanglers.\
One such matrix is the square root of the operator [@Zhang] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sqrtp}
&\sqrt{P}= \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& \frac{1+i}{2} & \frac{1-i}{2} & \\
& \frac{1-i}{2} & \frac{1+i}{2} & \\
& & & 1 \
\end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ for which we have $m(\sqrt{P}) = {\rm diag} (1, 1, -1, 1)$, $ G_1
= \frac{i}{4} $ and $ G_2 = 0 $. This operator is a perfect entangler and can turn a suitable product state like $|x+\rangle |x-\rangle$ into a maximally entangled state like $\frac{1}{2}(|0,0\rangle -i |0,1\rangle +|1,0\rangle -|1,1\rangle) $. However, there is an important difference. Unlike and $R'_0$ it can not maximally entangle an orthonormal product basis. We can prove this as follows. The most general form of an orthonormal product basis is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
|\psi_1\rangle &=& (a|0\rangle + b|1\rangle)\otimes( c|0\rangle + d|1\rangle)\cr
|\psi_2\rangle &=& ( \overline{b}|0\rangle -\overline{a}|1\rangle)\otimes( c|0\rangle + d|1\rangle)\cr
|\psi_3\rangle &=&( e|0\rangle + f|1\rangle)\otimes( \overline{d}|0\rangle - \overline{c}|1\rangle)\cr
|\psi_4\rangle &=&( \overline{f}|0\rangle - \overline{e}|1\rangle)\otimes( \overline{d}|0\rangle -
\overline{c}|1\rangle),
\end{aligned}$$ where $|a|^2+|b|^2 = |c|^2+|d|^2=|e|^2+|f|^2=1$. We now act on one of these states, say the first one, by the operator $\sqrt{P}$ and obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nogotheorem}
\sqrt{P}|\psi_1\rangle &=& ac|0,0\rangle + \frac{1}{2}((1+i)ad+(1-i)bc)|0,1\rangle \nonumber\\& &+
\frac{1}{2}((1-i)ad+(1+i)bc)|1,0\rangle + bd|1,1\rangle.\hskip 3mm\end{aligned}$$ Such a state is maximally entangled if its concurrence is equal to 1. The concurrence is easily calculated to be $C(\sqrt{P}|\psi_1\rangle) = |ad-bc|^2 $. Thus for this operator to turn these orthonormal states into maximally entangled states the following equations should be satisfied simultaneously:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction}
|ad-bc|^2 &=&1 \hskip 1cm |\overline{b}d+\overline{a}c|^2 = 1\cr
|cf-de|^2 &=&1 \hskip 1cm |\overline{c}e+\overline{d}f|^2 = 1.
\end{aligned}$$
However the first two equalities when added together side by side give $(|a|^2+|b|^2)(|c|^2+|d|^2) = 2
$ which is impossible sine the left hand side is equal to 1 due to the normalization of states. This is also true for the second pair of equalities.\
Therefore the operator $\sqrt{P}$ can not maximally entangle a product basis. Note that although we have arrived at a contradiction by only considering the pair of equalities obtained from the states $|\psi_1\rangle $ and $|\psi_2\rangle $ it is not true to conclude that this operator can not maximally entangle any two orthonormal states. For we could have taken two orthonormal product states as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{22}
|\phi_1\rangle &=& ( a|0\rangle + b|1\rangle)\otimes( c|0\rangle + d|1\rangle)\cr
|\phi_2\rangle &=& ( \overline{b}|0\rangle -\overline{a}|1\rangle)\otimes( \overline{d}|0\rangle -\overline{c}|1\rangle)
\end{aligned}$$ without running into any contradiction, i.e. the operator $\sqrt{P}$ maximally entangles the two orthonormal product states $|x+\rangle |x-\rangle$ and $|x-\rangle |x+\rangle$.\
This raises the hope that the braid operators may be the only perfect entanglers which have the important property of maximally entangling a basis. This could be a substantial evidence for the existence of a relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglement. However we have found other classes of perfect entanglers, locally inequivalent to the braid operators which have the above mentioned property. Each member of the following one parameter family of operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U}
&U_{\phi} = e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}\sigma_y\otimes \sigma_y - i \phi \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{-i\phi} & & & ie^{-i\phi} \\
&e^{i\phi} & -ie^{i\phi} & \\
& -ie^{i\phi} & e^{i\phi} & \\
ie^{-i\phi} & & & e^{-i\phi} \
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ has local invariants $G_1 = 0, G_2 = \cos 4 \phi$ and maximally entangles the product basis $\{|0,0\rangle,$ $|0,1\rangle,
|1,0\rangle, |1,1\rangle \}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{basisforU}
|0,0\rangle &\rightarrow & \frac{e^{-i\phi}}{\sqrt{2}}(|0,0\rangle + i |1,1\rangle)\cr
|0,1\rangle &\rightarrow& \frac{e^{i\phi}}{\sqrt{2}}(|0,1\rangle -i |1,0\rangle)\cr
|1,0\rangle &\rightarrow & \frac{e^{i\phi}}{\sqrt{2}}(-i|0,1\rangle + |1,0\rangle)\cr
|1,1\rangle &\rightarrow& \frac{e^{-i\phi}}{\sqrt{2}}(i|0,0\rangle + |1,1\rangle).\end{aligned}$$ Note that although the phases $ e^{\pm i\phi} $ enter in the entangled basis states as overall phases, nevertheless this phase is important when acting on linear combination of states and can not be removed by local operations.\
In view of this, we may conclude that the braid operators have no special status among perfect entanglers.\
We conclude this section by calculating the entangling power of the the braid operators $R$ and $R'_0$. We use the linear entropy $E_l(\Psi)$ for our measure of entanglement of a pure state $|\Psi\rangle $, since calculation of the resulting integrals is easier. This is indeed the measure used in [@Zanardi] for defining entangling power of operators. As mentioned in the introduction $E_l = \frac{1}{2}C^2 $ where $C$ is the concurrence of the state. Thus the entangling power of an operator $U$ denoted by $e_p(U)$ is calculated as follows: We take a product state $|\psi\rangle | \psi'\rangle$, where $ |\psi\rangle =
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\frac{\phi}{2}} \\
\sin \frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\frac{\phi}{2}}
\end{array}\right)$ and $ |\psi'\rangle =
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac{\theta'}{2}e^{-i\frac{\phi'}{2}} \\
\sin \frac{\theta'}{2}e^{i\frac{\phi'}{2}}
\end{array}\right)$, determine the concurrence $C(U|\psi\rangle |\psi'\rangle)$ from (\[concurrence\]) and then calculate the following integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epp}
&e_p(U) = \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\int \frac{C^2(U|\psi\rangle |\psi'\rangle)}{2}\sin \theta d\theta d\phi \sin \theta' d\theta'
d\phi'.\end{aligned}$$ We expect the following relations to hold and indeed they turn out to be correct: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ep}
&e_p(U_{\phi}) = e_p(R'_0)=e_p({\rm{CNOT}}) \hskip 1cm
e_p(\sqrt{P})< e_p({\rm{CNOT}}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the operators , $R'_0 $ and $U_{\phi}$ are not locally equivalent. The reason for their equal entangling power is that they are related by the operator. The second inequality is expected since the operator $\sqrt{P}$ although a perfect entangler, can not entangle orthonormal bases.\
Straightforward calculations along the lines mentioned above give the following explicit values:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{epps}
&e_p(U_{\phi})= e_p(R) = e_p({\rm{CNOT}}) = e_p(R'_0) = \frac{2}{9},\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eppps}
&e_p(R') = \frac{|ad-bc|^2}{18}\equiv \frac{|1-\Delta|^2}{18}\hskip 2cm e_p(\sqrt{P}) = \frac{1}{6}.\end{aligned}$$
Discussion {#sec4}
==========
Following a suggestion by Kauffman and Lomonaco [@kauffman1] we have tried to see if there is any relation between topological and quantum mechanical entanglements. We have searched for a possible relation from two different points of view. The first point of view which is based on a possible correspondence between linked knots and entangled states is easily refuted by various counterexamples and arguments. The second viewpoint which is based on a correspondence of braid operators and quantum mechanical entanglement is more promising. In two dimensional spaces there is a complete classification of braid operators. There is a continuous family and a discrete one. We have shown that the discrete solution is a quantum mechanical perfect entangler and the continuous family encompasses a quantum mechanical perfect entangler. Both these operators have the important property that they can maximally entangle a full orthonormal basis of the space, a property which is shared by well-known quantum entanglers like but not by all of them.\
However we have found other operators having this property and yet not locally equivalent to the braid operators which shows that even in this view point one can not ascribe a very special status to the braid operators.\
In our study we have come across new ideas and questions about entangled states and entanglement which are outside the scope of the title of our paper. For example we have shown that not every perfect entangler is perfect. By this we mean that although it can maximally entangle some product states, it may fail to do the same for a product basis. Questions like ”How many inequivalent classes of maximally entangled bases exist for a space $V\otimes
V$? “ or ”How many inequivalent classes of perfect entanglers exist which can maximally entangle a product basis? ” have been new to us. We hope that these questions are also new and interesting for others.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank one of the referees for his very critical reading of the manuscript and his very valuable comments.
[99]{} P. K. Aravind, Borromean entanglement of the [GHZ]{} state, [*[ Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance]{}*]{}, edited by R. S. Cohen, [*[et. al.]{}*]{} ( Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997), pp. 53-59. L. H. Kauffman and S. J. Lomonaco Jr., New Jour. Phys. [**[4]{}**]{}, 73.1 (2002). L. H. Kauffman and S. J. Lomonaco Jr., Entanglement criteria - quantum and topological, quant-ph/0304091. D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, [*[Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe]{}*]{}, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989). M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, and Z. Wang, Comm. Math. Phys. [**227**]{}, 587 (2002). M. H. Freedman, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Comm. Math. Phys. [**227**]{}, 605 (2002). M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen and W. Wang, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**40**]{}, 31 (2002). A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. [**303**]{}, 2 (2003). L. H. Kauffman, [*Knots and Physics*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001). V. Turaev, [*Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds*]{} (de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 18, Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 1994).
R. J. Baxter, [*Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1982). J. Hietarinta, J. Math. Phys. [**[34]{}**]{}, 1725 (1993). L. Hlavaty, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**[25]{}**]{}, L63 (1992). H. Dye, Unitary solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation in dimension four, Quant. Info. Proc. [**2**]{}, 117 (2003). S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[78]{}**]{}, 5022 (1997). W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998). J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A [**[67]{}**]{}, 042313 (2003).M. Grassl, M. Rötteler, and T. Beth, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 1853 (1998).N. Linden and S. Popescu, Fortschr. Phys. [**46**]{}, 567 (1998).N. Linden, S. Popescu, and A. Sudbery, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 243 (1999).Yu. Makhlin, Quant. Info. Proc. [**1**]{}, 243 (2002). P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro, Phys. Rev. A [**[62]{}**]{}, 030301(R) (2000).
[^1]: email:[email protected]
[^2]: email:[email protected]
[^3]: email:[email protected]
[^4]: email:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the entanglement generated by a weak cross-Kerr nonlinearity between two initial coherent states, one of which has an amplitude close to the single-photon level, while the other one is macroscopic. We show that strong micro-macro entanglement is possible for weak phase shifts by choosing the amplitude of the macroscopic beam sufficiently large. We analyze the effects of loss and discuss possible experimental demonstrations of the micro-macro entanglement based on homodyne tomography and on a new entanglement witness.'
address:
- 'Institute for Quantum Science and Technology and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada'
- 'Institute for Quantum Science and Technology and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada'
- 'Institute for Quantum Science and Technology and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada'
- 'Institute for Quantum Science and Technology and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada'
- 'Institute of Atomic and Subatomic Physics, TU Wien, Stadionallee 2, 1020 Wien, Austria'
- 'Institute for Quantum Science and Technology and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada'
author:
- Tian Wang
- Hon Wai Lau
- Hamidreza Kaviani
- Roohollah Ghobadi
- Christoph Simon
title: 'Strong micro-macro entanglement from a weak cross-Kerr nonlinearity'
---
Kerr nonlinearities (or photon-photon interactions) in appropriate media are both interesting from a fundamental quantum optics point of view and attractive for photonic quantum information processing. Strong Kerr nonlinearities in the optical domain are being studied in various systems including cavity QED [@cavity] and Rydberg states [@rydberg]. However, weak nonlinearities, such as those that can be induced in atomic ensembles by the AC Stark shift, have recently also received a lot of attention, in particular for quantum non-demolition (QND) detection [@QND], but also for other tasks in quantum information processing [@weak-QIP]. The protocols considered for weak nonlinearities typically involve light at the single-photon level interacting with one or more strong coherent beams [@HePRA]. This is possible because, in contrast to most schemes for strong photon-photon interactions, weak nonlinearities are usually not saturated by light at the single photon level, allowing the use of macroscopic input beams. There has recently been significant experimental progress on weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities [@weak-experiments]. In particular, Ref. [@GaetaNP] demonstrated a cross-Kerr phase shift of 0.3 mrad per photon using an atomic vapor in a hollow-core photonic bandgap fiber.
The creation of quantum effects such as superpositions and entanglement involving mesoscopic or macroscopic systems is currently being pursued in a number of areas including atoms [@atoms; @oberthaler], molecules [@molecules], superconducting circuits [@supercond], optomechanics [@verhagen; @lehnert], and purely optical systems [@light]. In particular, micro-macro entanglement of light was generated by displacing single-photon entangled states in phase space [@lvovskybruno]. The entanglement in the latter experiments was relatively weak. Inspired by the recent progress on weak Kerr nonlinearities and on macroscopic quantum states of light, we here study the entanglement generated by a weak cross-Kerr nonlinearity between two coherent beams, one of which is close to the single-photon level, while the other one is macroscopic. As mentioned above, this regime is particularly relevant for ongoing experimental research programs in quantum information processing. We show that strong micro-macro entanglement is possible for weak per-photon phase shifts by choosing the amplitude of the macroscopic beam sufficiently large. In the absence of loss, increasing the weaker field increases the entanglement. This behavior changes in the presence of loss, where the entanglement starts to decrease again if the weaker amplitude is increased too much. We also discuss potential experimental demonstrations, based on homodyne tomography and on an entanglement witness that we introduce below.
![Pictorial representation of the pure entangled state Eq. (\[eq:pure\]) created by a cross-Kerr nonlinearity starting from two initial coherent states $|\alpha\rangle |\beta\rangle$ in the absence of loss. Fock states $|\bar{n}+k\rangle$ (where $\bar{n}=\alpha^2$) for the first mode are correlated with coherent states with phases proportional to $(\bar{n}+k)\theta$ for the second mode, where $\theta$ is the weak cross-Kerr phase shift. The same correlation also holds when the roles of the modes are exchanged, see Eq. (1). Increasing $\theta$ causes a larger separation between neighboring coherent states and thus results in larger entanglement until neighboring coherent states are well separated in phase space, at which point the entanglement saturates. The total entanglement is bounded by the number of significant (well-separated) terms in the expansion Eq. (\[eq:pure\]), which is of order $2 \alpha$ (assuming $\alpha \leq \beta$).](phasespace){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We now describe our results in more detail. We first discuss the lossless case. The Hamiltonian for a cross-Kerr medium is $H=\chi \hat{n}_1 \hat{n}_2$. A weak nonlinearity is described by a time evolution operator $U=e^{-i t H}=e^{-i\theta\hat{n}_1 \hat{n}_2}$, where $\theta=\chi t \ll 1$. When $U$ acts on two initial coherent states $|\alpha\rangle_{1}\ensuremath{|\beta\rangle_{2}}$ one obtains the state $$|\psi\rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\displaystyle e^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}}\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}|n\rangle_{1}|\beta e^{-in\theta}\rangle_{2}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\displaystyle e^{-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2}}\frac{\beta^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}|\alpha e^{-in\theta}\rangle_{1}|n\rangle_{2}},\label{eq:pure}$$ where we have taken $\alpha$ and $\beta$ real for now for simplicity. One sees that the photon number in mode 1 is perfectly correlated with the phase in mode 2 and vice versa, see also Fig. 1. These number-phase correlations are the basis for our entanglement witness derived below.
We now analyze the amount of entanglement in the state of Eq. (1). We focus on the micro-macro regime $\beta \gg \alpha$ and on the first expansion in Eq. (1), which is in terms of photon number states for mode 1 and coherent states with different phases for mode 2. The overlap of two coherent states with different phases is $|\langle\beta e^{-in\theta}|\beta e^{-im\theta}\rangle|^{2}=e^{-2\beta{}^{2}(1-cos((m-n)\theta))}\approx e^{-(\beta\theta(m-n))^{2}}$. As a consequence, for $\beta\theta \gtrsim 1$, subsequent coherent states in the expansion are close to being orthogonal, see also Fig. 1. The state is clearly non-Gaussian in this regime, since the peaks corresponding to different coherent states in Fig. 1 are well-separated. Even for very small values of $\theta$ there is always a value of $\beta$ large enough to achieve this condition. Note that the same condition is also required for quantum non-demolition detection [@QND]. Increasing $\beta$ (or $\theta$) further beyond this point does not increase the amount of entanglement significantly. The total amount of entanglement is then determined by the number of significant bi-orthogonal terms in the expansion, which is governed by the Poisson distribution for mode 1 (still assuming that $\alpha \ll \beta$). This number is of order $2\alpha$, see also Fig. 1. One can thus increase the amount of entanglement at will by increasing $\alpha$.
However, our discussion so far was for the ideal case. We now analyze how the entanglement is affected by photon loss. We focus on loss after the state has been created (such as detection loss), since loss before the nonlinear operation only changes the amplitude of the coherent states, and loss during the operation can be made quite small in practice [@GaetaNP].
Losses can be modeled by beam splitter operations between modes 1 and 2 and vacuum modes 3 and 4 respectively, of the form $|\alpha\rangle_1|0\rangle_3\rightarrow|t_1\alpha\rangle_1|r_1\alpha\rangle_3$ with $t_1^2+r_1^2=1$ etc. From the first identity in Eq. (1), one can e.g. first treat the loss in mode 2 in this way. The key step is to expand the coherent states in modes 2 and 4 and recombine the relevant terms in order to write mode 1 in terms of coherent states. Then we can treat the loss in mode 1 simply by performing a beam splitter operation with mode 3. This gives the four-mode state $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m,k=0}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{\beta{}^{2}}{2}}\frac{(t_{2}\beta)^{m}}{\sqrt{m!}}\frac{(r_{2}\beta)^{k}}{\sqrt{k!}}|t_{1}\alpha e^{-i(m+k)\theta}\rangle_{1}|m\rangle_{2}|r_{1}\alpha e^{-i(m+k)\theta}\rangle_{3}|k\rangle_{4}\nonumber\\
=\sum_{m,k=0}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}}\frac{(t_{1}\alpha)^{m}}{\sqrt{m!}}\frac{(r_{1}\alpha)^{k}}{\sqrt{k!}}|m\rangle_{1}|t_{2}\beta e^{-i(m+k)\theta}\rangle_{2}|k\rangle_{3}|r_{2}\beta e^{-i(m+k)\theta}\rangle_{4},
\label{loss}\end{aligned}$$ where the second expression can be similarly obtained starting from the second identity in Eq. (1). One can see that the entanglement between modes 1 and 2 leaks into the loss modes 3 and 4.
We quantify the entanglement in the presence of loss by numerically calculating the Logarithmic Negativity (LN) , which is defined as $\log_{2}||\rho^{T_{A}}||_{1}$, where $\rho$ is the reduced density matrix for modes 1 and 2, and $\rho^{T_{A}}$ is its partial transpose. The LN is known to be an entanglement monotone [@key-1]. Note that the value of the LN for a two-qubit singlet state is 1. For simplicity we will focus on the case of symmetric loss, defining the loss percentage $\ell=r_1^2=r_2^2$.
{width="1\columnwidth"}
We now discuss our results. Figure 2 shows three important points. First, as expected from our above discussion, the LN can take values that are significantly greater than one. Second, in the regime of large $\beta$ and small $\theta$ the LN is a function only of the product $\beta \theta$, which determines the separation between the neighboring coherent states as shown in Fig. 1 and in Eq. (1). One can see that the results for different values of $\beta$ and $\theta$ all fall on the same curve. This makes it possible to extrapolate our results to smaller values of $\theta$ and larger values of $\beta$, where a direct numerical calculation of the LN is not possible. For comparison, Ref. [@GaetaNP] demonstrated $\theta=0.0003$ with $\alpha=4$ and $\beta=450$, which gives $\beta \theta=0.135$. Fig. 2 shows that this would already be sufficient to demonstrate an LN of order one for reasonable loss values, with significantly increased LN possible for modestly improved $\beta \theta$. Third, in the lossless case the entanglement saturates as a function of $\beta \theta$, exactly as expected from the discussion after Eq. (1). In contrast, in the presence of loss, there is an optimal value of $\beta \theta$. Greater separations between neighboring coherent states make the state more like a “cat state”, and hence more fragile to photon loss. This is because for greater separations the states of the loss modes corresponding to the different terms in Eq. (2) become more orthogonal, leading to faster decoherence.
There is a similar phenomenon when $\alpha$ is increased, as shown in Figure 3. Fig. 3(a) shows the LN as a function of $\alpha$. One sees that in the lossless case, the entanglement increases monotonically with $\alpha$. With loss, this is no longer true. There is an optimal value for $\alpha$, which decreases as a function of the loss. This is further elucidated by Fig. 3(b), which shows the LN as a function of loss. One sees that the entanglement decreases with loss, which is not surprising. More interestingly, while greater values of $\alpha$ give greater entanglement for zero or very low loss, the entanglement decreases much faster for greater $\alpha$. This can be understood intuitively because greater values of $\alpha$ correspond to greater separations between the extremal terms in Eq. (1), see also Fig. 1. One can also view this result as a manifestation of a general trend that more macroscopic quantum effects tend to be more fragile [@wang].
Figures 2 and 3 also show that there can be some entanglement even for large values of the loss (even more than 50 %), provided that $\alpha, \beta$ and $\theta$ are chosen appropriately.
{width="1\columnwidth"} {width="1\columnwidth"}
An experimental determination of the logarithmic negativity requires finding the density matrix, which can be done by homodyne tomography [@homtom]. Let us note that in the regime $\alpha \theta \ll 1$ that we are interested in here, the state of the macroscopic mode is well localized in phase space since it subtends an angle of order $2 \alpha \theta$ when viewed from the origin, see also Fig. 1. This means that it can be brought to the vicinity of the vacuum state by a phase space displacement, which should make tomography manageable even for large values of $\beta$. Nevertheless we now introduce an alternative approach, which does not require reconstruction of the full density matrix, but is based on an entanglement witness.
Our witness is inspired by the Duan criterion for two-mode squeezed states [@key-10], which have EPR correlations of the form $\hat{x}_{1}+\hat{x}_{2}=0,\, \hat{p}_{2}-\hat{p}_{1}=0$. Analogously, our state has the number-phase correlations shown in Eq. (1), which can informally be written as $\hat{\phi}_{1}+\theta \hat{n}_{2}=0, \, \theta \hat{n}_{1}+\hat{\phi}_{2}=0$. Of course the difficulty is that the phase operators $\hat{\phi}_1, \hat{\phi}_2$ are not well defined. Fortunately the quadrature operators $\hat{p}_1, \hat{p}_2$ can play an analogous role since $\left\langle \alpha e^{-in\theta}|\hat{p}|\alpha e^{-in\theta}\right\rangle =\alpha\sin(n\theta) \approx \alpha \theta n$. Based on this intuition we define the operators $$\hat{u}=\hat{p}_{1}+\alpha \theta \hat{n}_{2}, \,
\hat{v}=\beta \theta \hat{n}_{1}+\hat{p}_{2}.$$ Following closely the derivation of Ref. [@key-10] one can show that for all separable states $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left(\Delta\widehat{u}\right)^{2}\right\rangle +\left\langle \left(\Delta\widehat{v}\right)^{2}\right\rangle & \geq|\beta\theta\langle\hat{x}_{1}\rangle|+|\alpha\theta\langle\hat{x}_{2}\rangle|.\end{aligned}$$ We can therefore define the entanglement witness $w=\frac{|\beta\theta\langle\hat{x}_{1}\rangle|+|\alpha\theta\langle\hat{x}_{2}\rangle|}{(\Delta\hat{u})^{2}+(\Delta\hat{v})^{2}}$. Whenever $w>1$ the state has to be entangled.
In practice it is advantageous to use a slightly modified witness which takes into account two important effects. First, under the time evolution $e^{-i\hat{n}_{1}\hat{n}_{2}\theta}$ each beam undergoes an average rotation, corresponding to a phase factor $e^{-i|\beta|^{2}\theta}$ for the first beam and $e^{-i|\alpha|^{2}\theta}$ for the second beam. This leads to very fast oscillations for the witness $w$. These oscillations can be eliminated by redefining the initial states as $\ensuremath{|\alpha\rangle_{1}=||\alpha|e^{i|\beta|^{2}\phi}\rangle_{1},\ensuremath{|\beta\rangle_{2}=||\beta|e^{i|\alpha|^{2}\phi}\rangle_{2}}}$, and by replacing the operators $u$ and $v$ defined above by $\hat{u'}=\hat{p}_{1}+\alpha(\hat{n}_{2}-|\beta|^{2})\theta,\hat{v'}=\hat{p}_{2}+\beta(\hat{n}_{1}-|\alpha|^{2})\theta$. Second, in the presence of loss the amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$ should be rescaled. This finally leads to the operators $$\hat{U}=\hat{p}_{1}+t_{1}|\alpha|(\hat{n}_{2}-t_{2}^{2}|\beta|^{2})\theta \,,
\hat{V}=\hat{p}_{2}+t_{2}|\beta|(\hat{n}_{1}-t_{1}^{2}|\alpha|^{2})\theta$$ and the final form of our witness $$W=\frac{t_2 |\beta\theta\langle\hat{x}_{1}\rangle|+t_1|\alpha\theta\langle\hat{x}_{2}\rangle|}{(\Delta\hat{U})^{2}+(\Delta\hat{V})^{2}}\label{wit}.$$
![Entanglement witness $W$ of Eq. (\[wit\]) as a function of $\theta$ for $\alpha=2, \beta=50$, and loss $\ell=0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.5$ from top to bottom. The witness shows entanglement above the line $W=1$.](wlin05){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Fig. 4 shows our results for the witness $W$. Most importantly, it allows one to detect entanglement for reasonable values of the loss, even though it is more sensitive to loss than the logarithmic negativity. In contrast to the latter, it attains a maximum as a function of $\theta$ even in the absence of loss, and the decay for $\theta$ increasing beyond that point is faster than for the logarithmic negativity.
We have focused on the micro-macro regime, $\alpha \ll \beta$. While this is well motivated experimentally, we would still like to comment briefly on the macro-macro regime, $\alpha \sim \beta \gg 1$. The regime where $\alpha \theta \sim \beta \theta \ll 1$ is similar to two-mode squeezing. The clearly non-Gaussian regime where $\alpha \theta \sim \beta \theta \gtrsim 1$ (where there are many well-separated peaks in phase space) is more difficult to analyze both theoretically and experimentally. Calculating the logarithmic negativity becomes intractable numerically, and our witness is also no longer suitable. Homodyne tomography also becomes much more difficult because the state can no longer be brought to the vicinity of the origin by simple displacements, see Fig. 1. However, our results in Fig. 3 suggest that the entanglement in this regime is very sensitive to loss, so experiments are likely to be unrealistic in any case for this reason.
We now discuss experimental demonstrations of the micro-macro entanglement analyzed above. We already discussed the fact that determining the logarithmic negativity requires homodyne tomography. The approach based on the witness $W$ does not require full reconstruction of the state, but it does require the ability to perform both homodyne detection (to measure $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$) and photon counting (to measure $\hat{n}$). Loss causes “vacuum noise” contributions to the quadratures of order $\Delta x \sim \Delta p \sim \sqrt{\ell}$. It also causes an effective uncertainty in the photon number of order $\Delta n \sim \sqrt{\ell n}$, where $n$ is the total photon number, since the lost photons are essentially Poisson distributed. Our results on the effects of loss can therefore also be viewed as results on the necessary measurement precision, see also Ref. [@appel]. High-efficiency and low-noise homodyne detection was implemented e.g. in Ref. [@homodyne], while photon counting of large photon numbers with a precision much better than $\sqrt{n}$ was demonstrated in Ref. [@beck].
Some schemes for cross-phase modulation also generate self-phase modulation for one or both beams. However, the ladder scheme of Ref. [@GaetaNP], for example, avoids self-phase modulation for the strong beam, whereas self-phase modulation for the weak beam is expected to be very weak when its amplitude is close to the single-photon level. There are also schemes that generate a pure cross-Kerr nonlinearity such as that of Ref. [@schmidt]. Note that self-phase modulation is a local operation that commutes with the cross-Kerr Hamiltonian, so it would not change the degree of entanglement (or the LN), but it would have to be taken into account or compensated when measuring the witness.
Our work was primarily motivated by recent experimental progress in the optical domain. Another promising system in this context is light stored in Bose-Einstein condensates, where significant cross-Kerr nonlinearities in combination with very low loss should be achievable [@BEC-kerr]. Large Kerr nonlinearities [@yale] and substantial cross-Kerr nonlinearities [@mw-cross] have already been obtained in the micro-wave domain using superconducting qubits. The present results could be of interest in these systems as well. Both in the optical and in the microwave domain it might be possible to map the created entangled state onto mechanical systems [@verhagen; @lehnert], which can be seen as further enhancing the degree of macroscopicity [@OMMM].
As mentioned before, the situation considered in the present work can be seen as an amplification of the weak cross-Kerr nonlinearity by the strong coherent beam. We have seen that this can create strong micro-macro entanglement in a deterministic fashion. This approach to weak nonlinearities is thus distinct from the probabilistic weak-value based amplification scheme of Ref. [@feizpour] and the conditional entanglement generation schemes of Ref. [@conditional]. The non-Gaussian character of the generated entanglement could be beneficial for continuous-variable quantum information processing and quantum metrology [@oberthaler; @non-gaussian].
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} This work was supported by NSERC, AITF, WWTF and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through SFB FOQUS and the START grant Y 591-N16. We thank A. Feizpour, M. Girard, G. Gour, K. Heshami, A. Lvovsky, V. Narasimhachar and B. Sanders for useful discussions.
[10]{}
Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4710 (1995); J. Volz, M. Scheucher, C. Junge, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nat. Phot. (2014) doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.253
Y. O. Dudin and A. Kuzmich, Science **336**, 887 (2012); T. Peyronel, O. Firstenberg, Q. Y. Liang, S. Hofferberth, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, Nature **488**, 57 (2012); D. Maxwell, D. J. Szwer, D. Paredes-Barato, H. Busche, J. D. Pritchard, A. Gauguet, K. J. Weatherill, M. P. A. Jones, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 103001 (2013); V. Parigi, E. Bimbard, J. Stanojevic, A.J. Hilliard, F. Nogrette, R. Tualle-Brouri, A. Ourjoumtsev, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 233602 (2012).
N. Imoto, H.A. Haus, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A [**32**]{}, 2287 (1985).
K. Nemoto and W.J. Munro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 250502 (2004); W.J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T.P. Spiller, New J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 137 (2005); S.D. Barrett, P. Kok, K. Nemoto, R.G. Beausoleil, W.J. Munro, and T.P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 060302(R)(2005); B. He, M. Nadeem, and J.A. Bergou, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 035802 (2009).
B. He, Q. Lin, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 053826 (2011).
H. Kang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 093601 (2003); H. Chang, Y. Du, J. Yao, C. Xie, and H. Wang, Europhys. Lett. [**65**]{}, 485 (2004); H.-Y. Lo, P.-C. Su, and Y.-F. Chen, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 053829 (2010); B.-W. Shiau, M.-C. Wu, C.-C. Lin, and Y.-C. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 193006 (2011); M. Bajcsy, S. Hofferberth, V. Balic, T. Peyronel, M. Hafezi, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 203902 (2009); V. Venkataraman, K. Saha, P. Londero, and A.L. Gaeta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 193902 (2011).
V. Venkataraman, K. Saha, and A. L. Gaeta, Nat. Phot. [**7**]{}, 138 (2013).
C. Monroe, D.M. Meekhof, B.E. King, and D.J. Wineland, Science [**272**]{}, 1131 (1996); M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Matre, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4887 (1996); B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E.S. Polzik, [**413**]{}, 400 (2001); B. Lücke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezzé, F. Deuretzbacher, P. Hyllus, O. Topic, J. Peise, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi and C. Klempt, Science [**334**]{}, 773 (2011).
H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D.B. Hume, L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, and M. Oberthaler, Science [**345**]{}, 424 (2014).
M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Vos-Andreae, C. Keller, G. van der Zouw, and A. Zeilinger, Nature [**401**]{}, 680 (1999).
J.R. Friedman, V. Patel, W. Chen, S.K. Tolpygo, and J.E. Lukens, Nature [**406**]{}, 43 (2000); G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, Z. Leghtas, S.E. Nigg, H. Paik, E. Ginossar, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, S.M. Girvin, and R.J. Schoelkopf, Nature [**495**]{}, 205 (2013).
E. Verhagen, S. Deléglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, and T.J. Kippenberg, Nature (London) [**482**]{}, 63 (2012).
T.A. Palomaki, J.D. Teufel, R.W. Simmonds, and K.W. Lehnert, Science [**342**]{}, 710 (2013).
F. De Martini, F. Sciarrino, and C. Vitelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 253601 (2008); T.Sh. Iskhakov, I.N. Agafonov, M.V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 150502 (2012); R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, W.N. Plick, M. Krenn, C. Schaeff, S. Ramelow, and A. Zeilinger, Science [**338**]{}, 640 (2012); T.Sh. Iskhakov, V.C. Usenko, R. Filip, M.V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, arXiv:1408.6407
A.I. Lvovsky, R. Ghobadi, A. Chandra, A.S. Prasad, and C. Simon, Nat. Phys. [**9**]{}, 541 (2013); N. Bruno, A. Martin, P. Sekatski, N. Sangouard, R.T. Thew, and N. Gisin, Nat. Phys. [**9**]{}, 545 (2013).
M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 090503 (2005).
S. Raeisi, P. Sekatski, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 250401 (2011); T. Wang, R. Ghobadi, S. Raeisi, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 062114 (2013); P. Sekatski, N. Gisin, and N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 090403 (2014).
A.I. Lvovsky and M.G. Raymer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 299 (2009).
L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **84**]{}, 2722 (2000).
J. Appel, D. Hoffman, E. Figueroa, and A.I. Lvovsky, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 035802 (2007).
T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, V. Händchen, H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, H. Müller-Ebhardt, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 251102 (2010); N. Lee, H. Benichi, Y. Takeno, S. Takeda, J. Webb, E. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Science [**332**]{}, 330 (2011).
D.T. Smithey, M. Beck, M. Belsley, and M.G. Raymer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2650 (1992).
H. Schmidt and A. Imamoglu, Opt. Lett. [**21**]{}, 1936 (1996).
A. Rispe, B. He, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 043601 (2011); H.W. Lau, Z. Dutton, T. Wang, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 090401 (2014).
B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S.E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S.M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M.H. Devoret, and R.J. Schoelkopf, Science [**342**]{}, 607 (2013).
I.-C. Hoi, A.F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T.M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S.R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C.M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 053601 (2013); S.R. Sathyamoorthy, L. Tornberg, A.F. Kockum, B.Q. Baragiola, J. Combes, C.M. Wilson, T.M. Stace, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 093601 (2014).
R. Ghobadi, S. Kumar, B. Pepper, D. Bouwmeester, A.I. Lvovsky, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 080503 (2014).
A. Feizpour, X. Xing, and A.M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 133603 (2011).
Z.-M. Zhang, J. Yang, and Y. Yu, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**41**]{}, 025502 (2008); S.Y. Song, S. Wang, G.F. Xu, and G.L. Long, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**30**]{}, 2393 (2013).
F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, L. Albano, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 022301 (2007); M. Ohliger, K. Kieling, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. A [**82**]{}, 042336 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The mass-dependent equilibrium stable isotope fractionation between different materials is an important geochemical process. Here we present an efficient method to compute the isotope fractionation between complex minerals and fluids at high pressure, $P$, and temperature, $T$, representative for the Earth’s crust and mantle. The method is tested by computation of the equilibrium fractionation of lithium isotopes between aqueous fluids and various Li bearing minerals such as staurolite, spodumene and mica. We are able to correctly predict the direction of the isotope fractionation as observed in the experiments. On the quantitative level the computed fractionation factors agree within $1.0\,\permil$ with the experimental values indicating predictive power of [*ab initio*]{} methods. We show that with [*ab initio*]{} methods we are able to investigate the underlying mechanisms driving the equilibrium isotope fractionation process, such as coordination of the fractionating elements, their bond strengths to the neighboring atoms, compression of fluids and thermal expansion of solids. This gives valuable insight into the processes governing the isotope fractionation mechanisms on the atomic scale. The method is applicable to any state and does not require different treatment of crystals and fluids.'
address: 'GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany'
author:
- 'Piotr M. Kowalski and Sandro Jahn'
bibliography:
- '<your-bib-database>.bib'
title: 'Prediction of equilibrium Li isotope fractionation between minerals and aqueous solutions at high $P$ and $T$: an efficient [*ab initio*]{} approach'
---
Introduction
============
The fractionation of stable isotopes between various materials is of importance in geoscience, as the variation in isotope content provides valuable information on processes and interaction between atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere and hydrosphere. Although there is substantial analytical work performed in this area, reliable computational methods to predict isotope fractionation factors have been available only recently, proving that they can contribute towards understanding geochemical mechanisms responsible for production of isotope signatures [@D97; @YMMW01; @S04; @DK08; @HS08; @ML09; @SMH09; @Z09; @HS10; @RC10; @RB10; @Z09; @Z10].
staurolite spodumene mica 1M mica 2M1 mica 2M2 mica 3T
------------- ------------ ----------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------
a 7.848 9.463 5.20 5.209 9.04 5.200
b 16.580 8.392 9.01 9.053 5.22 5.200
c 5.641 10.436 10.09 20.053 20.2100 29.760
$\alpha$ 90 90 90 90 90 90
$\beta$ 90 110.15 99.38 95.74 99.58 90
$\gamma$ 90 90 90 90 90 120
ref. $^1$ $^2$ $^3$ $^3$ $^4$ $^5$
$N_{atoms}$ 81 80 44 88 88 66
\
References: $^1$[@CM02], $^2$[@CS73],$^3$[@S76],$^4$[@SF73],$^5$[@B78]
[*Ab initio*]{} calculations of equilibrium isotope fractionation between minerals have received considerable attention recently. Previous studies, however, were mostly limited to simple crystals containing just a few atoms in the unit cell such as quartz, kaolinite or carbonate minerals [@ML07; @RC10], as the methods used require considerable computational resources. Only very recently, the calculations have been extended to more complex crystalline solids containing up to 80 atoms in the unit cell by @SCh11. There are different approaches used in the computation of the mass-dependent stable isotope equilibrium fractionation factors of minerals, but all methods require knowledge of the vibrational spectrum of the considered system, which is usually computed using [*ab initio*]{} methods. @ML07 performed full normal mode analysis of the solid phases accounting for the phonon dispersion in reciprocal space. Because of the huge computational requirements, this method, although correct, can be only applied to the computation of stable isotope fractionation between simple phases. On the other hand, in order to derive the frequencies required for the computation of the fractionation factors @RC10 approximated the solids by small clusters and treated them as large molecules. This approach is based on well established theories of stable isotope fractionation [@BM47; @K82; @CCH01] showing that the major contribution to the mass-dependent fractionation comes from the local vibrational motion of the fractionating element. In line with this finding @SCh11 has found that considering the phonon spectrum on a single phonon wave vector only is sufficient for modeling of $^{26}$Mg/$^{24}$Mg isotope fractionation between magnesium bearing crystal phases.
{width="4.in"}
As fluid-rock interactions are a major cause that alter the isotopic signature of a mineral in a rock, understanding the equilibrium isotope fractionation processes between minerals and aqueous fluids is of great importance in petrology. Although there has been considerable work on stable isotope fractionation between various minerals and the computational techniques are well established, the question of treating fluids, namely aqueous solutions remains open. Most of the [*ab initio*]{} calculations of isotope fractionation in fluids use the cluster approach [@DK08; @HS08; @Z09; @RB10; @RC10; @HS10; @YMMW01; @Z10], in which the considered species (ions or molecular complexes such as Fe, Mg, $\rm H_3BO_3$) are surrounded by a hydration shell and the whole structure is relaxed assuming $T=0$ K. This approach is based on the computation of static atomic configurations and is valid at low temperatures only. In case of Li in aqueous solution at high temperatures ($T\sim1000\rm\,K$), frequent exchange between particles of the hydration shell surrounding Li cation with the fluid is observed on time scales as short as picoseconds ($10^{-12}$ s, @JW09). Distribution of cation coordination and cation-O bond lengths, effects that are expected to affect the isotope fractionation [@BM47], also change with pressure [@JW09; @WJ11]. These features are difficult to account for by using the cluster approximation for a compressible fluid at high temperature. The impact of the dynamical behavior of particles and compressibility of fluid must be investigated in order to properly compute the isotope fractionation in aqueous fluids. The only recent [*ab initio*]{} work that accounts for the dynamical effects on the isotope fractionation in fluid is by @RB07 who considered boron isotope fractionation between $\rm B(OH)_3$ and $\rm B(OH)_4^-$ in aqueous solution. They performed [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics simulations of this system and tried to use the vibrational density of states derived through the Fourier transform of the velocity auto-correlation function as an input for the calculation of the $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B isotope fractionation coefficient. The resulting fractionation factor $\alpha=0.86$ is much lower than the experimental value $\alpha=1.028$. Interestingly, the discrepancy between experiment and theory is cured by quenching the selected configurations along the molecular dynamics trajectory and computing the harmonic frequencies. The fractionation factor derived using these frequencies exactly reproduces the experimental value.
In this contribution we present an efficient approach to the computational prediction of equilibrium isotope fractionation between complex minerals and fluids at high $P$ and $T$. Both solids and fluids are treated as extended systems by application of periodic boundary conditions in all three spacial directions. We will demonstrate that at $T \rm >600\,K$ the fractionation factor can be computed by considering the force constants acting on the fractionating element only. Both solid and fluid supercells should be big enough to avoid significant interaction between atoms and their periodic images. In our investigation we use cells at least $5\,\rm\AA$ wide in each spacial dimension. A representative distribution of relevant coordination environments in the fluid structure is obtained by performing Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics simulations [@CPMD1]. For the calculation of the fluid fractionation factors, several random snapshots from this simulation are chosen. The force constants acting on the fractionating element and the resulting fractionation factors are then obtained for each configuration and the fractionation factor for the considered element in the fluid is computed as an average over the whole set of geometries.
As a test case for our approach, we have computed the fractionation factors between Li bearing aqueous fluids and three minerals, mica, staurolite and spodumene. For these systems, recent experimental data are available for comparison [@W05; @W07]. Furthermore, lithium as one of the lightest elements with two stable isotopes produces strong isotope signatures. It strongly fractionates into aqueous fluids during fluid-rock interaction processes and is used as a tracer of mass transfer in the subduction cycle [@W05]. The two stable isotopes, $\rm ^7Li$ and $\rm ^6Li$, have respective abundances of 92.5$\%$ and 7.5$\%$. The large mass difference of $7.016003/6.015121=16.6\%$ results in a prominent fractionation of at least a few even at high temperatures $T\rm\sim1000\,K$. The experimental data on Li isotopes indicate a significant influence of the Li coordination and the Li-O bond length on the fractionation of Li isotopes. The heavier isotope preferentially occupies the lower coordinated sites and phases with shorter bond distance [@WJ11], which is expected also from the theoretical point of view [@SMH09]. We will show that the application of [*ab initio*]{} methods to Li-bearing silicates and fluids provides unique insight into the mechanisms driving equilibrium Li-isotope fractionation on the atomic scale.
Mineral Li1 Li2 Li3 Average $\rm \Delta^7Li_{mc.-spd.}$
------------ ------ ------ ------ --------- ----------------------------- --
1M 13.9 14.9 - 14.6 +4.7$\pm0.9$
occupation 0.3 0.97 -
2M1 13.9 13.6 - 13.7 +3.8$\pm0.9$
occupation 0.38 0.92 -
2M2 13.8 13.4 - 13.6 +3.7$\pm0.9$
occupation 0.37 0.95 -
3T 12.2 14.9 12.1 13.6 +3.7$\pm0.9$
occupation 0.7 0.89 0.14
exp. +2.5$\pm$1.0
Theoretical model \[TM\]
========================
The mass-dependent equilibrium isotope fractionation is driven by the change in the molecular and crystalline vibration frequencies resulting from the different mass of the isotopes. The fractionation between species and an ideal atomic gas is called the $\beta$ factor or the reduced partition function ratio (RPFR) and in the harmonic approximation is given by the formula: $$\beta=\prod_{i=1}^{N_{dof}}\frac{u_{i}^{*}}{u_{i}}\exp{\frac{(u_{i}-u_{i}^*)}{2}}\frac{1-\exp(-u_i)}{1-\exp(-u_i^*)}, \label{beta}$$ where $u={\hbar\omega_i}/{k_BT}$, $\hbar=h/2\pi$ is the reduced Planck constant, $\omega_i$ the vibrational frequency of the $i$-th degree of freedom, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $N_{dof}$ is the number of degrees of freedom, which for the $N$ being the number of atoms in the considered system (molecule, mineral or fluid) is equal to $3N-5$ for a diatomic molecule, $3N-6$ for multiatomic molecules and $3N$ for crystals, and a star symbol marks the heavier isotope. Despite requiring only the knowledge of the vibrational frequency spectrum, the above formula accounts also for the translational and rotational motions of a molecule [@CCH01]. Because of the Redlich-Teller product rule, equation \[beta\] is also valid for minerals (but with the product running to $3N$), if the crystal is represented as a big molecule [@CCH01]. The fractionation factor between two substances A and B, $\alpha_{A-B}$ is computed as the ratio of the relevant $\beta$ factors, which for $(\beta-1)\sim 10^{-3}$ is well approximated by its differences: $$\alpha_{A-B}=\beta_A/\beta_B\simeq\Delta_{A-B}=\beta_A-\beta_B.$$ The calculation of the $\beta$ factor requires only the knowledge of the vibrational properties of the considered system computed for the two different isotopes. However, computation of the whole vibrational spectra of complex, multiparticle minerals or fluids requires substantial computational resources and is currently limited to systems containing a few dozens of atoms. Any approach that would allow for a substantial reduction of computational time and computationally efficient treatment of complex systems is highly desired. @BM47 have shown that in case of $u<2$ the isotope fractionation can be computed from the knowledge of the force constants acting on the atom of interest. The $\beta$ factor (Eq. \[beta\]) can then be approximated by: $$\beta\simeq 1+\sum_{i=1}^{N_{dof}}\frac{u_i^2-u_i^{*2}}{24}=1+\frac{\Delta m}{m m^*}\frac{\hbar^2}{24 k_B^2T^2}\sum_{i=1}^3 A_i \label{BAPX}$$ where $A_i$ are the force constants acting on the isotopic atom in the three perpendicular spacial directions (x, y and z), $\Delta m=m^*-m$ and $m$ is the mass of the fractionating element. For clarity we will call the formula \[BAPX\] [*the single atom approximation*]{} through the paper. The validity criterion, $u=\hbar\omega/k_{B}T<2$, restricts the usage of the formula to frequencies $ \omega\,{\rm[cm^{-1}]}<1.39\,T\rm{[K]}$. As it is rare that $\omega\rm>>1000\,cm^{-1}$ (with the exception of the vibrations involving hydrogen), the formula is usually valid for high temperatures $T\rm>600\,K$. In the case of Li, $\omega\rm<600\,cm^{-1}$ and the formula is valid down to $T\rm\sim450\,K$. This gives us the opportunity to simplify the calculations by considering the force constants acting on one atom of interest instead of all atoms constituting the considered system. For large systems containing hundreds of atoms the speed up in the calculations can be significant as the full normal mode analysis of an $N$-atoms system requires $N$ times more computations than computing a single atom. For instance for a system containing 100 atoms the calculations using the single atom approximation are 100 times faster. We will show that the computation of isotope fractionation factors from the knowledge of the force constants acting upon the element of interest allows for efficient calculation of Li isotope fractionation between complex silicates, such as spodumene, Li-micas and Li-staurolite, and aqueous solutions.
One important aspect of the method is its usage for the calculation of isotope fractionation in crystals. In principle in order to compute the $\beta$ factors for crystals one has to account for dispersion. In a solid the phonon frequencies are identified by a $q$-vector in a reciprocal-space, which requires extension of the product in Eq. \[beta\] beyond the number of atoms and adding multiplication over the $q$-vector grid (see Eq. 16 of @ML07). However, considering the $\rm ^{26}Mg/^{24}Mg$ fractionation in Mg-bearing minerals @SCh11 has shown recently that for minerals of multiatomic structure ($N>20$) considering a single phonon wave-vector is sufficient for getting very accurate $\beta$ factors even at $T=\rm 300\,K$ (error of 0.1). At $T=1000\rm\,K$ the error is negligible and in the order of 0.01. This finding and the computation of $\beta$ factors considering the single atom approximation reduce the computational load required to compute the fractionation factors to calculation of only the force constants acting upon fractionating element. This allows for computer-aided investigation of isotope fractionation in complex minerals and fluids containing hundreds of atoms.
{width="4.in"}
Computational approach \[CA\]
=============================
The calculations of $\beta$ factors of crystals and aqueous solutions were performed by applying density functional theory (DFT) methods, which are currently the most efficient methods allowing for treating extended many particle systems quantum-mechanically. For that purpose we used the CPMD code [@CPMD2], which is especially suited for [*ab initio*]{} simulations of fluids. In order to reach consistency with previous work on Li-bearing aqueous fluids [@JW09], we used the BLYP exchange-correlation functional [@BECKE88; @LEE88], a plane wave basis set and an energy cut-off of $70\,\rm Ryd$ for geometry relaxations and molecular dynamics simulations and of $140\rm\,Ryd$ for computation of vibrational frequencies and force constants. The much higher cut-off used for derivation of the vibrational frequencies and force constants was essential to obtain the converged $\beta$ factors. Norm-conserving Goedecker pseudopotentials were applied for the description of the core electrons [@GOE96]. For both crystalline solids and aqueous solutions, periodic boundary conditions were applied. The solids were represented by large cells containing at least 40 atoms. The number of atoms used in the crystal calculations together with the lattice parameters of modeled crystals are summarized in table \[T1\]. The lattice constants used in our calculations resemble those determined by @W05 [@W07]. The atomic positions of the crystal structure were relaxed to the equilibrium positions to minimize the forces acting on the atoms. The aqueous solution was represented by a periodically repeated box containing up to 64 water molecules and one Li atom. The Li$^+$ cation in the fluid was charge balanced by an F$^-$ anion. The pressure and temperature conditions were chosen to be close to the experimental conditions of @W05 [@W07]. The pressure of aqueous solution for a given temperature and volume was calculated according to the equation of state of @WP02. The [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics simulations (AIMD) were preformed for fixed temperature and volume using Car-Parrinello scheme [@CPMD1]. The temperature during each run was controlled by a Nos[é]{}–Hoover chain thermostat [@NK83; @H85]. For each $T-V$ conditions at least $10\rm\,ps$ long trajectories have been generated with an integration step of $0.12\rm\, fs$. The sum of the force constants needed for computation of the $\beta$ factors from equation \[BAPX\] was computed using finite displacement scheme by fixing the positions of all the atoms except the fractionating element. The full normal mode analyses were performed using the same method, but displacing all the atoms constituting the considered system. The frequencies were obtained through the diagonalization of the full dynamical matrix [@S04] as implemented in CPMD code. In case of solids the atomic structures taken for computations of $\beta$ factors were those obtained after relaxation of atomic positions to minimize the forces for given lattice constants. For fluids the $\beta$ factors were computed on the ionic configuration snapshots extracted uniformly in $0.1\rm\,ps$ intervals along the $10\rm\,ps$ long molecular dynamics trajectories. The calculations were performed with the positions of water molecules fixed to the molecular dynamics configurations and the Li cation was relaxed to the equilibrium position. The effect of the continuous medium on the derived fractionation factors was studied by additional computations of $\rm Li(H_2O)_n^+$ isolated clusters. For that purpose we used a large, isolated simulation box of the length of $16\rm\,\AA$, forcing the charge density to be zero at the boundary, as implemented in CPMD code.
![ The structures of $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters. \[FIG3\]](fig3.eps){width="3.5in"}
The error in the computed value of the $\beta-1$ and $\Delta$ fractionation factors we estimate from an average error of vibrational frequencies computed using chosen DFT method. @FS95 [@MT02] estimated the errors made in calculations of vibrational frequencies of small molecules using different DFT functionals. According to these works BLYP functional systematically overestimates the frequencies by $\sim3.5\,\%$ with the deviation from the mean value of $\sim1\,\%$. Therefore, we expect that using BLYP functional the $\beta-1$ and $\Delta$ values are systematically overestimated by $\rm 7\,\%$ and that in addition there is $\rm 2\,\%$ error in derived $\beta-1$ factors. We notice that in order to correct for the systematic errors some authors (for example @SCh11) scale the DFT vibrational frequencies usually by a frequency independent scaling factor, which could be derived from the match to the experimental measurements. We decided not to use such a scaling as we intent to test the ability of DFT methods to predict the stable isotope fractionation factors from first principles without introducing free parameters, or making constraints to the experimental data.
![ The $\beta$ factors for $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters. The lines represent the results for n=3,4,5 and 6 (from top to bottom) of this work (solid lines) and using frequencies computed in @YMMW01 (dashed lines). The results for n=3 and n=4 are nearly identical and hardly resolved in the figure. \[FIG4\]](fig4.eps){width="2.5in"}
Results and discussion
======================
Solids
------
### Representation of the silicates
![ The dependence of the $\beta$ factors of $[\rm Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters on the Li-O distance in the clusters derived using vibrational frequencies of @YMMW01 (circles) and ours (squares). The coordination runs from 3 (left) to 6 (right). The dotted lines connecting the data points are added to visualize the trend. \[FIG5\]](fig5.eps){width="2.5in"}
The lattice parameters of the modeled crystalline solids are the experimental values found in the literature. For staurolite, the refined crystal structure of @CM02 was used. As in the experiment of @W07 Mg-staurolite was used instead of Fe-staurolite, in order to reproduce closely the experimental conditions we replaced all the Fe atoms in the modeled structure with Mg atoms. In staurolite Li is a trace species. Following the assignment of @W07 we assumed that it occupies one of the T2 sites, i.e. the 4-fold coordinated site occupied by Mg atoms, and that there is only one substitution site. The constructed model contains a single unit cell of chemical composition $\rm Al_{18}^{[6]} (Li_{1} Mg_{3})^{[4]} Si_{8}^{[4]} O_{45}(OH)_{3}$, where in square brackets we denote the coordination number. The chosen composition and lattice parameters closely resembles the ones determined for Mg-staurolite by [@W07].
Spodumene is the simplest crystal investigated here. The modeled structure is that of @CS73. The chemical composition of the unit cell used in the investigation is $\rm (Li_8 Al_8)^{[6]} Si_{16}^{[4]} O_{48}$, which is exactly the chemical compositions of spodumene synthesized and used in the isotopic measurements by @W05.
Comparing with staurolite and spodumene the Li-bearing mica obtained in the experiments by @W07 is a complex silicate system containing different polytypes with relative abundances varying significantly between different samples (see table 3 of @W07). Following structure determination of @W07 in our investigation we consider four mica polytypes: 1M, 2M1, 2M2 and 3T. The structural parameters and literature sources are given in table \[T1\]. In order to model the minerals synthesized in @W07 experiment we represent the different mica polytypes by the supercells of the following chemical compositions: $\rm K_{2} (Li_{4} Al_{2})^{[6]} Si_8^{[4]} O_{20} (OH)_{4} $ for 1M mica, by $\rm K_{4} (Li_{8} Al_{4})^{[6]} Si_{16}^{[4]} O_{40} (OH)_{8}$ for 2M1 and 2M2 micas, and $\rm K_{3} (Li_{6} Al_{3})^{[6]} Si_{12}^{[4]} O_{30} (OH)_{6}$ for 3T mica.
### Li isotope fractionation between minerals
Staurolite and spodumene have a single Li occupation site. In staurolite, Li substitutes for Mg in a four-fold coordinated site, while in spodumene Li occupies the six-fold coordinated M2 site of pyroxenes. In both cases Li is bounded to oxygen atoms only. The computed $\beta$ factors for both silicates are given in figure \[FIG1\]. We give the results of two sets of calculations: (1) considering force constants acting upon Li atom only using Eq. \[BAPX\] and (2) performing full normal mode analysis, i.e. computing full phonon spectrum at the gamma point and using Eq. \[beta\]. This provides an explicit test of the single atom approximation outlined in section \[TM\]. The $\beta$ factors derived using both methods are essentially identical and only deviate slightly at low temperatures, which is expected. @W07 and @W05 measured the Li isotope fractionation between these two minerals and the aqueous solution. According to their measurements the fractionation between staurolite and spodumene is $2.7\pm 1.0\,\permil$ at $1200\rm\,K$ and $3.7\pm 1.0\,\permil$ at $1000\rm\,K$. The calculated values, which are given by the differences between $\beta$ factors at the considered temperatures are $\rm \Delta^7Li_{str.-spd.}=\beta_{str.}-\beta_{spd.}=3.7\pm0.5\,\permil$ and $4.6\pm0.5\,\permil$ respectively and therefore in good agreement with the experiment. We will show that because of thermal expansion effect and different experimental pressures ($3.5\rm\,GPa$ with staurolite and $2.0\rm\,GPa$ in experiments with spodumene), the computed $\rm \Delta^7Li_{str.-spd.}$ is overestimated by $1.1\,\permil$, bringing the prediction to even better agreement with the measured data.
The case of mica is more complex as it contains different polytypes and Li substitution sites. In the experiment of @W07 the measured mica samples contained various combinations of 1M, 2M1, 2M2 and 3T polytypes. To account for that we have computed the $\beta$ factors for all the outlined polytypes and Li substitutions sites. The results are given in figure \[FIG2\]. It is clearly visible that both the polytype and Li substitution sites impact slightly the value of computed $\beta$ factors. This is because the different structural environments result in slightly different Li-O bond lengths, although the Li coordination is the same in all cases. The largest difference is visible in case of 3T polytype, where $\beta$ factor computed for Li2 site is higher than for the other Li sites and polytypes. This is because even after atomic relaxation this particular site exhibits the shortest Li-O bonds with the strongest Li-O bond shorter by $\sim0.05-0.1\,\rm \AA$ comparing to other Li sites and polytypes. @W07 showed that at approximately $T\rm=650\,K$ the fractionation between mica and spodumene minerals is $2.5\pm1\,\permil$. The results of our calculations for that temperature are reported in table \[T2\]. Here we derived the $\beta$ factors for the different mica polytypes by taking the statistical average over the $\beta$ factors computed for each Li site. The contribution of each site is weighted according to the occupation of the particular site by Li atom, which is also given in table \[T2\]. The calculations predict the correct fractionation direction, i.e. $\rm \Delta^7Li_{\rm mica-spd.}>0$ and the experimental fractionation factor within uncertainties of the calculations (which we estimate at $\sim0.9\,\permil$ at considered temperature) but slightly overestimate the measured value. We will show later in the discussion of the fractionation between solids and fluid that accounting for thermal expansion of the crystals the reported computed values decrease by $\sim 0.3\,\permil$ further improving the agreement with the experiment.
Fluid
-----
### Cluster approach
![ The pressure dependence of the $\beta$ factor for Li in the fluid computed based on the cluster approach using the vibrational frequencies of @YMMW01 (circles), the full frequency spectrum computed for clusters in this work (diamonds) and using the @BM47 approximation (their Eq. (21)) together with Li-O symmetric stretching frequencies of @YMMW01 (squares). The bars represent the $\beta$ factors computed along the [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics trajectories and their width represent the uncertainties in computed values. The dotted lines connecting the data points are added to visualize the trend. \[FIG6\]](fig6.eps){width="2.5in"}
P\[GPa\] 3 4 5 6
---------- ------ ------ ------ ------
0.28 0.68 0.30 0.02 0.00
0.52 0.41 0.52 0.07 0.00
0.75 0.31 0.53 0.15 0.01
1.2 0.25 0.54 0.21 0.01
1.5 0.15 0.60 0.24 0.01
1.9 0.10 0.58 0.29 0.03
3.3 0.04 0.47 0.38 0.11
4.4 0.03 0.35 0.45 0.17
6.0 0.02 0.29 0.49 0.20
: The distribution of coordination number of Li in aqueous solutions computed by @JW09.[]{data-label="T3"}
In most of the recent work on [*ab initio*]{} computation of the stable isotope fractionation in aqueous solutions the isolated cluster approach is used in which a considered species is surrounded by the hydration shell and the whole structure is optimized assuming $T\rm=0\,K$ [@YMMW01; @DK08; @HS08; @SMH09; @Z09; @HS10; @RC10; @RB10; @Z09; @Z10]. However, at high temperatures and pressures the hydration shell surrounding lithium ion is not static but exhibits strong dynamical character [@JW09] and compression impacts its structure [@WJ11]. The important questions are on the impact of these effects on the equilibrium isotope fractionation and how well these effects can be described with the widely used cluster approach. In order to address these problems we performed set of calculations involving $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters. The clusters used in the investigation are illustrated in figure \[FIG3\]. Following the work of @YMMW01 we computed the $\beta$ factors for isolated $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters for $\rm n=3,4,5,6$, relaxing the structures to equilibrium positions and computing the full frequency spectra. The spectra were then used to compute $\beta$ factors according to Eq. \[beta\]. In the same way we also computed the $\beta$ factors using frequencies derived by @YMMW01 obtained with the restricted Hartree-Fock method (RHF). Both results are given in figure \[FIG4\]. The $\beta$ factors computed with the frequencies of @YMMW01 are higher than the ones derived with DFT frequencies except in the $n\rm=5$ case, for which both calculations predict the same values. This may be related to different cluster structures used in the calculations as positions of hydrogen atoms are not provided in details by @YMMW01. An interesting observation is illustrated in figure \[FIG5\], where the $\beta$ factor is plotted as a function of Li-O bond length. With increasing $n$ the Li-O bond length increases, as the water shell containing more water molecules has to relax outwards creating more space for additional molecules. The increase in the bond length results in a decrease of the $\beta$ factor. This has an important implication on the pressure dependence of the $\beta$ factors derived using the cluster approach.
![ The dependence of the $\beta$ factor of fluid on the size of the simulation cell. The thick and thin dashed lines represent the average value and the uncertainty limits of $\beta$ factor computed on system containing $62\rm \, H_2O$ molecules. \[FIG7\]](fig7.eps){width="2.5in"}
![ The $\beta$ factors for Li$^+$ aqueous solution at $1.9\rm\,GPa$ obtained by $\rm[Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ cluster approach and AIMD simulations. The lines represent the results of this work (solid line) and the $\beta$ factors obtained using frequencies of @YMMW01 (dotted line). The dashed line represents the fit to the $\beta$ factors given by bars, which indicate the uncertainty in the computed values, and computed at different temperatures as an average over the AIMD trajectories. \[FIG8\]](fig8.eps){width="2.5in"}
Having both results for clusters we attempted to investigate the pressure effects on the $\beta$ factors. We do that by averaging the $\beta$ factors over the statistical distribution of $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ complexes in aqueous solution, which is pressure dependent. @JW09 have shown that in the pressure range from $1$ to $6\rm\,GPa$, the Li coordination by oxygens increases smoothly from preferentially four-fold to five-fold coordination. At $2\rm\,GPa$, which corresponds to the experimental conditions of @W05 [@W07], the mean Li coordination is about 4.2. We took the probability distribution of @JW09, which is given in table \[T3\], and derived the pressure-dependent $\beta$ factors as a statistically weighted average of the $\beta$ factors derived for $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters. The results are given in figure \[FIG6\]. Both results derived on the two $\beta$ factor estimations predict decrease of the Li isotope fractionation with increase in pressure. This is because at higher pressure the more coordinated and with longer Li-O bond lengths $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ structures are preferred, which results in lower $\beta$ factors. This finding is counter intuitive, as one should expect that the compression of the fluid should lead to the shortening of the Li-O bonds, elevated vibrations and resulting higher $\beta$ factors. In figure \[FIG6\] we also give the estimation of $\beta$ factors computed from the knowledge of the Li-O totally symmetric stretching frequencies using rough approximation of @BM47 (their Eq. 21) with the relevant frequencies of @YMMW01 and the $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ clusters probability distribution of @JW09. In the @BM47 approximation the $\beta$ factor is proportional to the square of the totally symmetric stretching frequency, $\nu_s$, and the cluster size, i.e. $\beta\sim\nu_s^2n$. As with increasing the cluster size, $\nu_s$ decreases by $\sim20\%$, the largest effect on the isotope fractionation computed using the @BM47 method comes from the coordination (cluster size). The resulting pressure-dependent $\beta$ factor shows the desired tendency. It increases with the size of the cluster, which causes the increase in pressure as is seen in figure \[FIG6\]. We will show that the simulation of continuous media is required for proper investigation of the effect of the compression and to obtain realistic isotope fractionation signature of high $P$ fluids.
![The average Li-O distance between Li and the three closest O atoms in aqueous fluid as a function of pressure. \[FIG6a\]](fig9.eps){width="2.5in"}
### Molecular dynamics approach
In order to fully account for the pressure effects, spacial continuity of the fluid and its dynamical motion we produced $10\rm\,ps$ long molecular dynamics trajectories of systems consisting of 64 H$_2$O molecules and one Li ion for different $T=1000\rm\,K$, $800\rm\,K$ and $600\rm\,K$ and pressure of $1.9\rm\,GPa$, which closely resembles the experimental conditions of @W05 [@W07]. The corresponding simulation box length is $12.17\rm\,\AA$ at $T=1000\rm\,K$. We note that the thermal effects on the pressure will require to use a supercell of $\sim1\,\%$ smaller box length for $T\rm=600\,K$, a small effect which we omitted. As the oxidation state of Li in the aqueous solution is $+1$, following @JW09 we added a F atom to the system as a charge compensator. An interesting question is on the impact of the system size on the computed $\beta$ factors. In order to investigate this problem we computed $10\rm \,ps$ length trajectories also for simulation boxes containing 8, 16 and 32 H$\rm_2$O molecules for $T=1000\rm\,K$ and pressure of $1.9\rm\,GPa$. The resulting $\beta$ factors are given in figure \[FIG7\]. Within the accuracy of the calculation the $\beta$ factor is system size independent and in principle small systems containing 8 $\rm H_2O$ atoms can be used in the investigation. This substantially reduces the required computational time. As the current implementations of plane-wave DFT methods scale as $N^2-N^3$, with $N$ being the number of particles in the system (number of electrons), the computation time gained reducing the number of particles in the computational box could be significant. In our calculations switching from a system containing 64 water molecules to 8 the gain is a factor of $\sim$85. Nevertheless for our calculations we used the simulation box containing 64 water molecules. In order to obtain the temperature dependent $\beta$ factor at $P\rm=1.9\,GPa$ we fitted by the least squares procedure the formula $\beta=1+A/T^2$ to the $\beta$ factors calculated at the three temperatures. The parameter of the fit is $A=6.112\cdot10^{-3}$ for temperature expressed in units of $\rm10^3\,K$. The resulting $\beta$ factor as a function of temperature at $P\rm=1.9\,GPa$ is given in figure \[FIG8\] together with the already discussed predictions using the cluster approach. Interestingly, the molecular dynamics $\beta$ factor is in good agreement with the value obtained by using clusters approach with @YMMW01 frequencies. The difference between our cluster and MD calculations is also moderate, $0.6\,\permil$ at $1000\rm\, K$ and $1\,\permil$ at $800\rm\, K$. However, the agreement between both types of calculations is only reached at lower pressures ($P\rm<2\,GPa$), which will be discussed in the next paragraph. In order to check the validity of the single atom approximation outlined in section \[TM\] for fluids we computed $\beta$ factors with the full frequency spectra obtained for selected configurations. We found only negligible deviation of the resulted $\beta$ factors from the ones derived considering force constants acting on the Li atom only.
{width="6.in"}
In the $\rm [Li(H_2O)_n]^+$ cluster calculations we obtained an unexpected result indicating that $\beta$ factor should decrease with pressure, which we found counter intuitive. In order to investigate the pressure impact on the $\beta$ factor accounting for the continuity on the medium and its pressure-driven compression we computed the fractionation factors at $T\rm=1000\,K$ and different pressures on a system containing $8\rm\,H_2O$ molecules. In each case $10\rm\,ps$ long trajectories were generated and $\beta$ factors were computed on a set of atomic configurations extracted uniformly along the trajectories. The result is given in figure \[FIG6\]. We clearly see that for pressures $P\rm>2\,GPa$, as the effect of compression, the $\beta$ factor increases monotonically with increasing pressure. The reason for that is the small decrease in the mean Li-O bond length (measured as the average distance between Li and the three closest neighbors) with increasing $P$, which is opposite to the result using clusters approach, and the coordination, as shown in figure \[FIG6a\]. This finding is in line with results of @WJ11, who found that the mean Li-O distance increases for the pressures up to $1\rm\,GPa$ and remains constant at higher pressures. This explains why the computations using cluster approach, in which the increase of the Li-O bond lengths with the increase in the cluster size, and therefore pressure, is also observed, produce good pressure dependence of $\beta$ factor at low pressures, as illustrated in figure \[FIG6\]. On the other hand this clearly shows that an isolated cluster is not a good representation of high $P$ and $T$ fluid and can not be used for the computation of the $\beta$ factors in fluids at extreme conditions. Continuity and compressibility of the fluid have to be considered in order to obtain realistic results.
Although most of the experimental results to which we refer in this paper were performed at lower pressures ($2-3.5\rm\,GPa$), at which our results indicate small pressure effects on the fractionation (see Fig. \[FIG6\]), @WJ11 report a measurement of Li isotope fractionation between spodumene and aqueous fluid at $T\sim900\rm\,K$ and $P\rm=8\,GPa$ to be $+0.75\pm0.5\,\permil$ lower than the values measured at the same temperature but lower pressures for the same systems in @W05. In order to check if we are able to reproduce this behavior with our method we computed the $\beta$ factor of spodumene at high $P=8\,\rm GPa$ by using the lattice constants of compressed spodumene determined by @AA00. Because of the high compression, the resulting $\beta$ factor is $3\rm\, \permil$ higher than the one derived for uncompressed solid. The $\beta$ factor of fluid at the same $(P,T)$ conditions increases by $1.9\rm\, \permil$. This results in pressure-driven decrease of the spodumene-fluid fractionation factor ($\rm \Delta^7Li_{spd.-fluid}$) by $1.1\rm\, \permil$, which is in good agreement with the result of @WJ11.
Fluid-mineral fractionation
---------------------------
The different experiments on Li isotope fractionation between Li-bearing minerals and aqueous solution at high $P$ and $T$ [@W05; @W07] show the strongest enrichment in $^7$Li for staurolite and subsequently lighter isotopic signatures for the fluid, mica and spodumene. An important test for our proposed computational method is to reproduce the sequence of experimentally observed fractionation factors. The crystal structures used in the calculation and the procedure used to compute the $\beta$ factors are described in previous sections, and the relevant $\beta$ factors were already discussed. The computed fluid-mineral fractionation factors, $\rm \Delta^7Li_{mineral-fluid}$, between staurolite, spodumene and mica, and aqueous solution are given in figure \[FIG9\] together with the experimental values of @W07 for mica and staurolite and @W05 for spodumene respectively. The errors of the computed fractionation factors are given in the figure caption and are derived assuming uncertainty in the computed vibrational frequencies coming from using BLYP functional, which is discussed in section \[CA\]. The computed curves correctly predict the fractionation sequence. The heavy Li isotope preferentially fractionates into staurolite with respect to aqueous solution, whereas spodumene is enriched in $^6$Li. The computations also reproduce the experimental results for both minerals on the quantitative level within $1-1.5\,\permil$, taking into account the uncertainties in the calculated fractionation factors, and our prediction for spodumene is ideal. In case of mica the picture is more complicated as it has four polytypes and more than one Li substitution site. In figure \[FIG9\] we plotted the average mica-fluid fractionation factors computed for different polytypes. The resulted solid-fluid fractionation is higher than the experimental values by $\sim1-2\,\permil$, depending on the polytype. Nevertheless, our results confirm that among the considered minerals, the fractionation between mica and the fluid is the smallest and that on average the mica containing mixture of different polytypes should be slightly enriched with light isotope comparing with fluid. We note that as the measurements for mica were performed at lower temperature of $\sim650\rm\,K$, the error in the calculated fractionation factor between mica and fluid is significant and $\sim0.6\rm\,\permil$. The straightforward comparison of our results for mica crystalline solid with the experimental data is also complicated as different reported measured samples of @W07 contained different relative abundances of different polytypes. We also found that of all the crystalline solids considered here mica is the most sensitive to the change in the lattice parameters and computational setup. For instance, while the $\beta$ factors for other minerals and the fluid are well converged (within $0.1\rm\,\permil$) using the force constants obtained with the plane wave energy cutoff of $100\rm\,Ryd$, the resulted $\beta$ factors for mica with this setup are overestimated by $\sim1.5\rm \,\permil$ and the converged values were obtained by applying much higher cutoff of $140\rm\,Ryd$.
We notice that for staurolite and mica the solid-fluid fractionation factors are overestimated by $\sim0.5-1.5\rm\,\permil$. However, the lattice parameters used in the calculations of the crystalline solids are the one measured at ambient conditions. At high temperatures solids undergo thermal expansion, which should result in the lowering of the $\beta$ factors. Observing the deviation of the computed solid-fluid fractionation factors for staurolite and mica we attempted to check for the effect of the thermal expansion of the lattice parameters of modeled solids on the derived fractionation factors. According to the crystal structure data of @CS73 the lattice constants of spodumene expand by $\sim\rm0.5\,\%$ at $T\sim1000\rm\,K$. Having such a pronounced effect, we recalculated the $\beta$ factors of spodumene at $T=573\rm\,K,\,723\rm\,K\, and\,1033\rm\,K$ using temperature-dependent lattice parameters of @CS73. We found that the thermal expansion of spodumene results in $\sim0.4\rm\,\permil$ decrease in the $\beta$ factors for all the considered temperatures. Similar reduction is observed for micas. @RG99 showed that for the phlogopite 1M mica the lattice parameters increase by $\sim0.5\,\%$ at $T\rm=650\,K$. Assuming that Li-bearing micas undergo similar expansion we computed the $\beta$ factors with the lattice parameters rescaled by $+0.5\,\%$. The resulted $\beta$ factors are $\sim0.7\rm\,\permil$ smaller, which indicates that inclusion of thermal expansion effect lowers the computed mica-fluid fractionation curves by $0.7\rm\,\permil$. We also computed the $\beta$ factor for staurolite assuming the $\sim0.5\,\%$ increase of its lattice parameters at $1000\rm\,K$ [@HP11]. The resulted $\beta$ factor decreases by $0.6\rm\,\permil$. In addition we notice that the measurements for staurolite were performed at higher pressure $P\rm=3.5\,GPa$ [@W07]. At such elevated pressure the $\beta$ factor for fluid increases by $\sim\rm0.5\,\permil$ (Fig. \[FIG6\]) leading to the further decrease of the staurolite-fluid fractionation factor by $\rm0.5\,\permil$. The solid-fluid isotope fractionation factors resulted by applying the derived shifts in $\beta$ factors are given in the right panel of figure \[FIG9\]. It is clearly visible that the corrections due to the thermal expansion of crystalline solids and the high pressure in case of staurolite make the prediction more consistent with the measurements. We note that on the right panel we plotted the solid-fluid fractionation curves only at the temperature range corresponding to the experiment as being interested in direct comparison of the computed values with the experiments we applied the constant thermal expansion and pressure correction derived only at these temperatures. The respective corrections for staurolite and mica at other temperatures may be different.
Beside the thermal expansion effect and the uncertainties and systematic errors resulting from choice of the DFT functional there are other effects that could potentially increase the uncertainties in the calculated fractionation factors. These additional effects could arise from the usage of the experimental equation of state for fluid and lattice parameters for crystalline solids, and uncertainties in the crystalline lattice site occupations as in the case of micas. On the other hand, it can not be guaranteed with full confidence that the experimental measurements of @W05 [@W07], which indicate complete isotopic exchange, reflect an equilibrium fractionation (see for instance @LJ11) [^1]. Nevertheless, the good agreement between theoretical prediction and experimental data on the Li isotope fractionation between complex Li-bearing minerals and aqueous fluid shows that the outlined method for computing the isotope fractionation of fluids and crystals is a powerful tool, which can be successfully applied for prediction of isotopic signatures of complex Earth materials under extreme conditions.
Conclusions
===========
We propose a computationally efficient approach for computation of the $\beta$ and isotope fractionation factors for complex minerals and fluids at high temperatures and pressures. We demonstrated that in order to derive the reliable $\beta$ factors for either minerals or fluids at high $T$ and $P$ it is sufficient to know the force constants acting on the substituted isotope. This reduces significantly the computational time and allows for computations of isotope fractionation in complex materials containing even hundreds of atoms. In case of fluids we show that the widely used technique of representing aqueous solution as an ion-hydration-shell cluster is not sufficient to reproduce the isotope fractionation in aqueous solutions at elevated temperatures and pressures, when the dynamical character of the hydration shell and the compression of the fluid have to be accounted for. This can be achieved by [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics simulation technique, which allows for direct access to the dynamical distributions of water (fluid) molecules around the considered ion and proper consideration of compression effects. The relevant isotope fractionation factors can be computed on a set of uncorrelated snapshot configurations extracted from the molecular dynamics trajectory.
We show that in the case of Li in aqueous solution it is sufficient to compute the $\beta$ factors from the molecular dynamics simulations performed with a simulation cell containing a small number of atoms, which further reduces the computational time needed to perform the task. A system containing a single Li, a charge compensating anion and $8\rm\,H_2O$ molecules was sufficient to obtain the accurate $\beta$ factors within the uncertainties of the [*ab initio*]{} method used in the calculations.
We verify our approach by computing the Li isotopes fractionation factors between Li-bearing minerals and aqueous solutions and their comparison with the experimental data. The computed Li fractionation factors between staurolite, spodumene, mica and aqueous solutions reproduce the experimental results on quantitative and qualitative levels. We show that [*ab initio*]{} calculations are able to predict the correct sequence of isotopes fractionation between considered materials as observed in the experiment. The computed fractionation factors are within $1\,\permil$ in agreement with the measured values. We also found that the thermal expansion of the solids affects the isotope fractionation process and its inclusion improves the agreement with the experimental data.
Our study shows that [*ab initio*]{} computer simulations represent a powerful tool for prediction and understanding of equilibrium stable isotope fractionation processes between various phases including aqueous solutions at high pressures and temperatures. We expect that with the increasing power of computers and performance of the computational software these methods will be extensively applied to complement analytical techniques and to interpret measured isotopic signatures.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors wish to acknowledge financial support in the framework of DFG project no. JA 1469/4-1. Part of the calculations were performed on the IBM BlueGene/P JUGENE of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC). We are also grateful to Bernd Wunder for fruitful discussions and the associate editor Clark M. Johnson and anonymous referees for constructive comments that helped improving the manuscript.
[00]{} Arlt T. and Angel R. J. (2000) Displacive phase transitions in C-centred clinopyroxenes: spodumene, LiScSi2O6 and ZnSiO3. [*Physics and Chemistry of Minerals*]{} [**27**]{}, 719-731. Becke A. D. (1988) Density-functional exchange-energy approximation with correct asymptotic behavior. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**38**]{}, 3098-3100. Bigeleisen J. and Mayer M. G. (1947) Calculation of Equilibrium Constants for Isotopic Exchange Reactions. [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{}, 262-267. Brown B. E. (1978) The crystal structure of a 3 T lepidolite. [*Am. Mineral.*]{}, [**63**]{}, 332-336. Cameron M., Sueno S., Prewitt C. T. and Papike J. J. (1973) High-temperature crystal chemistry of acmite, diopside, hedenbergite, jadeite, spodumene, and ureyite. [*Am. Mineral.*]{} [**58**]{}, 594-618. Car R. and Parrinello M. (1985) Unified approach for molecular dynamics and density-functional theory. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 2471. Chacko T., Cole D. R. and Horita J. (2001) Equilibrium Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon Isotope Fractionation Factors Applicable to Geologic Systems. [*Rev. Min. Geoch.*]{}, [**43**]{}, 1-81. Comodi P., Montagnoli M., Zanazzi P. F. and Ballaran T. B. (2002) Isothermal compression of staurolite: A single-crystal study Sample: P = 2.48 GPa. [*Am. Mineral.*]{} [**87**]{}, 1164-1171. Domagal-Goldman S. D. and Kubicki J. D. (2008) Density functional theory predictions of equilibrium isotope fractionation of iron due to redox changes and organic complexation. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**72**]{}, 5201-5216. Driesner T. (1997) The Effect of Pressure on Deuterium-Hydrogen Fractionation in High-Temperature Water. [*Science*]{} [**277**]{} 791-794. Finley J. W. and Stephens P. J. (1995) Density functional theory calculations of molecular structures and harmonic vibrational frequencies using hybrid density functionals. [*J. Mol. Struct.*]{} [**357**]{}, 225-235. Goedecker S., Teter M. and Hutter J. (1996) Separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**54**]{}, 1703–1710. Hill P. S., Schauble E. A. and Young E. D. (2010) Effects of changing solution chemistry on Fe3+/Fe2+ isotope fractionation in aqueous Fe–Cl solutions Original Research Article. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**74**]{}, 6669-6689. Hill P. S. and Schauble E. A. (2008) Modeling the effects of bond environment on equilibrium iron isotope fractionation in ferric aquo-chloro complexes. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**72**]{}, 1939-1958. Holland T. J. B. and Powell R. (2011) An improved and extended internally consistent thermodynamic dataset for phases of petrological interest, involving a new equation of state for solids. [*J. Metamorph. Geol.*]{} [**29**]{}, 333-383. Hoover W. G. (1985) Canonical dynamics equilibrium phase-space distributions. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**31**]{}, 1695-1697. Jahn S. and Wunder B. (2009) Lithium speciation in aqueous fluids at high P and T studied by ab initio molecular dynamics and consequences for Li isotope fractionation between minerals and fluids. [*Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**73**]{}, 5428-5434. Kieffer S. K. (1982) Thermodynamics and lattice vibrations of minerals; 5, Applications to phase equilibria, isotopic fractionation, and high-pressure thermodynamic properties. [*Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics*]{} [**20**]{}, 827-849. Lee C., Yang W. and Parr R. C. (1988) Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**37**]{}, 785–789. Li W., Beard B. L. and Johnson C. M. (2011) Exchange and fractionation of Mg isotopes between epsomite and saturated MgSO$_4$ solution. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**75**]{}, 1814-1828. Marx D. and Hutter J. (2000) Ab initio molecular dynamics: Theory and Implementation. [*Modern Methods and Algorithms of Quantum Chemistry*]{} [**1**]{} edited by J. Grotendorst, NIC, FZ Jülich, 301-449 ; CPMD code: J. Hutter [*et al.*]{}, see: [www.cpmd.org]{}. Meheut M., Lazzeri M., Balan E. and Mauri F. (2007) Equilibrium isotopic fractionation in the kaolinite, quartz, water system: Prediction from first-principles density-functional theory. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**71**]{}, 3170-3181. Meheut M., Lazzeri M., Balan E. and Mauri F. (2009) Structural control over equilibrium silicon and oxygen isotopic fractionation; a first principles density functional theory study (in Applications of non-traditional stable isotopes in high temperature geochemistry). [*Chem. Geol.*]{} [**258**]{}, 28-37. Menconi, G. and Tozer, D. J. (2002) Diatomic bond lengths and vibrational frequencies: assesment of recently developed exchange-correlation functionals. [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**360**]{}, 38-46. Nosé, S. and Klein M. L. (1983) Constant pressure molecular dynamics for molecular systems. [*Mol. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1055-1076. Polyakov V. B. (1997) Equilibrium fractionation of the iron isotopes; estimation from Moessbauer spectroscopy data. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**61**]{}, 4213-4217. Russell R. L. and Guggenheim S., (1999) Crystal structures of near-end-member phlogopite at high temperatures and heat-treated Fe-rich phlogopite: the influence of the O, (O H), F site. [*Can. Mineral.*]{} [**37**]{}, 711-720. Rustad J. R, Casey W. H., Yin Q.-Z., Bylaska E. J., Felmy, A. R., Bogatko S. A., Jackson V. E. and Dixon D. A. (2010) Isotopic fractionation of Mg2+(aq), Ca2+(aq), and Fe2+(aq) with carbonate minerals. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**74**]{}, 6301-6323. Rustad J. R., Bylaska E. J., Jackson V. E. and Dixon D. A. (2010) Calculation of boron-isotope fractionation between B(OH)$_3$(aq) and B(OH$)_3^-$(aq). [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**74**]{}, 2843-2850. Rustad J. R. and Bylaska E. J. (2007) Ab Initio Calculation of Isotopic Fractionation in B(OH$)_3$(aq) and BOH$_4^-$(aq). [*J. Am. Chem. Soc. (Communication)*]{} [**129**]{}, 2222-2223. Sartori F. (1976) The crystal structure of a 1M lepidolite. [*Tschermaks Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen*]{} [**23**]{}, 65-75. Sartori F. (1977) The crystal structure of a 2M 1 lepidolite. [*Tschermaks Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen*]{}, [**24**]{}, 23-37. Sartori F., Franzini M. and Merlino S. (1973) Crystal Structure of a 2M 2 Lepidolite. [*Acta Crystallog. B*]{} [**29**]{}, 573-578. Schauble E. A. (2004) Applying Stable Isotope Fractionation Theory to New Systems. [*Rev. Mineral. Geochem.*]{} [**55**]{}, 65-111. Schauble E. A., Meheut M., and Hill P. S. (2009) Combining Metal Stable Isotope Fractionation Theory with Experiments. [*Elements*]{} [**5**]{}, 369-374. Schauble E. A. (2011) First-principles estimates of equilibrium magnesium isotope fractionation in silicate, oxide, carbonate and hexaaquamagnesium(2+) crystals. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**75**]{}, 844-869. Wagner W. and Pruss A. (2002) The IAPWS formulation 1995 for the thermodynamic properties of ordinary water substance for general and scientific use. [*J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data*]{} [**31**]{}, 387-535. Wunder, B., Romer, R. L., Meixner, A. and Jahn, S. (2011) Li-isotope silicate – fluid fractionation: pressure dependence and influence of the bonding environment. [*Eur. J. Mineral.*]{}, in press, DOI: 10.1127/0935-1221/2011/0022-2095. Wunder B., Meixner A., Romer R. L. and Heinrich W. (2006) Temperature-dependent isotopic fractionation of lithium between clinopyroxene and high pressure hydrous fluids. [*Contrib. to Mineral. Petrol.*]{} [**151**]{}, 112-120. Wunder B., Meixner A., Romer R. L., Feenstra A., Schettler G. and Heinrich, W. (2007) Lithium isotope fractionation between Li-bearing staurolite, Li-mica and aqueous fluids: An experimental study. [*Chem. Geol.*]{} [**238**]{}, 277-290. Yamaji K., Makita Y., Watanabe H., Sonoda A., Kanoh H., Hirotsu T. and Ooi K. (2001) Theoretical Estimation of Lithium Isotopic Reduced Partition Function Ratio for Lithium Ions in Aqueous Solution. [*J. Phys. Chem. A*]{} [**105**]{}, 602–613. Zeebe R. E. (2009) Hydration in solution is critical for stable oxygen isotope fractionation between carbonate ion and water. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**73**]{}, 5283-5291. Zeebe R. E. (2010) A new value for the stable oxygen isotope fractionation between dissolved sulfate ion and water. [*Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta*]{} [**74**]{}, 818-828.
[^1]: Although the arguments supporting the equilibrium fractionation as given in @W05 [@W07] are convincing and the good agreement between our predictions and the measurements corroborate that scenario.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we obtain a Hamilton-Jacobi theory for nonholonomic mechanical systems. The results are applied to a large class of nonholonomic mechanical systems, the so-called Čaplygin systems.'
address:
- 'D. Iglesias-Ponte: Instituto de Matemáticas y F[í]{}sica Fundamental, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient[í]{}ficas, Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain'
- 'M. de León: Instituto de Matemáticas y F[í]{}sica Fundamental, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient[í]{}ficas, Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain'
- 'D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego: Instituto de Matemáticas y F[í]{}sica Fundamental, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient[í]{}ficas, Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain'
author:
- 'David Iglesias-Ponte'
- Manuel de León
- 'David Mart[í]{}n de Diego'
title: 'Towards a Hamilton-Jacobi Theory for Nonholonomic Mechanical Systems'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The standard formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem for a hamiltonian system is look for a function $S(t, q^A)$ (called the [**principal function**]{}) such that $$\label{hj1}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} + H(q^A, \frac{\partial S}{\partial
q^A}) = 0,$$ where $H: T^*Q\longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is the hamiltonian function. If one looks for solutions of the form $S(t, q^A) = W(q^A) - t E$, where $E$ is a constant, then $W$ must satisfy $$\label{hj2}
H(q^A, \frac{\partial W}{\partial q^A}) = E,$$ where $W$ is called the [**characteristic function**]{}.
Equations (\[hj1\]) and (\[hj2\]) are indistinctly referred as the [**Hamilton-Jacobi equation**]{}.
The powerful of this method is that, in spite of the difficulties to solve a partial differential equation instead of an ordinary differential one, in many cases it works, being an extremely useful tool, usually more than Hamilton’s equations. Indeed, in these cases the method provides an immediate way to integrate the equations of motion. The modern interpretation relating the Hamilton-Jacobi procedure with the theory of lagrangian submanifolds is an important source of new results and insights [@AM; @arnold]. Let us remark that, recently, Cari[ñ]{}ena [*et al*]{} [@CGMMMR] have developed a new approach to the geometric Hamilton-Jacobi theory.
On the other hand, in the last fifteen years there has been a renewed interest in nonholonomic mechanics, that is, those mechanical systems given by a lagrangian $L=L(q^A, \dot{q}^A)$ subject to constraints $\Phi^i(q^A, \dot{q}^A) = 0$ involving the velocities (see [@B] and references therein). A relevant difference with the unconstrained mechanical systems is that a nonholonomic system is not hamiltonian in the sense that the phase space is just the constraint submanifold and not the cotangent bundle of the configuration manifold; moreover, its dynamics is given by an almost Poisson bracket, that is, a bracket not satisfying the Jacobi identity [@CaLeMa]. In [@MdLDMdD0] the authors proved that the nonholonomic dynamics can be obtained by projecting the unconstrained dynamics; this will be the point of view adopted in the present paper.
A natural question, related with a possible notion of integrability is in what extent one could construct a Hamilton-Jacobi theory for nonholonomic mechanics. Past attempts to obtain a Hamilton-Jacoby theory for nonholonomic systems were non-effective or very restrictive (see [@Eden; @Doo1; @Doo2; @Doo3; @Doo4] and also [@Pa]), because, in many of them, they try to adapt the typical proof of the Hamilton-Jacobi equations for systems without constraints (using Hamilton’s principle). Usually the results are valid when the solutions of the nonholonomic problem are also the solutions of the corresponding constrained variational problem (see [@Kozlov; @Rumyantsev; @Sumbatov] for a complete discussion).
In our paper, we present an alternative approach based on the geometrical properties of nonholonomic systems (see also [@Prince] for second-order differential equations). The method is applied to a particular class of nonholonomic systems, called Čaplygin systems: in such a system the configuration manifold is a fibration over another manifold, and the constraints are given by the horizontal subspaces of a connection on the fibration. In this case, the original nonholonomic system is equivalent to another one whose configuration manifold is the base of the fibration and, in addition, it is subject to an external force [@MdLDMdD1]. In any case, the equations we obtained are different that in previous works and may give new insight in this topic. In particular, this theory could give insights in the study of integrability for nonholonomic systems [@larry1] and even in the construction of new geometrical integrators for nonholonomic systems (see [@Hairer; @SaLeMa]).
Preliminaries
=============
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics
------------------------------------
Let $L=L(q^A, \dot{q}^A)$ be a lagrangian function, where $(q^A)$ are coordinates in a configuration $n$-manifold $Q$. Hamilton’s principle produces the Euler-Lagrange equations $$\label{eleqs}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\right) -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A} = 0, \; 1 \leq A \leq n.$$
A geometric version of Eq. (\[eleqs\]) (see [@MdLPR]) can be obtained as follows. Consider the (1,1)-tensor field $S$ and the Liouville vector field $\Delta$ locally defined on the tangent bundle $TQ$ of $Q$ by $$S = \frac{\partial }{\partial \dot{q}^A} \otimes d q^A, \; \quad
\Delta = \dot{q}^A \frac{\partial }{\partial \dot{q}^A}.$$ Since the lagrangian $L$ is a function defined on $TQ$ one can construct the Poincaré-Cartan 1- and 2-forms $$\alpha_L = S^*(dL), \; \quad \omega_L = - d \alpha_L,$$ where $S^*$ denotes the adjoint operator of $S$. The energy is given by $E_L = \Delta (L) - L.$ We say that $L$ is regular if the 2-form $\omega_L$ is symplectic. In this case, the equation $$\label{seleqs}
i_X \, \omega_L = dE_L$$ has a unique solution, $X=\xi_L$, called the Euler-Lagrange vector field; $\xi_L$ is a second order differential equation (SODE) which means that its integral curves are tangent lifts of their projections on $Q$ (these projections are called the solutions of $\xi_L$). A direct computation shows that the solutions of $\xi_L$ are just the ones of Eqs. (\[eleqs\]).
Finally, let us recall that the Legendre transformation $FL : TQ
\longrightarrow T^*Q$ is a fibred mapping (that is, $\pi_Q \circ
FL = \tau_Q$, where $\tau_Q : TQ \longrightarrow Q$ and $\pi_Q :
T^*Q \longrightarrow Q$ denote the canonical projections of the tangent and cotangent bundles of $Q$, respectively). The regularity of $L$ is equivalent to $FL$ being a local diffeomorphism. Along this paper, we will assume that $FL$ is in fact a global diffeomorphism (in other words, $L$ is hyperregular) which is the case when $L$ is a lagrangian of mechanical type, say $L=T-V$, where $T$ is the kinetic energy defined by a Riemannian metric on $Q$ and $V : Q \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is a potential energy.
The hamiltonian counterpart is developed in the cotangent bundle $T^*Q$ of $Q$. Denote by $\omega_Q = dq^A \wedge dp_A$ the canonical symplectic form, where $(q^A, p_A)$ are the canonical coordinates on $T^*Q$. The Hamiltonian energy is just $H = E_L
\circ FL^{-1}$ and the Hamiltonian vector field is the solution of the symplectic equation $$i_{X_H} \, \omega_Q = dH.$$ As we know, the integral curves $(q^A(t), p_A(t))$ of $X_H$ satisfy the Hamilton equations $$\label{hamiltoneqs}
\left.
\begin{array}{lcr}
\dot{q}^A & = &\displaystyle{ \frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_A}}\\[7pt]
\dot{p}_A &=&\displaystyle{ - \frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}}
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Finally, since $FL^* \omega_Q = \omega_L$ we deduce that $\xi_L$ and $X_H$ are $FL$-related and, consequently, $FL$ transforms the Euler-Lagrange equations (\[eleqs\]) into the Hamilton equations (\[hamiltoneqs\]).
Nonholonomic mechanical systems
-------------------------------
A nonholonomic mechanical system is given by a lagrangian function $L = L(q^A, \dot{q}^A)$ subject to a family of constraint functions $$\Phi^i (q^A, \dot{q}^A) = 0, \; 1 \leq i \leq m \leq n = \dim Q.$$ In the sequel, we will assume that the constraints $\Phi^i$ are linear in the velocities, i.e., $\Phi^i (q^A, \dot{q}^A) =
\Phi^i_A(q) \dot{q}^A$.
Invoking the D’Alembert principle, we derive the nonholonomic equations of motion $$\label{nheqs}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle{
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial
\dot{q}^A}\right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A}} & =
&\lambda_i \Phi^i_A(q)\; ,\qquad 1 \leq A \leq n\\
\Phi^i(q^A, \dot{q}^A) & = &0\; ,\qquad 1 \leq i \leq m
\end{array}
\right\}$$ where $\lambda_i = \lambda_i (q^A, \dot{q}^A)$, $1 \leq i \leq m$, are Lagrange multipliers to be determined.
In a geometrical setting, $L$ is a function on $TQ$ and the constraints are given by a vector subbundle $M$ of $TQ$ locally defined by $\Phi^i = 0$.
Equations (\[nheqs\]) can be intrinsically (see [@MdLDMdD1]) rewritten as follows $$\label{nheqs3}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
i_X \, \omega_L - dE_L & \in & S^*((TM)^0)\\
X & \in & TM.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
For the formulation of a Hamilton-Jacobi theory we are interested in the “Hamiltonian version" of the nonholonomic equations. Assuming that the Lagrangian $L$ is hyperregular, then the constraint functions on $T^*Q$ become $\Psi^i=\Phi^i\circ
FL^{-1}$, i.e. $$\Psi^i(q^A, p_A)=\Phi^i_A(q)\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}(q^A,
p_A)\,,$$ where the Hamiltonian $H: T^*Q\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by $H=E_L
\circ FL^{-1}$.
The equations of motion for the nonholonomic system on $T^*Q$ can now be written as follows $$\label{hnh}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dot q^A&=&\displaystyle{\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}}\\
\vphantom{\huge A}\dot p_A&=&\displaystyle{-\frac{\partial
H}{\partial q^A}-\bar{\lambda}_i \Phi^i_A(q)}
\end{array}\right\}$$ together with the constraint equations $\Psi^i(q,p)=0$.
Let $\bar{M}$ denote the image of the constraint submanifold $M$ under the Legendre transformation, and let $\bar{F}$ be the distribution on $T^*Q$ along $\bar{M}$, whose annihilator is given by $$\bar{F}^0 = FL_*( S^*((T{M})^0))\,.$$ Observe that $\bar{F}^0$ is locally generated by the $m$ independent 1-forms $$\bar{\mu}^i=\Phi^i_A(q)d q^A\; ,\ 1\leq i\leq m \,.$$ The nonholonomic Hamilton equations for the nonholonomic system can be then rewritten in intrinsic form as $$\label{a1}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
(i_X\omega_Q-dH)_{|\bar{M}}&\in& \bar{F}^{0}\\
X_{|\bar{M}} &\in& T\bar{M}
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Assume the compatibility condition: $\bar{F}^{\perp}\cap
T\bar{M}=\{0\}$, where $``\perp"$ denotes the symplectic orthogonal with respect to $\omega_Q$. Observe that, locally, this condition means that the matrix $$\label{a2}
(\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{ij})= \left(\Phi^i_A(q){\mathcal
H}^{AB}\Phi^j_B(q)\right)$$ is regular, where $({\mathcal H}^{AB})=(\partial^2 H/ \partial
p_A\partial p_B)$. The compatibility condition is not too restrictive, since it is trivially verified by the usual systems of mechanical type (i.e. with a Lagrangian of the form kinetic minus potential energy). The compatibility condition guarantees in particular the existence of a unique solution of the constrained equations of motion (\[a1\]) which, henceforth, will be denoted by $\bar{X}_{nh}$.
Moreover, if we denote by $X_H$ the Hamiltonian vector field of $H$, i.e. $i_{X_H}\omega_Q=dH$ then, using the constraint functions, we may explicitly determine the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_i$ as $$\label{qer}
\bar{\lambda}_i= \bar{\mathcal C}_{ij} X_H(\Psi^j)\; ,$$ where $(\bar{\mathcal C}_{ij})$ is the inverse matrix of $(\bar{\mathcal C}^{ij})$.
Čaplygin systems {#chaply}
----------------
A Čaplygin system is a nonholonomic mechanical system such that:
1. the configuration manifold $Q$ is a fibred manifold, say $\rho : Q
\longrightarrow N$, over a manifold $N$;
2. the constraints are provided by the horizontal distribution of an Ehresmann connection $\Gamma$ in $\rho$;
3. the lagrangian $L : TQ \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is $\Gamma$-invariant.
A particular case is when $\rho : Q \longrightarrow N=Q/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle and $\Gamma$ a principal connection.
Let us recall that the connection $\Gamma$ induces a Whitney decomposition $ TQ = {\mathcal H} \oplus V\rho $ where $\mathcal{H}$ is the horizontal distribution, and $V\rho = \ker
T\rho$ is the vertical distribution. Take fibred coordinates $(q^A) = (q^a, q^i)$ such that $\rho (q^a, q^i) = (q^a)$; therefore we can obtain an adapted local basis of vector fields $${\mathcal H} = \langle {\mathcal H}_a = \frac{\partial}{\partial
q^a} - \Gamma^i_a \frac{\partial}{\partial q^i} \rangle, \qquad
V\rho = \langle V_i = \frac{\partial}{\partial q^i} \rangle.$$ Here $\displaystyle{{\mathcal H}_a = (\frac{\partial}{\partial
q^a})^{\mathcal H} = h (\frac{\partial}{\partial q^a})}$, where $y^{\mathcal H}$ denotes the horizontal lift of a tangent vector $y$ on $N$ to $Q$, and $h: TQ \longrightarrow {\mathcal H}$ is the horizontal projector; $\Gamma^i_a = \Gamma^i_a (q^A)$ are the Christoffel components of the connection $\Gamma$.
The dual local basis of 1-forms is $$\{\eta_a = dq^a, \eta_i = dq^i + \Gamma^i_a dq^a\}$$
The curvature of $\Gamma$ is the (1,2)-tensor field $
R = \frac{1}{2} [h, h]
$ where $[\, , \, ]$ is the Nijenhuis tensor of $h$, that is $$R(X, Y) = [hX, hY] - h[hX, Y] - h[X, hY] + h^2[X, Y]$$ Therefore we have $$R(\frac{\partial}{\partial q^a}, \frac{\partial}{\partial q^b}) =
R^i_{ab} \frac{\partial}{\partial q^i}$$ where $$R^i_{ab} = \frac{\partial \Gamma^i_a}{\partial q^b} - \frac{\partial
\Gamma^i_b}{\partial q^a} + \Gamma^j_a \frac{\partial
\Gamma^i_b}{\partial q^j} - \Gamma^j_b \frac{\partial
\Gamma^i_a}{\partial q^j}$$ The constraints are locally given by $\Phi^i = \dot{q}^i +
\Gamma^i_a \dot{q}^a = 0.$ In other words, the solutions are horizontal curves with respect to $\Gamma$.
Since the lagrangian $L$ is $\Gamma$-invariant, that is, $
L((Y^{\mathcal H})_{q_1}) = L((Y^{\mathcal H})_{q_2}) $ for all $Y
\in T_yN$, $y = \rho(q_1) = \rho(q_2)$, we can define a function $L^* : TN \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows: $ L^* (Y_y) =
L((Y^{\mathcal H})_q)$, where $y=\rho(q)$. Therefore we have $$L^*(q^a, \dot{q}^a) = L(q^a, q^i, \dot{q}^a, -\Gamma^i_a \dot{q}^a)$$
Equations (\[nheqs3\]) read now as $$\label{nheqs4}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
i_X \, \omega_L - dE_L & \in & S^*((T{\mathcal H})^0)\\
X & \in & T{\mathcal H}
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Define a 1-form $\alpha^*$ on $TN$ by putting $$(\alpha^*)(u)(U) = - (\alpha_L)(x) (\tilde{u}),$$ where $U \in T_u (TN)$, $u \in T_yN$, $\tilde{U} \in T_x(TQ)$ such that $\tilde{U}$ projects onto $$R((u)^{\mathcal H}_q,
(T\tau_N(U)^{\mathcal H}_q)) \in T_qQ,$$ $\rho(q) = y$, $x \in
{\mathcal H}$, $\tau_Q(x) =q$. In local coordinates we obtain $$\alpha^* = \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^i} \dot{q}^b
R^i_{ab}\right) \, dq^a.$$
Consider the following equation $$\label{eqs*}
i_Y \, \omega_{L^*} - dE_{L^*} = \alpha^*.$$
A long but straightforward proof shows that $L^*$ is a regular lagrangian on $TN$, therefore (\[eqs\*\]) has a unique solution $Y^*$. Notice that the pair $(L^*, \alpha^*)$ can be considered as an unconstrained system subject to an external force $\alpha^*$. The corresponding equations of motion are $$\label{eleqs*}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L^*}{\partial \dot{q}^a}\right) -
\frac{\partial L^*}{\partial q^a} = - \frac{\partial L}{\partial
\dot{q}^i} \dot{q}^b R^i_{ab}.$$
Both systems, the nonholonomic one on $Q$ given by $L$ and the constraints given by $\Gamma$, and that given by $L^*$ and $\alpha^*$, are equivalent. The equivalence is explained in the following.
$\Gamma$ induces a connection $\bar{\Gamma}$ in the fibred manifold $T\rho : TQ \longrightarrow TN$ along ${\mathcal H}$ by defining its horizontal distribution as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
(\frac{\partial}{\partial q^a})^{\bar{{\mathcal H}}} & = &
\frac{\partial}{\partial q^a} - \Gamma^i_a
\frac{\partial}{\partial q^i} - \left(\dot{q}^b \frac{\partial
\Gamma^i_b}{\partial q^a} - \Gamma^j_a \frac{\partial
\Gamma^i_b}{\partial q^j}\right)
\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}^i}\\
(\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}^a})^{\bar{{\mathcal H}}} & = &
\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}^a} - \Gamma^i_a
\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}^i}\end{aligned}$$
The nonholonomic dynamics $X_{nh}$ is a vector field on ${\mathcal
H}$ which is $T\rho$-projectable onto $Y^*$. Furthermore, $X_{nh}$ is the horizontal lift of $Y^*$ with respect to the induced connection $\bar{\Gamma}$.
(Mobile robot with fixed orientation)
The body of the robot maintains a fixed orientation with respect to the environment. The robot has three wheels with radius $R$, which turn simultaneously about independent axes, and perform a rolling without sliding over a horizontal floor.
Let $(x, y)$ denotes the position of the centre of mass, $\theta$ the steering angle of the wheel, $\psi$ the rotation angle of the wheels in their rolling motion over the floor. So, the configuration manifold is $Q = S^1 \times S^1 \times {\mathbb{R}}^2. $ The lagrangian $L$ is $$L = \frac{1}{2} m \dot{x}^2 + \frac{1}{2} m \dot{y}^2 + \frac{1}{2}
J \dot{\theta}^2 + \frac{3}{2} J_\omega \dot{\psi}^2$$ where $m$ is the mass, $J$ is the moment of inertia and $J_\omega$ is the axial moment of inertia of the robot.
The constraints are induced by the conditions that the wheels roll without sliding, in the direction in which they point, and that the instantaneous contact point of the wheels with the floor have no velocity component orthogonal to that direction: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} \sin \theta - \dot{y} \cos \theta & = & 0, \\
\dot{x} \cos \theta + \dot{y} \sin \theta - R \dot{\psi} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$
The abelian group $G = {\mathbb{R}}^2$ acts on $Q$ by translations, say $$((a, b), (\theta, \psi, x, y)) \mapsto (\theta, \psi, a+x, b+y)$$ Therefore we have a principal $G$-bundle $\rho: Q \longrightarrow N
= Q/G$ with a principal connection given by the connection 1-form $$\beta = (dx - R \cos \theta d\psi) e_1 + (dy - R \sin \theta d\psi)
e_2$$ where $\{e_1, e_2\}$ denotes the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The constraints are given by the horizontal subspaces of $\beta$. If we apply the above reduction procedure we deduce $\alpha^* = 0$.
Geometric Hamilton-Jacobi theory
================================
The following result is a geometric version of the standard formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem [@AM].
\[AM\] Let $\gamma$ be a closed 1-form on $Q$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\pi_Q(X_H(\gamma(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $\gamma \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_H$.
2. $d(H \circ \gamma) = 0$.
If $\gamma = dW$ we recover the standard formulation since $d(H
\circ dW) = 0$ is equivalent to the condition $H \circ dW = cte$, that is $$H(q^A, \frac{\partial W}{\partial q^A}) = E$$ where $E$ is a constant.
A interesting new point of view of the geometric Hamilton-Jacobi theory has been recently developed by J.F. Cariñena [*et al.*]{} [@CGMMMR].
Let $\gamma$ be a closed 1-form as in Theorem \[AM\]. Since $FL$ is a diffeomorphism, we can define a vector field $X$ on $Q$ by $$X = FL^{-1} \circ \gamma$$ Therefore, we have $$0 = d(H \circ \gamma) = d(E_L \circ FL^{-1} \circ \gamma) = d(E_L
\circ X)$$ because $H = E_L \circ FL^{-1}$.
Hence, Theorem \[AM\] can be reformulated as follows.
\[AMvf\][@CGMMMR] Let $X$ be a vector field on $Q$ such that $FL \circ X$ is a closed 1-form. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\tau_Q(\xi_L(X(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $X \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $\xi_L$.
2. $d(E_L \circ X) = 0$.
A vector field $X$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[AMvf\] will be called a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$.
An interlude: mechanical systems with external forces
-----------------------------------------------------
We shall need the following formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi theory for mechanical systems with external forces.
A mechanical system with an external force is given by (see [@Godb]):
1. A lagrangian function $L : TQ \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, where $Q$ is the configuration manifold;
2. a semibasic 1-form $\alpha$ on $TQ$.
Since $\alpha$ is semibasic (that means that $\alpha$ vanishes when it is applied to vertical tangent vectors) we have $$\alpha = \alpha_A(q, \dot{q}) \, dq^A$$
The Euler-Lagrange equations are then $$\label{exteleqs}
\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}) - \frac{\partial
L}{\partial q^A} = - \alpha_A, \; 1 \leq A \leq n,$$ which correspond to the symplectic equation $$\label{sexteleqs}
i_X \, \omega_L = dE_L + \alpha$$ Indeed, when $L$ is regular, Eq. (\[sexteleqs\]) has a unique solution $\xi_{L,\alpha}$ which is a second order differential equation whose solutions are just the ones of (\[exteleqs\]).
Notice that $\xi_{L,\alpha} = \xi_L + Z$, where $i_Z\omega_L=
\alpha$.
Observe that we can construct the hamiltonian counterpart using the Legendre transformation, so that we have a hamiltonian $H = E_L
\circ FL^{-1}$ subject to the external force $\beta = (FL^{-1})^*
\alpha$ which is again semibasic (i.e. $\beta = \beta_A \, dq^A$). The equation $$i_{X_{H,\beta}} \, \omega_Q = dH + \beta$$ has a unique solution $X_{H,\beta}$ whose integral curves satisfy the Hamilton equations with external force $$\label{hnhexternal}
\left.
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dot q^A&=&\displaystyle{\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}}\\
\vphantom{\huge A}\dot p_A&=&\displaystyle{-\frac{\partial
H}{\partial q^A}-\beta_A}
\end{array}\right\}$$
\[extAMvfe\] Let $\gamma$ be a closed 1-form on $Q$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\label{auxiliar}
\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\pi_Q(X_{H,\beta}(\gamma(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $\gamma \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_{H,\beta}$.
- $d(H \circ \gamma) = - \gamma^*\beta$.
Since $\gamma=\gamma_A\, dq^A$ is closed then $$\frac{\partial \gamma_A}{\partial q^B}=\frac{\partial
\gamma_B}{\partial q^A}$$ It is easy to show that Equation (\[auxiliar\]) is rewritten, in local coordinates, as $$\label{unodos0}
\dot{\sigma}^A(t)=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}(\sigma^B(t),
\gamma_B(\sigma(t)))$$
We also have that condition $$d(H \circ \gamma) = - \gamma^*\beta$$ is written in local coordinates as $$\label{unotres0}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A}= - \beta_A$$
($\Longrightarrow$) Assume that (i) holds. Therefore
$$\label{aqqq0}
\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_A(\sigma(t)))=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A}(\gamma(\sigma(t))) - \beta_A(\gamma(\sigma(t)))$$
Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_B}
\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A}&=&\frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A} +\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_B}\frac{\partial
\gamma_A}{\partial q^B}
\hbox{ (since } \gamma \hbox{ is closed)}\\
&=& \frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\dot{\sigma}^B(t)
\frac{\partial \gamma_A}{\partial q^B} \quad \hbox{(from
(\ref{unodos0}))} \\
&=&-\beta_A} \quad \hbox{(from (\ref{aqqq0}))\end{aligned}$$
($\Longleftarrow$) Assume that (ii) holds, that is, $$\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A} = - \beta_A$$ Now using (\[unodos0\]) and since $\gamma$ is closed, then $$\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\dot{\sigma}^B(t)\frac{\partial
\gamma_A}{\partial q^B}= - \beta_A$$ Therefore $$\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_A(\sigma(t))) = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A}(\gamma(\sigma(t))) - \beta_A(\gamma(\sigma(t)))$$ which proves that $\gamma \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_{H,\beta}$.
Therefore we have the lagrangian version.
\[extAMvfe1\] Let $X$ be a vector field on $Q$ such that $FL \circ X$ is a closed 1-form. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\tau_Q(\xi_{L,\alpha}(X(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $X \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $\xi_{L,\alpha}$.
- $d(E_L \circ X) = - X^*\alpha$.
A vector field $X$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[extAMvfe1\] will be called a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$ and $\alpha$.
Hamilton-Jacobi theory for nonholonomic mechanical systems
==========================================================
Let $L:TQ \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a lagrangian function subject to nonholonomic constraints given by a vector subbundle $M$ of $TQ$, locally defined by the linear constraints $\Phi^i=\Phi^i_A(q)\dot{q}^A$, $1\leq i\leq m$. Denote by $D$ the distribution on $Q$ whose annihilator is $D^0=\hbox{span} \{
\mu^i=\Phi^i_A(q)dq^A\}$. Notice that $S^*(TM^0)$ is the pullback to $TQ$ of the annihilator $D^0$ of $D$.
We assume the admissibility and compatibility conditions, and consider the hamiltonian counterpart given by a Hamiltonian function $H¨: T^*Q \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ and a constraint submanifold $\bar{M}=FL(M)$ as in the precedent sections. $X_{nh}$ and $\bar{X}_{nh}$ will denote the corresponding nonholonomic dynamics. Given $D^0$, the annihilator of $D$, we can form the algebraic ideal ${\mathcal I} (D^0)$ in the algebra $\Lambda^*(Q)$. Therefore, if a $k$-form $\nu\in {\mathcal I}
(D^0)$ then $$\nu=\beta_i\wedge \mu^i, \qquad \hbox{where}\qquad \beta_i\in
\Lambda^{k-1}(Q), \quad 1\leq i\leq m.$$
\[nhhj1\] Let $\gamma$ be a 1-form on $Q$ such that $\gamma(Q) \subset
\bar{M}$ and $d\gamma\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\label{uno}
\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\pi_Q(X_H(\gamma(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $\gamma \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $\bar{X}_{nh}$.
- $d(H \circ \gamma) \in D^0$.
The condition $d\gamma\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$ means that $$\frac{\partial \gamma_A}{\partial q^B}=\frac{\partial
\gamma_B}{\partial q^A}+\beta_{iA}\Phi^i_B-\beta_{iB}\Phi^i_A$$ where $\gamma=\gamma_A dq^A$ and $\beta _i=\beta_{iA}dq^A$. It is easy to show that Equation (\[uno\]) is rewritten, in local coordinates, as $$\label{unodos}
\dot{\sigma}^A(t)=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}(\sigma^B(t),
\gamma_B(\sigma(t)))$$
We also have that condition $$d(H\circ \gamma)\in D^0$$ is written in local coordinates as $$\label{unotres}
\left[\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A}\right]\,
dq^A=\tilde{\lambda}_i {\mu}^i=\tilde{\lambda}_i \Phi^i_A(q)\,
dq^A$$ for some Lagrange multipliers $\tilde{\lambda}_i$’s.
($\Longrightarrow$) Assume that (i) holds. Therefore
$$\label{aqqq}
\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_A(\sigma(t)))=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A}(\gamma(\sigma(t))) - \bar{\lambda}_i \Phi^i_A(\sigma(t))\, ,$$
where the $\bar{\lambda}_i$’s are determined using the constraint equations $$\Psi^i(\sigma(t),\gamma(\sigma(t)))=\frac{\partial
H}{\partial
p_B}(\sigma(t),\gamma(\sigma(t)))\Phi^i_B(\sigma(t))=0.$$ Using the constraint equations we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_B}
\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A}&=&\frac{\partial
H}{\partial q^A} +\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_B}\frac{\partial
\gamma_A}{\partial q^B}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\beta_{iA}\Phi^i_B-\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\beta_{iB}\Phi^i_A
\\
&=& \frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\dot{\sigma}^B(t)
\frac{\partial \gamma_A}{\partial q^B}-\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\beta_{iB}\Phi^i_A \\
&=&-\left(\bar{\lambda}_i +\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\beta_{iB}\right) \Phi^i_A \ \hbox{(from (\ref{unotres}))}\\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we conclude that $d(H\circ \gamma)\in D^0$.
$(\Longleftarrow)$ Assume that (ii) holds, that is, $$\left[\frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\frac{\partial \gamma_B}{\partial q^A}\right]\,
dq^A=\tilde{\lambda}_i {\mu}^i$$ Now using (\[uno\]) and since $d\gamma\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$, then $$\frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A}+\dot{\sigma}^B(t)\left(\frac{\partial \gamma_A}{\partial
q^B}-\beta_{iA}\Phi^i_B+\beta_{iB}\Phi^i_A\right)=
\tilde{\lambda}_i \Phi^i_A$$ Therefore $$\label{aqw}
\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_A(\sigma(t))) = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial
q^A}(\gamma(\sigma(t))) +\left(
\tilde{\lambda}_i-\dot{\sigma}^B(t)\beta_{iB}(\sigma(t))\right)
{\Phi^i_A}(\sigma(t))$$
Using that $\hbox{Im}(\gamma)\in \bar{M}$, we deduce that $\bar{\lambda}_i=\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_B}\beta_{iB}-\tilde{\lambda}_i$ along $\gamma$.
[Suppose that $\gamma=dS$ where $S$ is a function $S:
Q\longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. In this case, the condition $d\gamma\in
{\mathcal I} (D^0)$ is trivially satisfied. Moreover, we note that in previous approximations to Hamilton-Jacobi theory [@Eden; @Doo1; @Pa; @Rumyantsev; @Sumbatov] the considered sections are of the form $$\label{zse} \gamma(q)=(q, \frac {\partial S}{\partial
q^A}-\tilde{\lambda}_i\mu^i_A),$$ and the coefficients $\tilde{\lambda}_i$ are determined through the nonholonomic constraint equations $$\mu^i_A(q)\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}(q, \gamma_A(q))=0\; .$$ In general, this type of 1-forms does not satisfy the condition that we initially impose, $d\gamma\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$. Observe that in the particular case of holonomic constraints both approaches coincide.]{}
Now, we write a coordinate expression for the Hamilton-Jacobi equation that we have proposed. In order to do it, consider a set of independent vector fields $\{Z_a=Z_a^A\frac{\partial}{\partial
{q}^A}\}$, $1\leq a\leq n-m$, on $Q$ such that $\mu^i(Z_a)=0$, i.e, $D_q=\hbox{span }\{(Z_a)|_q\}$. Thus a 1-form $\gamma$ on $Q$, solution of the nonholonomic Hamilton-Jacobi equation, must verify the condition $d\gamma\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$ and, additionally, $$\begin{aligned}
Z_a^A(q)\left( \frac{\partial H}{\partial q^A}(q,
\gamma(q))+\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_B}(q,
\gamma(q))\frac{\partial
\gamma_B}{\partial q^A}(q)\right)&=&0, \\
\mu^i_A(q)\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_A}(q, \gamma(q))&=&0,\end{aligned}$$ for the condition $d(H\circ \gamma)\in D^0$ and for the condition $\gamma(Q) \subset \bar{M}$, correspondingly.
\[nhhj2\] Let $X$ be vector field on $Q$ such that $X(Q) \subset M$ and $d(FL \circ X)\in {\mathcal I} (D^0)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- for every curve $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow Q$ such that $$\label{unoo}
\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\tau_Q(X_{nh}(X(\sigma(t))))$$ for all $t$, then $X \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_{nh}$.
- $d(E_L \circ X) \in D^0$.
A vector field $X$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[nhhj1\] will be called a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$ and $M$.
An application to Čaplygin systems
----------------------------------
Consider now the case of a Čaplygin system (see Section \[chaply\]). That is, we have a fibration $\rho : Q
\longrightarrow N$, and an Ehresmann connection $\Gamma$ in $\rho$, whose horizontal distribution imposes the constraints to a lagrangian $L : TQ \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $L^* : TN \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be the reduced lagrangian and $\alpha^*$ the corresponding external force. We denote by $X_{nh}$ the nonholonomic vector field on $TQ$ and by $X^*$ the solution of the reduced lagrangian system with external force $\alpha^*$.
- Assume that a vector field $X$ on $Q$ is a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$ and $\Gamma$. If $X$ is $\rho$-projectable to a vector field $Y$ on $N$ and $d(FL^*\circ
Y)=0$ then $Y$ is a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L^*$ and $\alpha^*$.
- Conversely, let $Y$ be a vector field which is a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L^*$ and $\alpha^*$. Then, if $d(FL \circ Y^{{{\mathcal H}}})\in {\mathcal
I} ({\mathcal H}^0)$, the horizontal lift $Y^{{{\mathcal H}}}$ is a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$ and $\rho$.
$(\Longrightarrow)$
Assume that a vector field $X$ on $Q$ is a solution for the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L$ and $\Gamma$, and that $X$ is $\rho$-projectable onto a vector field $Y$ on $N$. We have to prove that $Y$ is then a solution of the Hamilton problem given $L^*$ and $\alpha^*$. Let $\mu$ a curve in $N$ such that $$\label{unoo2}
\dot{\mu}(t) = T\tau_N(Y^*(Y(\mu(t))))$$ for all $t$. Take an horizontal lift $\sigma$ of $\mu$ to $Q$ with respect to the connection $\Gamma$. A direct computation shows that $$\label{unoo3}
\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\tau_Q(X_{nh}(X(\sigma(t))))$$ since $X_{nh}$ is the horizontal lift of $Y^*$ with respect to the prolongated connection $\bar{\Gamma}$. Therefore we have that $X
\circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_{nh}$ and, consequently, $Y \circ \mu$ is an integral curve of $Y^*$.
$(\Longleftarrow)$
Assume that $Y$ is vector field on $N$ which is a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $L^*$ and $\alpha^*$. Take its horizontal lift $X=Y^{\mathcal H}$ to $Q$. with respect to $\Gamma$. If $\sigma$ is a curve in $Q$ satisfying $$\label{unoo4}
\dot{\sigma}(t) = T\tau_Q(X_{nh}(X(\sigma(t))))$$ then the projection $\mu = \rho \circ \sigma$ satisfies (\[unoo2\]). So, $Y \circ \mu$ is an integral curve of $Y^*$ and, hence $X \circ \sigma$ is an integral curve of $X_{nh}$.
(The mobile robot with fixed orientation revisited)
The reduced lagrangian in this case is $$L^*(\theta,
\psi)=\frac{1}{2}J\dot{\theta}^2+\frac{mR^2+3J_{\omega}}{2}\dot{\psi}^2\;
,$$ and $\alpha^*=0$
Therefore, $$Y_1=\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \qquad
\hbox{and}\qquad Y_2=\frac{\partial}{\partial \psi}$$ are solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem given by $(L^*,
\alpha^*)$. Calculating the horizontal lifts off both vector fields we have that: $$Y_1^{{{\mathcal H}}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\qquad
\hbox{and}\qquad Y_2^{{{\mathcal H}}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial
\psi}+R\cos\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+R\sin
\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\; .$$ Now $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1&=&FL\circ Y_1^{{{\mathcal H}}}=J\,d\theta\\
\gamma_2&=&FL\circ Y_2^{{{\mathcal
H}}}=3J_{\omega}\,d\psi+mR\cos\theta\, dx+mR\sin \theta\, dy\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
d\gamma_1&=&0\in {\mathcal I}
({\mathcal H}^0)\\
d\gamma_2&=&-mRd\theta\wedge (\sin\theta\,dx-\cos\theta\, dy)\in
{\mathcal I} ({\mathcal H}^0)\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $Y_1^{{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $Y_2^{{{\mathcal H}}}$ are solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem of the nonholonomic problem given by $(L, {\mathcal H})$. Observe that in both cases $d(H\circ\gamma_i)=0$, for $i=1,2$. In such a case, $$\begin{aligned}
t&\longmapsto& (x_0, y_0, t+\theta_0, \psi_0)\\
t&\longmapsto& (tR\cos\theta_0+x_0, tR\sin\theta_0+y_0, \theta_0,
t+\psi_0)\end{aligned}$$ are the solutions of the nonholonomic system $(L, {\mathcal H})$ obtained from $Y_1^{{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $Y_2^{{{\mathcal H}}}$, respectively. Both solutions are also solutions of the lagrangian system determined by $L$ without constraints; indeed, they are solutions of the free system satisfying additionally the nonholonomic constraints.
But taking now the vector field $$Y_3=Y_1+Y_2=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial}{\partial \psi}$$ it is obviously a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equations for the lagrangian $L^*$ and its horizontal lift $$Y_3^{{{\mathcal H}}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial
\theta}+\frac{\partial}{\partial
\psi}+R\cos\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+R\sin
\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\;$$ is a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equations for the nonholonomic system $(L, H)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_3&=&FL\circ Y_3^{{{\mathcal
H}}}=J\,d\theta+3J_{\omega}\,d\psi+mR\cos\theta\, dx+mR\sin
\theta\, dy\end{aligned}$$ and $ d\gamma_3\in {\mathcal I} ({\mathcal H}^0)$. In such a case, the solution of the nonholonomic problem that we obtain is $$\begin{aligned}
t&\longmapsto& (R\sin (t-\theta_0)+x_0+R\sin\theta_0, -R\cos(t-\theta_0)
+y_0+R\cos\theta_0, t+\theta_0, t+\psi_0) \end{aligned}$$ which is a solution of the nonholonomic problem but not of the free system.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank the referees for the careful reading of the paper and the interesting remarks, which have highly improved the content of the paper.
[99]{}
R. Abraham, J.E. Marsden: [*Foundations of Mechanics*]{} (2nd edition). Benjamin-Cumming, Reading, 1978.
V.I. Arnold: [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 60, Springer-Verlag, 1978, Berlin.
A. M. Bloch: [*Nonholonomic mechanics and control*]{}. Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, 24. Systems and Control. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
L. Bates, R. Cushman: What is a completely integrable nonholonomic dynamical system? [*Proceedings of the XXX Symposium on Mathematical Physics (Toruń, 1998). Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**44**]{} (1999), no. 1-2, 29–35.
F. Cantrijn, M. de León, D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego: On almost-Poisson structures in nonholonomic mechanics, [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**12**]{} (1999) 721–737.
J.F. Cariñena, X. Gracia, G. Marmo, E. Mart[í]{}nez, M. Mu[ñ]{}oz-Lecanda, N. Román-Roy: Geometric Hamilton-Jacobi theory. [*Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (7) (2006), 1417–1458.
R.J. Eden: The Hamiltonian dynamics of non-holonomic systems, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London.*]{} Ser. A. [**205**]{}, (1951), 564–583.
Ch. Godbillon: [*Géométrie Différentielle et Mécanique Analytique*]{}. Hermann, Paris, 1969.
E. Hairer, C. Lubich, G. Wanner: [*Geometric Numerical Integration, Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations*]{}, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, [**31**]{} (2002), Springer-Verlag Berlin.
V.V. Kozlov: On the integration theory of equations of nonholonomic mechanics, [*Regular and Chaotic Dynamics*]{}, [**7**]{} (2) (2002), 161–176.
M. de León, D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego: Solving non-holonomic Lagrangian dynamics in terms of almost product structures. [*Extracta Mathematicae*]{}, [**11**]{} 2 (1996), 325–347.
M. de León, D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego: On the geometry of non-holonomic Lagrangian systems. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{} (7) (1996), 3389–3414.
M. de León, D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego, A. Santamar[í]{}a-Merino: Geometric integrators and nonholonomic mechanics, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**45**]{} (3) (2004), 1042–1064.
M. de León, P.R. Rodrigues: [*Methods of Differential Geometry in Analytical Mechanics*]{}. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.
M. Pavon: [Hamilton-Jacobi equations for nonholonomic dynamics]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{}, 032902.
G.E. Prince, J.E. Aldridge, G.B. Byrnes: [A universal Hamilton-Jacobi equation for secon-order ODEs]{}, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**32**]{} (1999), 827–844.
V.V. Rumyantsev: [Forms of Hamilton’s Principle for Nonholonomic Systems]{}, [*Mechanics, Automatic Control and Robotics*]{} [**2**]{} (10) (2002), 1035–1048.
A.S. Sumbatov: Nonholonomic Systems, [*Regular and Chaotic Dynamics*]{}, [**7**]{} (2) (2002), 221–238.
R. Van Dooren: [*The generalized Hamilton-Jacobi method for non-holonomic dynamical systems of Chetaev’s type*]{}, Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Mathematik Und Mechanik [**55**]{}, (1975) 407–411.
R. Van Dooren: [*Motion of a rolling disc by a new generalized Hamilton-Jacobi method*]{}, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics [**27**]{} (1976) 501–505.
R. Van Dooren: [*Second form of the generalized Hamilton-Jacobi method for nonholonomic dynamical systems*]{}, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics [**29**]{} (1978) 828–834.
R. Van Dooren: [*On the generalized Hamilton-Jacobi method for nonholonomic dynamical systems*]{}, Dienst Analytische Mechanica, Tw, Vub (1979) 1–6.
[^1]: This work has been partially supported by MEC (Spain) Grants MTM 2004-7832, S-0505/ESP/0158 of the CAM and “Ingenio Mathematica” (i-MATH) No. CSD 2006-00032 (Consolider-Ingenio 2010). D. Iglesias acknowledges Ministry of Education and Science for a “Juan de la Cierva" research contract.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Universität Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland'
author:
- |
J. Schacher\
on behalf of the DIRAC Collaboration
title: Experimental status of pionium at CERN
---
The experiment DIRAC [@di] aims to measure the lifetime of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ atom (pionium) in the ground state with $10\%$ precision. DIRAC is a magnetic double arm spectrometer and uses the high intensity 24 GeV/c proton beam of the CERN PS. Since this lifetime $\tau$ of order $10^{-15}$ s is dictated by [*strong*]{} interaction at low energy, a precise measurement of $\tau$ enables to determine [*strong*]{} S-wave pion scattering lengths to $5\%$ [@ru]. In Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) pion scattering lengths are studied since many years, resulting in better and better predictions, now at an accuracy around $2\%$ [@co]. Such a measurement would submit the predictions of ChPT and hence the understanding of chiral symmetry breaking of QCD to a crucial test.
The experimental method to measure the pionium lifetime ($\sim 3$ fs) takes advantage of the Lorentz boost of relativistic pionia produced in high energy proton nucleus reactions at 24 GeV/c. After production in the target (e.g. 0.1 mm thin Ni foil) these relativistic ($\gamma\simeq 15$) atoms may either decay into 2 $\pi^0$ or get excited or ionized in the target material. In the case of ionization or breakup, characteristic charged pion pairs, called “atomic pairs”, will emerge, exhibiting low relative momentum in their pair system ($Q < 3$ MeV/c), small pair opening angle ($\theta_{+-}< 3$ mrad) and nearly identical energies in the lab system ($E_+\simeq E_-$ at the 0.3% level). The task of the spectrometer is to identify charged pion pairs and to measure their relative momenta $Q$ with high resolution of $\delta Q \simeq 1$ MeV/c. By these means, it is possible to determine the number of “atomic pairs” above background, arising from pion pairs in a free state (“free pairs”). For a given target material and thickness, the ratio of the number of observed “atomic pairs” to the total amount of produced pionia depends on $\tau$ in a unique way.
The experiment consists of coordinate detectors, a spectrometer magnet (bending power of 2.3 Tm) and two telescope arms, each equipped with drift chambers, scintillation hodoscopes, gas Cherenkov counters, preshower and muon detectors.
After tuning the primary proton beam as well as all detectors, the experiment started to accumulate data in 1999. The setup performance has been studied by analysing data collected with a platinum target. In order to track the relative momentum resolution, the invariant mass spectrum of p and $\pi^-$ — $\Lambda$ decay products — was investigated. The position of the mass peak in Fig. 1 corresponds to $\Lambda$ particles reconstructed in the DIRAC spectrometer. The width of the $\Lambda$ peak, mainly given by the momentum resolution, is found to be $0.43$ MeV.
A preliminary search for “atomic pairs” in the 1999 platinum data sample is presented in Fig. 2. As mentioned above, “atomic pairs” are characterized by low relative momentum $Q < 3$ MeV/c or equivalently $F < 3$ [^1]. The distribution of “reals” $N_{\rm real}(F)$ is the sum of two distributions: “atomic pairs” (for $F < 4$) and “free pairs”. In the region $F > 4$ the “free pair” distribution $N(F)$ has been approximated by a fit function $A(F)$, based on “accidental pairs”. In Fig. 2 the difference between the experimental distribution $N_{\rm real}(F)$ and $A(F)$ is shown. The excess of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs with $F < 2$ amounts to $160 \pm 45$, which is compatible with the expected number of “atomic pairs” $\approx 240$.
[99]{}
B. Adeva [*et al.*]{}, Proposal to the SPSLC, CERN/SPSLC 95-1 (1995).
A. Rusetsky, these Proceedings (see also ).
G. Colangelo, these Proceedings (see also hep-ph/0007112).
[^1]: Definition: $F = \sqrt{(Q_L/{\sigma_{Q_L}})^2 +
(Q_X/{\sigma_{Q_X}})^2 +
(Q_Y/{\sigma_{Q_Y}})^2}$ with resolutions $\sigma_{Q}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have conducted a near-infrared monitoring campaign at the UK InfraRed Telescope (UKIRT), of the Local Group spiral galaxy M 33 (Triangulum). A new method has been developed by us to use pulsating giant stars to reconstruct the star formation history of galaxies over cosmological time as well as using them to map the dust production across their host galaxies. In first Instance the central square kiloparsec of M33 was monitored and long period variable stars (LPVs) were identified. We give evidence of two epochs of a star formation rate enhanced by a factor of a few. These stars are also important dust factories, we measure their dust production rates from a combination of our data with [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope mid-IR photometry. Then the monitoring survey was expanded to cover a much larger part of M33 including spiral arms. Here we present our methodology and describe results for the central square kiloparsec of M33 (Javadi et al. 2011 a,b,c, 2013) and disc of M33 (Javadi et al. 2015, 2016, 2017, and in preparation).'
address:
- '$^{1}$School of Astronomy, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, 19395-5531, Iran'
- '$^{2}$Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, ST5 5BG, UK'
author:
- 'Atefeh Javadi$^{1}$ and Jacco Th. van Loon$^{2}$'
title: 'Monitoring pulsating giant stars in M33: star formation history and chemical enrichment'
---
Introduction
============
Luminous, cool evolved stars are powerful tracers of the underlying stellar populations, as they stand out above all other stars especially at infrared wavelengths and are thus the first stars that can be resolved in increasingly distant galaxies. Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars in particular represent stellar populations ranging in age from tens of millions of years (i.e. “the present”) to more than ten billion years (formed at redshift $\sim2$). The cool molecular atmospheres of AGB stars lead to broad absorption troughs in their optical spectra; while normally these are oxygen-bearing molecules such as TiO and VO, stars in certain mass ranges dredge up carbon – that had been synthesized in their interiors – and replace the absorption bands by entirely different ones due to C$_2$ and CN. This changes their colours, generally rendering carbon stars redder than their oxygen (M-type) counterparts. In principle, this makes them easy to distinguish photometrically.
Triangulum offers a superb opportunity to study the structure and formation history of a spiral galaxy, and to study various aspects of stellar evolution. The galaxy is sufficiently massive to contain large populations of stars to be used as tracers of star formation, and to sample brief phases of stellar evolution such as those associated with strong mass loss on the AGB. Its disc is seen under a more favourable viewing angle than the larger Andromeda galaxy (M31), and also its more modest size ($\sim1^\circ$) makes it easier to study it in its entirety. The methodology comprises three stages: \[1\] find stars that vary in brightness with large amplitude (typically a magnitude) and long period (months to years), and identify them on the basis of their colours and luminosity as cool giant stars at the endpoints of their evolution; \[2\] use the fact that these stars no longer evolve in brightness, to uniquely relate their brightness to their birth mass, and use the birth mass distribution to reconstruct the star formation history (SFH); \[3\] measure the excess infrared emission from dust produced by these stars, to quantify the amount of matter they return to the interstellar medium in M33.
Observations
============
The project exploits a large observational campaign between 2003-2007, an investment of over 100 hr on the UK InfraRed Telescope (UKIRT). In first instance, only the central square kiloparsec (“bulge”) were monitored and analysed, with the UIST camera. The variable star catalogue and SFH were presented in Javadi et al. (2011a,b); we found a main formation epoch of redshift 1 but with fluctuations up to the present day. As the new wide-field camera (WFCAM) became available the campaign was expanded to cover two orders of magnitude larger area, comprising the disc of M33 and its spiral arms. The photometric catalogue of WFCAM data was presented in Javadi et al. (2015a,b). The catalogue comprises of 403734 stars, among which 4643 stars were identified as LPVs– AGB stars, super–AGB stars and RSGs (Saberi et al. 2015).
Star formation history
======================
{width="29pc"}
Resolved stellar populations within galaxies allow us to derive star formation histories on the basis of colour magnitude diagram modelling, rather than from integrated light. The LPVs are at the end-points of their evolution, and their luminosities directly reflect their birth mass (via the core mass). Stellar evolution models provide this relation. The distribution of LPVs over luminosity can thus be translated into the star formation history, assuming a standard initial mass function. LPVs were formed as recently as $<$ 10 Myr ago and as long ago as $>$ 10 Gyr, so they probe almost all of cosmic star formation. We have successfully used this new technique in M33 (Javadi et al. 2011b, 2017), the Magellanic Clouds (Rezaeikh et al. 2014) and NGC 147 and NGC 185 (Golshan et al., 2015, 2017), using Padova models which also provide the lifetimes of the LPV phase.
Fig. 1 presents the SFH for the center and disc of M33. In the central regions two main epochs of star formation are seen; one that occurred $\sim$ 4–5 Gyr ago, peaking around 4 Gyr ago at a level$\sim$ 2.5 times as high as during the subsequent couple of Gyr and the one that occurred $\sim$ 300 Myr–20 Myr ago with a rate $\sim$ 1.5 times higher than the aforementioned peak. Two main epochs of star formation are also seen in the disc of M33; one that occurred $\sim$ 6 Gyr ago and lasted $\sim$ 3 Gyr and the one that occurred $\sim$ 250 Myr ago and lasted $\sim$ 200 Myr. More that 71 $\%$ of stars mass in M33 were created during the first epoch of star formation and less than 13 $\%$ were created during the recent epoch of star formation.
Dust production rate of evolved stars
=====================================
![Mass-loss vs. luminosity for all stars including non-variable stars. The blue and green triangles show the massive luminous M-type stars and low-mass stars (at lower luminosities), respectively. The red squares show the AGB carbon stars. Large yellow symbols identify the stars modelled with [dusty]{}; other UKIRT variables are identified by black squares. The vertical dash–dotted lines show the tip luminosity of the RGB and classical limit of the most massive AGB stars (Hot Bottom Burning effects are excluded). The dotted lines show the mass-consumption rates by shell hydrogen burning (CNO cycle) on the AGB and core helium burning (triple-$\alpha$ reaction) in red supergiants. The dashed lines show the limits to the mass-loss rate in dust-driven winds due to single scattering (classic) and multiple scattering (maximum?).](fig2.ps){width="29pc"}
A majority of LPVs have been detected at mid-IR wavelengths with [*spitzer*]{} Space Telescope (McQuinn et al. 2007). Therefore, we can estimate the dust production rates across a galactic disc of M33. We derive mass-loss rates and luminosities in two steps (Fig. 2, Paper VI in preparation). First, we use [dusty]{} code (Ivezić Ž & Elitzur 1997) to model the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of LPVs for which mid-IR counterparts have been identified to construct relations between the dust optical depth and bolometric corrections on the one hand, and near-IR colours on the other. Then, by using these relations, we convert the near-IR colours of all red giant variables to luminosities and mass-loss rates.
Ongoing-work and conclusions
============================
Currently, we are using the mass-loss rates to investigate the correlations between the dust production rate, luminosity, and amplitude, and to establish a link between the dust return and the formation of stars within the prominent spiral arm pattern. We will show where mass is returned, how this compares to the gas in spiral arms and inter-arm regions, and from this estimate gas recycle times and gas depletion in star formation.
In conclusion, using a new technique developed by us, we showed how the SFH varies across M33, e.g. whether star formation has propagated inwards or outwards through the disc and we measured the lag between stars of different ages and the spiral arms in which they formed.
We are grateful for financial support by The Leverhulme Trust under grant No. RF/4/RFG/2007/0297, by the Royal Astronomical Society, and by the Royal Society under grant No. IE130487.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Hamedani Golshan R, Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H, Saremi E 2017 [*MNRAS*]{} [**466**]{} 1764
Hamedani Golshan R, Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H 2015 [*PKAS*]{} [**30**]{} 169
Ivezić Ž, Elitzur M 1997 [*MNRAS*]{} [**287**]{} 799
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Mirtorabi M T 2011a [*MNRAS*]{} [**411**]{} 263
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Mirtorabi M T 2011b [*MNRAS*]{} [**414**]{} 3394
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Mirtorabi M T 2011c [*ASPC*]{} [**445**]{} 497
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H, Mirtorabi M T 2013 [*MNRAS*]{} [**432**]{} 2824
Javadi A, Saberi M, van Loon J. Th, Khosroshahi H, Golabatooni N, Mirtorabi M. T 2015a [*MNRAS*]{} [**447**]{} 3973
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H 2015b [*PKAS*]{} [**30**]{} 355
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H 2016 [*MmSAI*]{} [**87**]{} 278
Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H, Tabatabaei F, Hamedani Golshan R 2017 [*MNRAS*]{} [**464**]{} 2103
Marigo P, Girardi L, Bressan A, Groenewegen M A T, Silva L, Granato G L 2008 [*A&A*]{} [**482**]{} 883
McQuinn K B W, et al 2007 [*ApJ*]{} [**664**]{} 850
Rezaeikh S, Javadi A, Khosroshahi H, van Loon J Th 2014 [*MNRAS*]{} [**445**]{} 2214
Saberi M, Javadi A, van Loon J Th, Khosroshahi H 2015 [*ASPC*]{} [**497**]{} 497
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits